Sect. I. Of Sacraments in mans state of integrity.

I shall leave the word which is of least moment, being not of divine original, and come to enquire after the thing which must be distinguished before it can be defined either in the ge­neral what a Sacrament is, or what this or that Sacrament, viz. Baptisme or the Supper of the Lord is in particular. Now Sacra­ments (being instituted of God for the use of men) in tendency towards their happinesse must be considered according to the se­veral states of man, and dispensations in which God hath manifested himself to him.Distribution of Sacraments. And man may be considered either in his state of integrity, or in his fall, either before sin, or under it. For the state of integrity enquiry is made, whether man en­joyed any Sacrament at all, or were in capacity of any? In which we have Thomas Aquinas his conclusion, Part 3. Quest. 16. art. 2. in the negative,In statu in­nocentiae homo non indigebat Sacramentis, nec pro reme­dio peccati nec pro perfectione animae. The tr [...]e of life and the tree of the knowl [...]dge of good and evil w [...]re Sacra­ments. That man in innocency needed no Sacrament, neither for any remedy of sin, or perfection of his soul. His follow­ers (it seems) not satisfied, with his determination, unlesse they themselves may have the interpretation of it (yet not daring to adventure on a contradiction of their master) are at odds among themselves about his meaning, enquiring what he means by ne­cessity, and what by innocency: whether he means Adams own state, in which he actually stood, or that which he should have attained if he had stood in his integrity? A labour worthy of their pains, had they before hand had assurance that an uner­ring oracle had uttered it: But others have concluded, that the tree of life in Paradise was no other then a Sacrament to our first parents, and it is marvell that Aquinas who denies it, hit not on that of Austin, to have made up at least a fourth objection, thatErat homini in lignis aliis alimentum, in hos Sac amen­tum. In other trees there was nourishment, but in this a Sacra­ment. For the clearing of this point I shall lay down several propositions.

First,Positions ten­ding to the il­lustration and c [...]nfi [...]mation f [...]t. That all Sacraments whether in the state of integrity or under sin, must answer to the Covenant which they are appointed for to ratifie and confirm. Now the Covenant of God entred with man in his state of integrity, was for his preservation, not for his reparation, as I have shewed in a Treatise of the Cove­nant, [Page 10] Chap. 3. pag. 10. and so must this tree of life in case it have the nature of a Sacrament be a Sacrament of preservation, not re­stitution. And so Thomas Aquinas his foundation, on which he builds, that man in integrity needed no Sacrament, because the whole need not the Physician, but those that are sick, Matth. 9.12. is answered. There being a Covenant for mans preserva­tion as well as his restauration, there may be a suitable Sacrament for preservation also, and so there is a plain fallacy in his argu­ment, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, because our Sa­craments in the state of sin are for recovery from the disease of sin, he will have it to be so in all Sacraments even before our fall into sin. Chamier returning answer to this argument, distinguishes of persons subject to sickness;Resp. aegrotos, alios actutales dici, qua les omnes ho­mines post pecatum, al [...]os potentia, in quorum natu­ra principium est morbi pro­pinquum vel remotum. Some are actually sick so are all men (saith he) in the state of sin; some are in possibility or danger of sicknesse, having a principle in them capable of it, either more im­mediate or remote; so it was with man in integrity, he needed Phy­sick for prevention, not for cure; to keep him in the state in which he stood that he might not fall: not to recover him out of evill being fallen.

Secondly, The Covenant of works passing between God and man in an immediate way without any reference had to Christ, (as hath been largely shewn, and objections answered, Treatise of the Co­venant, pag. 13. &c.) the Sacraments annexed must needs be without reference to Christ likewise: I know many learned men suppose that Christ was a Mediatour between God and the An­gels, and between God and man in his integrity: and these will have the tree of life, Gen. 2.9. to be a symbole of Christ, as the bread and wine in the Lords supper, which indeed necessarily fol­lowes upon that supposition: but that falling all the supposed re­lation of sign and thing signified between the tree of life and Christ falls with it. That opinion of theirs referring the tree of life to Christ they suppose hath strength from that speech of Christ to the Church of Ephesus; To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God, Revel. 2.7. which all Interpreters refer to Christ, seeing there is no life but in Christ, 1 Joh. 5.12. He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life. As also from Revel. 22.2. speaking of the new Jerusalem, it is said, In the midst of the street of it and of either side of the river was the tree of life, &c. which can be no other but that Sun of righteousness with healing in his [Page 11] wings, Mal. 4.2. But neither of these places serve their pur­pose, nor is the argument drawn from thence at all cogent. The tree of life in the literal Paradise was a symbole of immortality, and everlasting blisse, which man persisting in obedience should have enjoyed, whether on earth or in heaven, still remained in Gods choyce to determine; In the state of sin this could not be without Christ, and every symbole of it, therefore in this state leads to Christ. But it followes not that it was so in mans state of integrity. He should then have enjoyed it, by ah immediate gift from God, & not through Christ, whose whole work was not to keep man in statu quo, as before sin, but to recover from sin into which he was fallen. In those places of the Revelation there is (after the manner of the visions of that book) an allu­sion borrowed from that tree in Paradise, which as Ravanellus observes was a type of immortality. This tree assured man of it in Paradise on tearms of bedience. In the state of sin the same is to be had through Christ on Gospel tearms and conditions. In case any will assign the work of mans support in any transcendent way to the second person in the Trinity, who is said to uphold all things by the word of his power, without any reference to his wotk of mediation, as to be incarnate: as I dare not assert it, so I will not contend about it. But in this I am confident the sub­stance of our Sacraments is Christ incarnate, and all the benefits of them is through and by christ, but so it was not in the Sacraments in Paradise.

Thirdly, The life promised in the Covenant of works to man in case of obedience, was not barely a prorogation of his being or preser­vation from dissolution to an immortality in nature. This he might have enjoyed and have continued for ever perfectly wretched, and so the performance of the promise should have been a curse, and no blessing. As it was said by our Saviour of Judas upon his great sin of betraying Christ, It had been good for that man that he had never been born, Matth. 26.24. So it might have been said of Adam, though he had never sinned it had been good for him that he had never been created, and therefore those that see no more towards bliss, in this promise of life then a perpetuation in being, according to the vulgar acceptation of it, understand that speech of God concerning our first Parents, Gen. 3.22. And now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever, to be a speech of mercy to keep man from [Page 12] an immortality of misery: and according to that opinion the curse threatened for transgression had been suffered, and the bles­sing affixt to obedience at once enjoyed, which is the greatest of paradoxes; life then (as elsewhere I have shewed) in the pro­mise comprises true blessednes, a fruition of all that serves to make happy, and a freedom from all that tends to misery, so that man lived no longer then he stood and sinned not; death in its measure immediately seized, though the full execution in the highest de­gree to some is delayed, to others the whole reversd.

Fourthly, The names given to these respective trees must not be accounted vain (as it fares many times with names given by men) seeing the Spirit of God hath affixed these names to them. But some­thing must be found in the trees, or from God by the trees, an­swering the names that they carry: When God gave Abram the name of Abraham, which signifies a father of multitudes, Gen. 17.5. the event we find answered, how improbable soever (when the name was given him) it appeared; Therfore (saith the Apostle) sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the starres of the skie in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea-shore innumerable, Heb. 11.12. Solomon was called Je­didiah, 2 Sam. 12.25. which signifies beloved of the Lord, and was not barely so named, but indeed beloved, Nehem. 13.26. Among many Nations there was no King like him who was beloved of his God. The name of that wonderfull birth, Esay 7.14. was Im­manuel, which the Spirit of God hath interpreted, God with us, Matth. 1.23. he was so named, and this he did effect, 2 Cor. 5.29. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. Our first Parents therefore were to expect some way both life and knowledge from these trees: They had their names in reality, and not by way of fiction, or fancy given to them.

Fifthly, This tree of life with that other of the knowledge of good and evil had not any natural power or innate efficacious vigor, to answer their names in giving life by the taste, or eating of them, as Satan bore the woman in hand concerning the one of them. This I know hath been the opinion of some, which false supposi­tion hath occasioned an hot and curious dispute, whether this tree should have given man life totally and wholly to a full im­mortality? or whether it should have preserved his life to some definite time of some thousands of years? But the contrary is [Page 13] plain both by reason and experience, and so the ground of this dis­pute is taken away.

This appears, first by reason.Arbores enim infra homines sunt, imo in­fra an malia, quia ne sensus quidem capa­ces fuere ergo propter aliud & ex instituti­one, adeoque Sacrameenta. Trees (as Chamier well ob­serves) are below men, yea, below other creatures that were made for the use of man, being capable of a vegetative life, onely for growth, but not of sense, and so could not confer on man by any power from themselves either life or knowledge. Some that stickle for this opinion see the force of this reason, and there­fore yeeld that it is above them to produce any such effect di­rectly. But indirectly they say there may be such an efficacy; Meates that are singularly suitable to nature have their work, in a direct way on the animal spirits for a life of nature, and indi­rectly upon the organs of the inward senses. A good constitu­tion (which a wholesome dyet works) serves to the preserva­tion of health, and hath hereupon its work upon the faculties of the mind, and consequently preserves life, and increaseth and quickneth knowledge.Sed hac ra­tione omnes arbores horti potussent ar­bores scientiae boni & mali appellari. Par est enim cre­dere, Deum qui ad e [...]um hominis in sta­ [...]u integritatis constituti ar­bores illas cre­averat, eis etiam talem vim & succum ind [...]d [...]sse quo hominis inno­centis corpus non gravare­tur sed alacri­us esset ad om­nes suas fun­ctiones, & per consequens o [...] ­gana sensuum, &c. But (as Rivet well observes) all the trees of the garden might in this sense have been called trees of life, and trees of knowledge of good and evil, as well as those two trees in the midst of the garden: All of them being for food, and to keep men in a due temperature both of body and mind.

As the truth of this appears in reason, so also by experience, in that tree forbidden; when Eve listened to Satan and did eat of it (and her husband by her sollicitation) knowledge was not gained but lost, which mankind sadly knowes; For that speech of the Lord before mentioned, Gen. 3.22, 23, 24. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now least he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drave out the man, and placed at the East of the, garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life; which may seem to imply that in case man had been permitted to have put forth his hand, and eaten of the tree of life, he had lived for ever, in such an interpretation we should scarce conceive the tree to be any crea­ture of God, but an omnipotent agent, standing in opposition a­gainst God, when God for sin had denounced against man the sen­tence of death, this tree against this sentence would give him life; [Page 14] Quid audi­mus? an suam Adae incorrup­tionem à qua jam deciderat restituere pe­terit fructus ille? What is it that we hear? (saith Calvln) can that fruit restore te Adam the integrity that he had lost? Me thinks the former part of the two and twentieth verse serves well to interpret the latter. Behold, man is become like one of us. Even as the tree of knowledge of good and evil made man like God, in a full omniscience, so the tree of life would have rendred him equally like in im­mortality. If we confesse an Irony in the former, as is conclu­ded by Interpreters, we must understand the like, or somewhat much like it, in the latter. Man will have like immortality in sin, as he had omniscience by sin. Therefore he puts, and keeps him out of Paradise, that now being deprived of the thing, he might not delude himself in the outward sign or Sacramental representation of it.

Sixthly, It remains therefore that these trees were set apart of God from other trees of the garden for a Sacramental use, having no more power of themselves to confer life or knowledge then water in Baptisme or bread and wine in the Lords Supper to conferre pardon of sin or spiritual life on the soul.Arbor igitur vitae non ab in sita vivifi­candi facultate sed à Sacra­mentali signi­f [...]c [...]tione sic dicta est. The tree of life was so called (saith Wollebius) not from any innate quickning faculty, but from a Sacramental signification. Paraeus indeed putting it to the question whether the tree of life be so called by reason of the effect that it had produced had man stood, or by way of signification? saith, these two opinions in his judgment may be joyned, and sayes,Sine dubio habitura erat haec arbor seu ut cibus seu ut medicina vim con­servandi hominis sanitatem & vitam, ne corpora vergerent in senium, aut sentirent defec [...]um, donec in coelestem immortalitatem transirent. Deinde data fuit homini in vitae Sa­cramentum. The tree might give life as food or as physick, and preserve from age till man should be translated into an heavenly immor­tality, and then proceeds to shew how it is a Sacrament of life. But sure these opi­nions are altogether inconsistent, Sacra­ments are so signs that they are not physi­cal causes of the thing that is signified. If they had any such effect in nature, then all mystery in the Sacra­ment ceased and there needed no word from God to clear it, every man would know that food hath a natural tendency to life, and physick to health, if there were no Scripture. If we were able to make it good that they were physical causes of life and knowledge, then we must disclaime their Sacramental use; but seeing that cannot appear, and the contrary is evident; This other must be asserted, It may easily be made out that the tree of life was a Sacramen. Man was to put forth his hand [Page 15] to eat of it, as the Jewes did the Passeover, and we do the Lords Supper.Voluit igitur hominem quo­ties fructum arboris illius gustaret in memoriam re­vorareunde vi­tam haberet: ut se agnosce­ret non pro­pria virtute, sed Dei unius beneficio vi­vere; Neq [...]e esse intrinse­cum bonum ut vulgo loquun­tur sed à Deo provenire. And as often as he ate of it, or had his eye upon it (as Calvin well observes) he was to remember from whom he received life and blisse, and by whom he was preserved and upheld, that he had no principle of life and blisse in himself, but as he re­ceived it from God, so by his favour and free Grace it was continued: And to mind himself of his duty on what tearms he stood with God, and upon what condition his life and blisse was continued: whilest he sinned not he must not dye, as long as obedience last­ed he must enjoy a life in happiness. Others add that it shadowed out Christ, by whom both he and the Angels stood in happinesse: but I have already spoke my thoughts to that particular. But how to bring that other tree of the knowledge of good and evil so aptly to hold out the nature and use of a Sacrament, is not so easie: and I find many Interpreters asserting it, but not any that I can meet with demonstrating it. And it must be confest that this Sacrament did herein differ from all other Sacraments. Those did consist in their use; This in mans abstinence from it. In this it is said thou, shalt not eat: In the Passeover and the Lords Supper the communitants must eat. But God hath it in his power to institute Sacraments according to pleasure, by way of prohibition, as well as by way of injunction. In other Sa­craments in the due use, men attain to the good that is promised: In this by abstinence man should have avoyded the evil threat­ned. In eating of the tree of life, while man persisted in obedi­ence, he was assured of life, that was a seal and pledge of it. And while he abstained from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he had like assurance of freedom from death. This alone was a negative Sacrament, and it was proper to this Sa­crament onely, that not the fruition of good, but the avoydance of evil was the thing signified. The reason of the name is the enquiry of many why it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Some that would deny it to be any Sacrament, say that it had the name from the natural effect that it was apt to produce, being created to quicken or ripen man in the use of his reason, conceiving that our first Parents were created weak in knowledge, of an infant understanding: And to know good and evil (that is, choose the good, and refuse the evil) in the Hebrew phrase setting out the use of reason, as, Esay 7.16. Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good: They say [Page 16] this tree was to work them to this maturity in knowledge. How false this is of our first Parents weaknesse in knowledge is clear by the names that man gave to all creatures upon sight, as he had dominion over them, so he understood the nature of them, as also in that speech that he uttered concerning Eve, when the Lord upon her creation brought her to him to give her in mar­riage. The Wise man sayes that God made man upright, Eccles. 7.29. And this uprightnes comprizes mans whole confor­mity to God in all in which his image doth consist, which was as the Apostle tells us, in knowledge, as in righteousnesse and true holinesse, Col. 3.10. To avoid suspition of inclination to any such opinion, some when they speak of mans first estate, purpose­ly avoid the word innocency, and choose to use the word inte­grity. And how unapt the fruit of a tree could possibly be in nature to produce any such effect, that which was spoken con­cerning the tree of life being applyed hither may demonstrate. And whence this opinion came but from the Devil I cannot tell, who told our mother Eve, that God did know that in the day that they eat thereof their eyes should be opened, and they should be like unto gods, knowing both good and evil, Gen. 3.5. He was the first that vented it, and she was the first that believed it; when she saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eye, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; she did take and eat thereof, Gen. 3.6. The taste it seems was the taking quality; the other trees were good for food, and doubtless lovely to the eye, but this alone answerable to the name with the Devils com­ment upon it was a tree to be desired for this end, but she found the contrary; light was not only not encreased, but put out, so that man now is a beast by his own knowledge; others therefore con­clude that it had name, not from any such effect that in na­ture it was apt to produce, but by reason of the event that fol­lowed, and upon the taste of it must of necessity follow; now they experimentally know the good which they had by sin lost, and the evil which they had incurred.Quemad­modum qui medicus est theoretice vim morbi & sani­tatis bonum cognoscit, in morbum de­lapsus amissa sanitate nova quadam rati­one, per expe­rientiam bo­num sanitatis, & malum morbi cognos­cit. As a Physician (faith Ri vet) that hath the theory of health, and sicknesse, understanding what health is to desire it, and what sicknesse is to shun it, yet falling into sicknesse he hath another manner of knowledge out of his own experi­ence. Pererius the Jesuit dislikes this Interpretation; he that pleaseth may read his reason on these words, and Rivets vindica­tion, Exer. 18. in Gen. He fixes upon a third, that this name was [Page 17] given to this tree, upon occasion of the speech of Satan, bear­ing Eve in hand, that in eating of it, she should gain the wisdom of God, to know both good and evil; And therefore it had the name of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But whosoever gave the name, whether God himself who placed the tree in the garden, or Adam who to his cost knew it, or Moses that wrote of it, it is not probable they would borrow a name from Satans delusion; The former therefore which the Jesuit confessed to be an opinion most received, I judge to be most probable, and till I see more shall not recede from it.

SECT. II. Corollaries from the former assertion.

FIrst, hence we see the necessity of the use of means, Necessity of the use of means for our help and streng [...]h in the way of fai h and obedience. for our help and strength in wayes of faith and obedience, in all the wayes prescribed and appointed by God, In case our first Parents in their integrity were to make use of a Sabbath to give God a time in a more solemn way as we see, Gen. 2.2,3. and also of Sacraments; who are we, that we should cast off Sabbath and Sacraments? that our faith and obedience should be risen to that growth, and arrived at that height, that all helps should be laid aside? It is no marvel, that upon this account, so many that seemed to be somewhat, refusing the assistance of God provided, wholly de­generate and come to nothing: In case it be replyed, that Adam was left to his own keeping, carried his life in his own hands, but we have another manner of support and defence; We are kept by the mighty power of God through faith unto Salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5. and so we need not to be so sollicitous of our selves. I answer, though there be truth in that which is objected, yet the objection is to no purpose, as easily may be manifested: Je­sus Christ would not have provided Ordinances in New-Testa­ment-times, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ: in case he would not have his to make use of them, and had not seen that they stand in need of them: we are not so kept, that we should sit still, no more then Israel was in the conquest of the promised Land. Gods power in o [...]r pre­servation, [Page 18] and our diligent (though not diffident) and anxious care very well stands together: Else Peter had not from thence inferred, wherefore gird up the loynes of your mind, be so­ber and hope to the end, for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.13. Nor yet having set out Satans vigilancy annext that exhortation, Whom resist stedfast in the faith, 1 Pet. 5.9. nor yet had the Apostle John told us that He that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and the evil one toucheth him not, 1 Joh. 1.18. Souldiers are taught to go out and fight in the Name of the Lord, and that he covers their head in the day of battel; yet this doth not abate any thing of their watchful­ness, or diligence; they do not cast off weapons either offen­sive, or defensive. This is an artifice of Satan, to lay mens throats open to him for slaughter, and destruction, under pre­tence of Divine protection.

Sacraments are without Spiri­tual profit to those that live in breach of Co­vena [...]t.Secondly, Know that there is no saving benefit received by any Sacraments which are seales of the Covenant, longer then men in Covenant, make it their business to keep up to the tearms of it; Adam was in a Covenant of life from God, upon tearmes of preserving himself from sin, and had it by a Sacrament confir­med to him, he wilfully runs upon sin; the tree of life now can no more give life to him: Satan then perswades to believe, that in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they should as gods know both good and evil. He now perswades, that being baptized in water, which holds forth the Spirit and blood of Christ (if they understand any such symbolical repre­sentation) they partake of the Spirit, and blood of Christ: And that taking the Bread and Cup, they enjoy all that they signifie and hold forth: That no more then a Sacrament, needs to make up a Christian compleat. This is an outward work, that may be done, and all lust alive within; An easie work to go through, and here man would fain rest; but look further to the duty, to which these engage; otherwise thou wilt find no more of Christ in the Sacrament, then Adam found of life in the tree of life. See Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining, Ser. 19.

Covenant fai­ling all Sacra­ments relating to it necessarily fall with [...].Thirdly, It yet further followes, That a Covenant falling to which Sacraments are annext as signes, and seals, the Srcraments fall together with it. The Covenant of works being no longer of use to the attainment of Salvation; the Sacraments which under that Covenant were appointed, are taken out of the way, [Page 19] and no use of them remaint. I know that it is asserted by as learned hand, that Christ doth not absolutely make null or repeal the Covenant of works, but that it still continueth, to command, prohibit, promise, and threaten; yet confessing this assertion to be difficult, and disputable, to which I readily yeeld; and therefore in a business of no greater moment then this is, I had rather suspend, then either subscribe or oppose. He and I are wholly agreed, as to that for which it is here produced, seeing he saith, We must neither take that Covenant as a may to life; as though we must get Salvation by our fulfilling of its conditions; nor must we look upon its curse, as lying upon as remedilessely. This is as much as I assert, or rather imply in that which I say, that the Covenant of works is of no use to the attainment of Salva­tion: upon which the Sacraments of that Covenant, the see are laid aside with it: we hear no more of a tree of life, or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Rivet Exer. 40. on those words. Lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and live for ever, Observes a resemblance between that proceeding of God, and the Churches proceeding in keeping unworthy men from the Sacrament: The 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: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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] evil; dreaming of a Physical operation, and not understanding any Sacramental efficacy: God also instructed his people in the use of sacrifices, which we know was with his people from the beginning; and I cannot believe with some Jesuits that this was of the dictates of nature: which (as they say) led them without any revelation, to the use of sacrifices: For in what sense soever we take sacrifices, Nature could never teach man to give it unto God. If we take it more largely, for a gift tendred, reason would tell, that the Divine Majestie stands in no need of it: And in case we understand it more strictly, and make the destruction of that which is offered essentiall to a sacri­fice: how could this in reason enter into any mans thoughts; that when a man had sinned, a beast must dye? And that of the Apostle, Heb. 11. doth fully contradict it, Abell offered by faith, and faith is not of nature, but above it. This then was a worship of God by institution, not commanded in the first, but second Commandment: and this Satan is ready to follow. As there was scarce a Nation, as the Orator observed, but worshipped a god: so there is scarce a Nation, that did not sacrifice to those gods: and the Apostle gives us to understand, what those gods were: The things that the Gentiles offer in sacrifice, they offer to Devils, and not to God, 1 Cor. 10. It is his worship, and he teacheth his the way of it. As in duties of worship, there is this imitation seen, so in wonders, and prodigies in like manner, there is an emulation: God had his miracles in Egypt, and Satan his We know the general Deluge in the sacred Histories; in which none were preserved from death, but Noah and his family, by an Arke prescribed of God: Heathens must have a fable in imitation, and tell us of drowning of the World, onely Deucalion, and his wife Pyrrha, in an Arke preserved likewise. And as Noahs Arke rested on the Moutains of Ararat, upon the asswaging of the wa­ters: so theirs rested on the Mountain of Parnassus. We have a narrative of Jonah cast into the Sea, and received by a Whale; and after three dayes, and three nights, cast safe upon the shore: Satan must set up his Arion, and make him famous in his Histo­rians and Poets; A skilfull Harper of Greece, having by excellen­cy in musick, gained a great summe of money in Italy, and Sici­lia, returning to his own Countrey with his treasure; Mariners with whom he agreed for his Fare, greedy of his money, cast him into the Sea: a Dolphin delighted with his musick, carries [Page 22] him safe, and landed him at Taenarus. See the relation and ap­plication, elegantly brought home to this purpose by Dr. Abbot, Lect. 15. on Jonah: making notable observations of Satans po­licy. In case the Narrative carry any truth in it by his won­ders, so far as his art, and power can reach. Satan then makes it his business, to disgrace Gods miracles, and cast dishonour up­on them by his imitation: though he falls farre short of the Originall, as he there shewes: and followes him as little Ascani­us his Father, with very unequal steps. And in case we take it, for a meer fiction: (which is his judgement upon it) his art is no lesse observable to discredit, as farre as in him lyes, the wri­tings of Scriptures: When this miracle of Jonahs shall be Prea­ched and published in the world, Arions fable shall be produ­ced, that like faith may be yeelded to either of both. See Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining, Pag. 131, 132. Where this thing in many particulars is enlarged. And the more high the wayes of Religion are raised of God in a Spiritual way, the more easie it is for Satan, who is a spirit, to delude. The Spirit is the great Gospel-promise, to be poured out on all flesh; that is, on men of all sorts, Joel 2.28. God will be served in types and sha­dowes no longer, but in Spirit, and truth, Joh. 4.23. When the Jewes gloried of Circumcision, as that which did denominate them a people of God, and distinguished them from all other Nations: and urged the necessity of it to salvation: the Apo­stle tells us, that they are the Circumcision, that worship God in Spirit, Phil. 3.3. Satan now on the other hand, can take the hint, and heighten his way in a destructive manner to Gospel wayes. All outward Ordinances shall now be decryed as formes, and beggarly rudiments: and with Circumcision in the letter laid aside, though they be Ordinances of the Spirit it self; in which the Spirit expresses its power and efficacy. 1. The written Word, which was dictated by the Spirit, 2 Pet. 1.19. (is the sword of the Spirit, by which it exercises his power on the soul) must be laid aside as a dead letter, and over carnal. The Ministers of the Word, that great gift from the Fathers right hand, Ephes. 4.11. set over the flocks by the holy Ghost, Act. 20.28. on this pretence are to be cast off with Moses and Aaron; taking too much upon them, when all the Congregation is holy: notwith­standing for a real confutation, when this Spirit was first given in glory, it came upon the heads of his Ministers, in forme of [Page 23] tongues, fiery, cloven, Act. 2.3. To let all know (is that great appearance that was there) (that their tongues are sanctified of God, to Preach the Word in power and life to all Nations. And as the gifts of the Spirit encreased; so the Ministers of the Spirit were multiplyed; and that very title and name given Mini­sters of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3.6. And the mind of Jesus Christ made known, that these in a peculiar order, distinct from other men; are set apart to preach the Gospel, as the Priests under the Law in a peculiar order were to wait at the Altar, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Upon the same pretence, Sacraments must be laid aside; the Baptisme of the Spirit is pleaded, for the overthrow of the Baptisme of water: Though the Apostle that first spake by the Spirit after it was given in glory, doth argue the clean contrary, Act. 10.47. Who can forbid water, that these should not be bapti­zed, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? They that have the Spirit, will be raised in zeal for the honour, and esta­blishment of every Ordinance of God by the Spirit: the more spiritual men are, the more care they will take to advance the Word, the Ministers of the Word, Sabbaths, Sacraments. Let us then observe his imitations his falsifications: He vents do­ctrine of his own, sets up wayes of his own, that carry a resem­blance of Gods wayes: And similitude, is mater erroris: we shall never heed them, as long as we know they are the Devils: but when he transformes himself into an Angel of light, and puts the stamp of God upon his own coyn, we must not be ignorant of his sleights; but to have our senses exercised, to discern be­tween good and evill.

Sect. I. Of Sacramental signes.

I shall here purposely wave several Schoole-niceties, as in what predicament a Sacrament is to be placed: Taking it in the whole nature of it (as consisting of a twofold matter, the one outward and earthly, which is the visible signe; the other in­ward and heavenly, which is the thing signified: and of a two­fold forme; one outward, which is the due participation of it, according to the way prescribed of God; the other inward, con­sisting in the analogy between the signe, and the thing signi­fied) it must needs be an Ens aggregatum, and so not capable of any place in that series of being: And signe, and seale, being clearly relatives; I shall leave the Reader to informe himself from learned Keckerman, in the third Book and eighth Chapter of his Systeme of Philosophy: what is the Relatum, the Correla­tum, the relation it self, the foundation, and the terminus in this Sacramental consideration; and shall go on to lay open the se­veral parts of this definition. The whole of it being comprized in this text of the Apostle, every part affords some doctrinal Observation. In the first place I shall observe that,

Sacraments are signes,

The truth of this observation is so clear of it self, that it needs no proof; Taking the word Sacrament in the largest sense that we can speak of it (in which it falls short of these Gospel-Ordi­nances known by that name) it is yet Sacrae rei Signum, the sign of an holy thing: And might be made good by a particular in­duction, not only in those 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,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 [Page 39] 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, [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 ex­traordi [...]a y power inte [...]v [...]ne w [...]rk un [...]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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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. Exte [...]nal and s [...]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; [Page 44] 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,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, thatPrima 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 a­ [...]quid funga­ [...]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 [Page 45] 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 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 confesseNon 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 a body that darkens the place neer to it. [Page 46] There are a third sort of signes of a middle nature, that have their resemblance of the thing signified, but in that indeterminate confused manner, that they may rather be said to be fit to signi­fie that whereof they are signes, then that of themselves without further declaration added they do signifie. And such are the signes in Sacraments, as Thomas Aquinas observes, part. 3. quaest. 60. artic. 6. and after him Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramentis in ge­nere; and Chamier gives his assent to both, lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere, Cap. 11. Water hath a faculty to wash, as also to refresh, and cool; when water is set apart for Baptisme, though there be a fitnesse in it to signifie washing; yet there must be a word to explain that it is to signifie washing, and with it the thing that is cleansed.

4. Ritual.Fourthly, They are not barely substantial signes, but rituall also. The outward elements do not barely signifie, but the insti­tuted actions likewise are significant. In Circumcision the fore­skin alone was not a sign, but the cutting of it off, in the way appointed of God, seemes the chief in signification. In the Passe­over there is not onely a lamb, but rosting, eating, &c. all which are significant. In Baptisme there is not onely water, but the ap­plication of the person to the water in dipping, or the water to the person by infusion, or sprinkling. The word in Scripture use comprizes any washing; and therefore in Baptisme it is of it self indifferent. In the Lords Supper there is not onely bread and wine, but the bread is broke, the bread and cup delivered, receiving, eating, and drinking. Some indeed question, whether the breaking of the bread be any Sacramental rite; or at all of the integrality of the Sacrament? but all confesse that in case it be within an in­stitution, it is then necessary. About the beginning of the refor­mation, some that stood for the ejection of Ceremonies, plea­ded for sitting at the Lords Supper, as an instituted Sacramental rite, signifying our coheireship with Christ; But others that in after times did manage the same cause, saw that mistake, and there­fore urged not the necessity of sitting upon that account, but one­ly did except against kneeling, either as Idolatrous, or carrying too great an appearance of it.

Fifthly, They are distinguishing and differencing signes, separa­ting a people that receive them,5. Distingu [...]shing. from all others that are not in­teressed in them; so they have the nature of badges, or cognizan­ces; Calvin justly rejects those that make the Sacraments no [Page 47] more but bare testimonies of our profession, or distinguishing marks. That as a Roman was known by his gown from a Gre­cian in his cloke; and in Rome the several orders had their distin­ctions. The Senatour was distinguished from the Knight by his Purple, and the Knight from one of the Commonalty by his ring; as with us a Knight of the Garter is distinguished by his blue Ribband, and a Knight of the Bath by the red; yet they cannot be denyed, but that they have this distinguishing use. By these Sacramental signes the people of God are known from others, which is herein plain, in that they are signes of the Covenant, and by an usual metonomy called by the name of the Covenant, Gen. 17.20. Act. 7.8. And therefore distinguished those that received them from all that are out of Covenant. So Circumci­sion distinguished a Jew from all others. A man in uncircumcision was an heathen. Circumcision in the flesh did denominate a Jew outwardly, as Circumcision of the heart (which is that to which Circumcision in the letter did engage) did denominate a man a Jew inwardly. That which Circumcision was in this respect, Baptisme is: As soon as any joyned himself to Abrahams fa­mily, and afterwards to the seed of Abraham in Covenant, he was to be circumcised, Gen. 17.13. Exod. 12.48. None were to be as one born in the land, but a circumcised man. As soon as any joyned himself to the body and society of Christians, he was bap­tized, so was Christs Commission, Disciple all Nations, baptizing them. No sooner was Paul, the Eunuch, the Jaylour, Lydia, yea, Simon Magus made disciples, but they were forthwith baptized, The Passeover as well as Circumcision, the Lords Supper, as well as Baptisme are distinguishing signes. But these find men before­hand distinguished. The preceding Sacraments whereby men are initiated and first enrolled, are more properly distinguishing.

Sixthly, They are congregating, uniting and closing signes;6. Congregating this may seem contradictory to the former, which makes them distinguishing, and differencing. To unite and difference are evidently contrary, but these well enough agree, the contradicti­on being not ad idem. They are not the same that they unite and difference; They distinguish men in Covenant from stran­gers, and they unite men in Covenant as one among themselves. A Souldiers Colours difference him from all other companies, and unite him to those of that body into which he is received. As Philosophers say of heat, that it doth congregare homogenea, [Page 48] and dissipare heterogenea, gather together those things that are of a like, and separate those that are of a different quality; so it is with Sacraments. This the Apostle takes for granted, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. His business there is to take Christians off from joyning with heathens in their Idol-sacrifices, because such joyning makes them one body with those Idolaters. Which is clear in the 19, 20, 21. v. What say I then? that the Idol is any thing? or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing? but I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devlls, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fel­lowship with Devils; ye cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and of the Cup of Devils; ye cannot he partakers of the Lords Table, and of the table of Devils. And this he had also argued against, Chap. 8. Vers. 10. And he proves that this makes them one Idolatrous body with Gentiles, in their sacrifices to Devls, by way of an analogy with Christian and Jewish worship. Because joyning in the Lords Supper to partake of one bread, makes men one bo­dy Christian, and partaking with Jewes after the flesh, eat­ing of their sacrifices, made partakers of the Altar of the Jewes and one body Jewish, vers. 17, 18. therefore joyning with hea­thens in their worship makes one body heathenish. A text which some weakly enough have brought against mixt commu­nions, to prove, that none must joyn with a bad man in a Chri­stian Sacrament, when it onely serves to prove that Christians may not joyn with Idolaters in the Devils Sacraments. They difference us from all those that want, and joyne us unto all those that enjoy these badges of a Christian profession.

7. Engaging.Seventhly, They are engaging signes to answer the profession that we make, the company or family to which we relate; The name that we bear, and to do the duty that we owe. What the name of Christian, or servant, or people of God speaks, the same these signs call for, As the Altar set up, Josh. 22.24. did witness, that those two Tribes and a half did belong with the other Tribes to the God of Israel; so these Sacramental signes witness the same thing likewise.

8. Remembran­cing,Eighthly, They ace remonstrative, and remembrancing signes; sometimes of mercy conferred: The Passeover was a sign of Israels freedom out of the land of Egypt, Exod. 12.26, 27. The Lords Supper shewes forth the Lords death untill he come, 1 Cor. 11.26. being appointed to be done in remembrance [Page 49] of Christ, Matth. 26.26. Mar. 14, 20. Luk. 22.29. 1 Cor. 11.24. of Christ dying, giving his body and blood for us. As those twelve stones taken out of Jordan by twelve men, out of every Tribe a man, were for a sign in ages following, a memo­rial unto the children of Israel for ever, that the waters of Jordan were cut off before the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord, when it passed over Jordan, Josh. 4.6, 7. So these Sacra­mental signs are memorials of the mercy mentioned: They are alwayes memorials of the Covenant that we have entred, the duty in which we stand engaged. The Apostle having shewed, that Baptisme doth signifie a death to sin, and a life in righte­ousness, Rom. 6.4. presently thence gives warning, he that is dead is free from sin, vers. 6.

Ninethly, I might shew that they are ratifying and con­firming signes, but this is distinctly mentioned.9, Ratifying. They are seals as well as signes which remaines to be handled.

SECT. III. Corollaries from the former Doctrine.

SEveral consectaries follow from this observation, which con­taines one part of the definition of a Sacrament.

First,The sign and thing signified are analogical­ly one. That the sign and the thing signified in every Sacra­ment are one, not properly and really one, but in that manner one; as all those things that remain distinct in nature one from other, yet bear proportion and resemblance one with o­ther are one; One, as Christ and a door, Christ and a vine are one; They are so one, that one may be said to be the other; when yet one distinct thing from other cannot be said to be the other in a sense that is proper, my hand is not my writing, my writing is not my hand, but my hand is that which writes, and writing is written with my hand; and so my writing is usually called my hand: and these speeches are in all mouthes vulgar, & common; and are so far from being hard to understand, that in­deed they help the understanding. A woman shewes a written peece of parchment, and sayes, Here is my Dower or Joynture; when Dower, or Joynture is in Lands, not in Papers. Every [Page 50] one knows, that this speech means, that it is that, which vests her in it; we shew a paper, and say, This is my will, not mean­ing that faculty of the soul it self, but a manifestation of what our desire is should be done with our estate after our decease; such a man lives on my trencher, that is on the meat which is laid on the trencher at my table: so that men should blesse God for that he condescends to speak in such perspicuity, and not complain in such speeches of difficulty. Upon account of this oneness between the sign and the thing signified, sometimes the sign is said to be the thing signified, as that Bread is the body of Christ, and the Cup the blood of Christ, Matth. 26.26, 27, So that that of Austin is famous, that Christ said, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. Circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. Ast. 7.8. The Lambe is called the Passeover, Exod. 12.11, 21. Matth. 26.28. And the trees be­fore spoken to, are called the tree of life, and the tree of know­ledge of good and evil; see Ezek. 5.5. 1 Cor. 10.4. In all of these places, the signe hath the name of the thing signified; by reason of Analogy and representation, and all by institution: sometimes on the other hand, the thing signified is called by the name of, and is said to be the sign, as, 1 Cor. 5.7. Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us; so, Joh. 6.55. My flesh is meat in­deed, and my blood is drink indeed; fitly resembled by meat and drink. Joh. 15.1. I am the true vine, fitly resembled by a vine, see Joh. 10.10, 11. Sometimes the effect which the thing signified doth produce, is called by the name of the sign, so in that speech of Ananias related by Paul, Act. 22.16. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord; when it was not the water that he was then to use, but the blood of Christ, that could take away sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. so Bap­tisme saves, 1 Pet. 3.21. when as the Apostle there (as may be further shewen) explains his own meaning: so the putting off the sins of the flesh, is called by the name of Circumcision, and of Baptisme, Colos. 2.11, 12. Sometimes that which is the pro­per work of the sign, is attributed to the thing signified, Deut. 10.16. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be not stiffe necked. These, and such like speeches as these, would be familiar with us, and we should be able to give an account of them, in case we understood Sacramental relations, and other resemblances frequent in Scriptures.

Secondly, Then it further followes,There is no such things as tran­substantiation. that there can be no such thing as transubstantiation: The sign and the thing signi­fied remain distinct, and cannot properly be the same in any Sa­craments. Of all Scripture-Sacraments, and all those additional forged Sacraments of the Church of Rome, one onely is by them thus honoured. The Paschal Lambe was not turned into the body of Christ, nor is water turned into the blood of Christ in Baptisme; Nor do any other of their supposed signes lose their nature, onely in the Lords Supper bread is not bread, (though it be still called bread) but flesh; wine is not wine, (though called the fruit of the vine) but blood; we see bread, we taste bread, we handle bread; and yet we must not give credit either to our eyes, ears, taste, or touch, but we must be­lieve it is no bread. It hath the natural properties of bread and wine; it gives natural nourishment as bread and wine; the bread, if eaten in excesse, and the wine drunken will cause sur­feit, and intoxicate as bread and wine. As the natural force, so the natural defects of bread and wine, still remain after consecra­tion. The bread breeds wormes, and the wine turnes to vineger; yet we must believe. that God by miracle hath taken away bread and wine, given blood and flesh, turned bread into flesh, wine into blood, and yet still by miracles keeps up the natural shape, properties and defects of these outward Elements. When God in Scripture wrought miracles, the miracles were seen and 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 [Page 52] 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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,Quo signifi­cat Dominum voluisse aptare suum sermo­nem ad captum auditorum, & ob id locutum in parabolis, quod nudi ser­monis non­dum essent ca­paces; at para­bolas suas de­sumsiffe a rebus vulgaribus, per quas idiotae ut­cunque induci & parari pos­sunt ad myste­riorum ca­ptum. Hereby he signifies that Christ would fit his speech to the capacity of the hearers, because they were not capable of naked truthes, and he borrowed his speeches from vulgar things, by which the most unlearned might be fitted for the my­steries of the kingdome of heaven. Though some understand the words as they were worthy to hear, and not to understand, para­bles being above the common capacities, and put for hard and dif­ficult speeches; As, Matth. 13.10. Christ being demanded, Why speakest thou in parables? he answers, ver. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven, but to them it is not given: for whosoever hath, to him it shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away, even that he hath. Therefore speake I to them in parables, because they seeing see not, and hearing they hear not, nei­ther do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isai­ah which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and not understand, and see­ing ye shall see, and not perceive: For this peoples heart is waxed grosse, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their eares, and should understand with their heart, and should be conver­ted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your eares, for they heare. But these texts may be reconciled; A pa­rable or Similitude, when men stay in the outward bark of it, is as a riddle, nothing can be more obscure; Some mystery men know is hid under it, but they know not what. Therefore Christ having uttered a parable to the multitude, Matth. 15.11. and Peter request­ing, Declare unto us this parable, ver. 15. saith, Are ye also yet without understanding? Parables explained are the plainest way of tea­ching, [Page 55] shewing the face of heavenly things in earthly glasses; and therefore the Lord to set out his dealing with his own people faith, I have also spoken by the Prophets, and I have multiplyed visi­ons, and used similitudes by the Ministery of the Prophets, Hos. 12.10. But the scope be not discerned, onely that which is said of earthly things, and no more is known. Now what words are to the eares in similitudes and comparisons, that Sacramentall signes are to the eyes; by both the understanding is holpen, the memory refresht, and as may (God willing) be unfolded, faith strengthened. The cleansing from sin, we find in Scripture held forth under the metaphor of pouring out water, Ezek. 36.25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthinesse, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you. To which the Apostle alludes, Ephes. 5.26. where he saith, Christ lo­ved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it by the washing of water, by the word. Which was typified also in those divers washings mentioned by the Apostle, Heb. 9.10. which the blood of Christ doth really work, Purging our con­sciences from dead works, to serve the living God, cleansing us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. and therefore it is called the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, 1 Pet. 1.2. In Baptisme, in a standing Ordinance, this is held out, The party interessed in Covenant is dipped in, or washed with water, and the reason of it given, Acts 22.16. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord. Christ promises to his Church living bread, and water whereof whosoever drinketh shall never thirst. He further explaines himself: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, Joh. 6.51. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, Joh. 6.55. Christ being to dye, holds this out in outward signes, and with his own Comment upon them, Taking and breaking bread, he saith, This is my body; Taking the cup; he saith, This is the cup in the New Testament in my blood shed for them, and for many, for the remission of sinnes. In elements of frequent use, ordinary, easy to be compassed, these high mysteries and sin­gular mercies are shadowed.

SECT. IV. A further Corollary drawn from the same Doctrine.

The necessity of explanation of Sacramental signes.FOurthly, Then there is a necessity that these Sacramental signes be opened, explained, the mystery cleared, the thing signified held out, and the Analogy and proportion made known; otherwise the soul is still left in the dark, and no benefit reaped, either for the help of our faith, or clearing of our understanding. There is no Sacrament (as Calvin well observes) without a pro­mise preceding. The Sacrament is an appendant to the promise as a seal among men is to a Covenant; an earnest to a bargain, or a ring hath been to a marriage; were there no promise, there were nothing in those signes; As where there is no Covenant, there is nothing confirmed by a seal; where there is no bargain, nothing is ratified by earnest given; where there is no matrimo­niall consent, the ring would be but an imposture; the Word of promise gives being to the Sacrament, according to that received speech,Accedit ver­bum ad ele­mentum & fit Sacramentum. The Word to added to the Element, and it is made a Sacra­ment. And there can be no improvement of the Sacrament, to any spirituall advantage, without understanding of the promise. Were the signes, such as did proclaime their own signification, as a foot­step, the foot that made the impression, or a shadow the body, then the signes might stand alone, and speak their own intentions; But being creatures for civill uses, and having only an aptnesse in them to hold out the thing that they signifie, and (as hath been said) equally apt to other significations, a further explanation is necessary. Signes among men must have their significations known as well as founds in musical, and military instruments; otherwise as none could know in the one what is piped, or harped, nor upon sound could prepare themselves to battell, 1 Cor. 14.7, 8. so in the other, none can know what is shadowed out or resembled. There was a custome to ratifie Covenants by killing a calfe, and the Covenanters passage between the parts of it; as you may see, Jerem. 34. He that understood not the meaning of that ceremo­ny, could know nothing of a Covenant, by that means between parties to be solemnized, none understand any more then by sight, then many of us do now by the reading of it. A garland at the [Page 57] door (if custome did not give us a reason of it) would speak no more to a passenger without, then a flower in the window within. To see Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, acted in the highest way of decency, and reverence, may possesse with wonder, but not at all edifie the ignorant beholder. Here as almost every where we have those of the Church of Rome our adversaries. And there hath been no small contest, whether this word which gives being to Sacra­ments, be Concionatorium, or Consecratorium, whether it be a word for communicants instruction, or the elements consecration? He that pleases may read Bellar. de Sacramentis in genere, lib. 1. Cap. 19, 20. Suarez de Sacramentis, disput. 2. quaest. Sexages. art. 8. on the one part. Chamier de Sacramentis in genere, Cap. 15. Whitaker praelect de Sacram. Cap. 6. on the other part. All of which was occasioned (as Chamier observes) by a speech of Calvin, lib. 4. Institut. Cap. 14. Sect. 4. who speaking to that common say­ing, that a Sacrament doth consist of a word, and outward signe, saith,Verbum enim intelligere debemus, non quod sine sensu, & fide insusurratum, so­lo strepitu velut magica incantatione consecrandi elementi vim habeat: Sed quod praedicatum intelligere nos faciat quid visibile signum sibi velit. Quod er­go sub Papae Tyrannide factitatum est, non caruit ingenti mysteriorum profana­tione Putarunt enim satis esse si Sacer­dos populo sine intelligentia obstupente, consecrationis formulam obmurmuraret Imo id data opera caverunt, ne quid doctrinae inde ad plebem proveniret om nia enim Latine pronunciarunt aput ho­mines illiteratos. Post ea, eousque erupit Superstitio, ut consecrationem non nisi rauco murmure quod a paucis exaudire­tur rite peragi crederent. We are to understand such a word, that hath not power of consecration of the ele­ment barely with a noise whispered, without sense or faith, as by a magicall spell; But such as being preached, or published, gives us to understand what the visible sign meanes. Therefore that which is done (saith he) un­der the Tyranny of the Pope, is not without a notable prophanation of the mysteries, for they have thought it enough for the Priest to mut­ter the forme of consecration, while the people stand amazed, and without understanding; yea, they puposely provide, that no help in knowledge should come to the people, pronoun­cing all in Latine among illiterate men; yea, afterward superstition so farre prevailed, that they beleeved consecration to be done aright, when it was done with a low muttering sound, which few could hear. A notable character worthy of his penne, setting out to the life their art, to hold the world in blindnesse. In stead of giving an account, what hath been on both parts handled in this Controversy, I shall lay down that which I will judge to be truth in severall propositions.

SECT. I. God is the Author of all Sacraments, and Sacra­mental rites.

THese Sacramental signes have God for their Author, as it followes in the definition, and is implyed (as we have heard) in the text of the Apostle, Abraham receiving it, God appoin­ted it, Gen. 17.10. So that the Observation is, ‘God is the Author of all Sacraments, and Sacramen­tall rites.’

This is clear of it self, and hath scarce any adversary. Look through all Sacraments, whether ordinary, or extraordinary, whether taken in the largest signification for holy signes, or in the strictest sense, as here defined; we shall still find that they were by Divine appointment; The Cloud, the Passage through the Red-Sea, Exod. 13. Manna, Exod. 16. The Rock, Exod. 17. The Rainbowe, Genes. 9. Gideons fleece, Judg. 6. The shadow on Ahaz his dyal, Isa. 38. Circumcision, Gen. 17. The Passeover, Exod. 12. Levit. 12. Baptisme, Matth. 28. The Lords Supper, Matth. 26.1 Cor. 11. All of them are of Divine institution; And though Po­pish Writers are much put to it, to find any Divine institution for some of their Sacraments, (as may God willing be shewen) yet with a joynt consent they acknowledge this that we say, and give their reasons of it. Thomas Aquinas puts the question, part. [Page 64] 3. quaest. 64. art. 2. Whether Sacraments be alone of Divine institu­tion? and determines it in the affirmative. Bellarmine spends the whole 23. Cap. of his first book, de Sacra. in genere, to assert, that onely Christ is the author of the Sacraments. And Suarez, Quaest. 64. disput. 12. Sect. 1. laies down this conclusion,Christus Dominus immediate ac per se institut omnia Sacramenta novae legis. Dico se cundo, Sacramenta veteris legis omnia fuere ab ipso Deo immediate in­st [...]tuta. that the Lord Christ immedi­ately, and by himself, did institute all the Sacraments of the New Covenant; And addes a second conclusion, that all the Sa­craments of the old law were immediately in­stituted of God himself; either of them both quote Canon. 1. sess. 7. of the Councel of Trent, that thus determines,Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia a Jesu Christo Demino nostro institua, Anthema sit. If any shall say that the Sacraments of the New Covenant, were not in stituted by Christ, let him be accursed; which Canon they both understand to thunder out an ana thema against Protestants; seeing we hold that their extreme unction, and confirmation were never instituted of Christ, (to which thiey may adde matrimony; for though the God of nature did ordain it, yet not Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant) which they affirme to be Sacraments, and I think they did not mistake the meaning of the Councell, seeing the Ca­non laies a curse, not onely on thole that shall deny that Christ was the author of all the Sacraments, but also on those that shall say there were more or lesse then seven, reckoning up their seven in order. But we may retort this curse upon them, as well as they fling it at us,Baptismus Jo­hannis ab ipso Johanne insti­tutus erat. Baptisme of John of Divine institution. seeing they deny the Baptisme of John to be of Divine institution, and make it meerly humane, as Bellar. lib. 1. de Baptis. Cap. 20. which yet we know to be a Sacrament, and able sufficiently to cleare it, that God himself, and not John was the Author of it; Let John himself speak whether he went on his owne head, on this work; He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Ʋpon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost, Joh. 1.33. The people of the Jewes certainly had another opinion of his Baptisme, as appears by their reasoning, when Christ demanded, The Baptisme of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? and they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say from heaven, he will say unto us, Why did ye not then beleeve him? But if we shall say of men, we fear the people; for all hold John as a Prophet, Matth. 21.25.26. When the opinion among the peo­ple [Page 65] was so generall, that the Chief Priests and Elders were afraid to oppose it, had it been an errour doubtlesse Christ would not in that way have nourished them in it; And to say with Bellarmine thatDeus solum in genere inspira­vit, & inspirati­one, illa man­davit ut bapti­zaret: sed ritum in particulari quo baptizan­dum esset, ipse Johannes insti­tuit, non a Deo prae scriptum accepit. God did command him to baptize, but the particular rite was left unto John himself, is nothing. When Christ demanded of the Baptisme of John, whether it were from heaven, or of men? the Priests and Elders to whom he spake, understood the whole work, and to conceit that the work was commanded, and the way of do­ing concealed, is an ungrounded fancy. All that are confest to be Sacraments, are (we see) yeelded to be of Divine institution, which is further plain in reason.

First Sacraments are parts of worship, a piece of the homage that is due from man to God; And it is God, and not man that is to prescribe in his own worship; here God hath declared himself to be jealous, Exod. 20.5. that not any thing of the invention of man come within that worship that is Divine. And if Nadab and Abihu fell for adulterating the worship of God, bringing in strange fire, when fire from heaven was provided to their hands; How shall they stand that coin a worship it self, as do our ad­versaries, or put a new stamp upon it, when it is set up of God, which is their way likewise? Marriage which is an Ordinance with­out the Church, they make a Sacrament in the Church; Of duties they make ordination, and repentance Sacraments; and in case Pharisees made the Commandements of God void by their tradi­tion, when they imposed a necessity of washing of hands before meat, when yet they did not raise it to the honour of a Sacra­ment; How much more had John offended, if out of his own fancy he had set up such an Ordinance as Baptisme? David hath been charged that he appointed singers, and other officers in the house of God, without any command or direction from heaven; but the contrary to this appeares, 2 Chron. 29.25. where in the life of Hezekiah it is said, He set the Levites in the house of the Lord, with Cymbals, with Psalteries, and with harpes, according to the commandement of David, and of Gad the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet; for so was the Commandement of the Lord by his Pro­phets.

Secondly, Sacraments are notes of distinction between the peo­ple of God and others that beare not that relation to him, as we have heard Circumcision and uncircumcision divided the world. The Circumcised were a people of God, when all others were [Page 66] children of a strange god, so we may say of all Sacraments; And as men of place alone have power to give liveries to their own servants, to distinguish them from those that have their depen­dance on others, so God hath alone power to give differencing Cognizances to his servants likewise.

Thirdly, God onely can give strength and efficacy to the Sa­craments; what that is rests to be enquired, and is not a little con­troverted; but whatsoever it is, that it is wholly of God was ne­ver doubted; and he onely that can give efficacy to them, is to ordaine them. This is Thomas Aquinas his reason in the place mentioned.

Fourthly, Sacraments are teaching signes, visible words, where­by man is instructed in Divine mysteries; but God alone is the author of the Word; It is given by inspiration of God, 1 Timothy 3.15. God alone therefore is the author of Sacraments.

Fifthly, Sacraments are seales put to promise, annext for con­firmation of Covenants, as shall be further shewen. But he onely that makes the promise and appoints the Covenant, can give the seal. The Schoolman then (quoted by Bullinger, de Sacr. Decad. 5. Ser. 6.) hath well minded the Church, that she is no Lady over the Sacraments, but barely a servant, and can no more ap­point a Sacrament, then abrogate a Divine Commandement. And Bellarmine puts this for the first reason, that Ministers are Stewards of the Mysteries of God; therefore they are not to institute them, but being instituted of God, are onely to ad­minister them.

This holds true not onely of Sacraments in their essence, that none may adde any to the number of those that God hath insti­tuted; But of all that is of the integrality of Sacraments likewise there is not the least Sacramental rite, that is to be of humane, but all of Divine institution. There is the same reason of the whole, and of every part. He that may not appoint a Sacra­ment, may appoint no piece of a Sacrament. A worship made up of Divine and humane Commandements, stands in the Church like Nebuchadnezzars image, the head of Gold, but the feet of earth. The Poets device of a mans neck joyned to a horses head is not so great a soloecisme. Thomas Aquinas saw that this might be objected against much in the Sacraments in the Church of Rome, and therefore when he had put the question, Whether Sacraments have their institution from God? in the first place objecteth, [Page 67] Ea quae sunt divinitus instituta, t a­duntur nobis in sacra Scriptura, sed quaedam aguntur in Sacramentis, de quibus nulla fit mentio in sacra Scrip­tura, puta de Chrismate, quo homines confirmantur, & oleo quo Sacerdotes inunguntur, & de multis aliis tam ver­bis quam factis quibus utimur in Sa­cramentis. Illa quae aguntur in Sacra­mentis, per homines instituta, non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, sed ad quan­dam solennitatem, quae adhibetur Sa­cramentis ad excitandam devotionem & reverentiam in his qui Sacramenta suscipiunt. Ea vero quae sunt de neces­sitate Sacramenti, ab ipso Christo in­stituta sunt, qui est Deus & homo. that there are some things done in the Church of which there is no mention in Scripture, as Chrisme wherewith men are confirmed, and oyl wherewith Priests are ordained, and much else, as well words as actions (saith he) which we use in Sacraments; and an­sweres, that those things which are done in Sacraments instituted by man are not of the necessity of the Sacrament, but are used for solemnity, and to beget devotion, and reve­rence in those that receive them. But those things that are of necessity to Sacraments, are instituted of Christ, who is God-man. But how the Angelicall Doctor can be re­conciled to himself, I cannot see; when, part. 3. quaest. 72. art. 2. he concludes, that Chrisme (which with him is oyl mixt with Balsome,) is the mat­ter of this Sacrament; as also Bellarmine de Scramento Con­firmationis, Cap. 8. prop. 1. which he saies is certain among Ca­tholiques from the Councell of Florence, and the Councell of Trent. and gallantly proves it out of 2 Cor. 1.21. Now he which stablish­eth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; And cer­tainly the matter of a Sacrament is of necessity to a Sacrament. And secondly, what devotion or reverence the things that are instituted of man can beget in the Sacrament appointed of God, can hardly be shewen. It is as an addition of Tinne, to silver in our common coine; As Ahaz his Altar fetcht from Damascus to the worship at Hierusalem. It is true that a reverend way of so­lemnizing these Ordinances in order, and decency, keeps up their honour, and addes to their honour comparative, to that whith from some hands they had, and much is variable about them in those things that are meer matter of order, in which Scripture gives no precept; But no device of man addes any thing to the honour of an institution of heaven; God writes no imperfect work to leave it to man to adde his supplement.

SECT. II. Corallaries from the former Doctrine.

Sacr [...]m nts must have the honour of di­vine Ordinan­ces.THen let them have that esteem that is due to the Ordinances, and institutions of heaven; Let not our thoughts be below God, when our eyes are fixt on them, or our hearts employed about them. If we look at the terrene part of these institutions, our thoughts may then fall flat, and their esteem very low; many a creature of God will stand in competition with them: Themselves being of earth must needs fix our thoughts to earth, and so there will be no more then bare formality in the work, perhaps a confused conceit of some holy thing which is little un­derstood, begetting a superstitious blind devotion: But when we consider from whose hand they are, and the end for which they serve, as seales appointed of God, to ratifie to our souls his gift of Christ, pardon of sin by him, and consequently glory with him; these despised Ordinances will be in more ho­nour. We look upon Parchment, Inke, Wax, in the shops where they are put to sale, as common Commodities: thousand of shops have more high-prized wares; How low do men look on them comparative to those things of which the Exchange glories: But he that hath one skin of this Parchment, made up into a pattent, or deed with the Broad-seal to it; confirming a grant of some large revenue, eyes it in another manner, and pri­zes it above thousands of all that we have spoken of, as not with him to be named that day. We may look upon water as an ele­ment, as mean as it is common, as low in our esteem, as it is in price; and upon bread and wine as somewhat more noble: But a slender pittance of either, is with us of slender value. But when they serve for a seal of all that the Gospel tenders, and are made up into a seal of the Gospel grant, it should be, and to a spiritual eye is, of more high, and honourable regard. If this were duly considered, Sacraments would be had in more honour with us.

The contempt, or neglect of Baptismo cen­sured.First, The Sacrament of Baptisme, that door of entrance into the Church of Christ, our matriculation into the society of Saints; when other Ordinances are over in the Congregation, [Page 69] and that entered upon, we see the way of a great party imme­diately to post out: The Apostles thought it too low a business for the Lord Christ to have to deal with infants that had not legs to carry them, but must be brought in the armes of others; and therefore rebuked those that brought them. These think it below them, to waite upon a business where such onely are con­cerned: Infant Ordinances are below their attendance. These are of two sorts. 1. Those who out of judgement leave, and are so principled, that they think they must leave, and declare their dissent from that practice. 2. Those that out of neglect leave: They judge that infants of right ought to be baptized: It is the Ministers duty to do it, and Parents and near friends and neighbours are to see it done, but it might be done in a corner, with more or fewer, it doth not matter: when they are gone, it will be baptized, and what is it to them to waite on the Baptisme of it? The first of these that in departing, act out of principles that they have laid, (and therefore in case they were better principled, there is hope that they might act better) are of two sorts. 1. Those that protest against all title of infants to this Ordinance; and therefore upon that account refuse to honour it with their presence: And their very departure from it speakes this language, Here is one that is to be dedicated to God in an Or­dinance that is of God, (For I speak not of those that go above water-Baptisme, they hardly come into us, and therefore do not on this account leave) but one that God will not own, being within no Covenant of his, and therefore no member of that society that apper­taines to him, to whom we say, in case God will not, who then must receive him: If he be no member of this society, nor in capacity of it, then he is also in an uncapacity to be saved? Act. 2.47. But they will not so determine, they say; but leave him to his own Master; But denying him a Covenant interest, and all title to Church-fellowship, they deny that Christ is his Master, (though that expresly affirme it, Levit. 25.42. yet they peremp­torily deny it) and so thrust him from all interest in his re­demption. Papists were the first in this cruel infant-damning principle, That they are out of Covenant with God; Anabap­tists taking it from them, fight for it with their weapons. May we not think that Papists laugh in their sleeves, to see these men of new light, dispute for them, reforme for them, separate with them? And do they not very well know, that if by these mens [Page 70] help, they can bring into the Protestant Church their premises, we shall never be able to avoid their conclusions. Others are not so rigid against all infants, but appear more tender to some; Infants of believers they judge to have their interest; when pa­rents make good their part in the Covenant, and are steady in it, then they judge the children to be in Covenant; and this their charity (as well as it can) must determine. These might do well, 1. To examine those texts that themselves produce for the in­terest of such infants, of whose Parents their charity thus hope­fully determines, and see whether those texts will not carry it for all the infants of professing Parents. I am sure I know none but carry it as clear for all, as they do for any. 2. Let them consider, whether children of God are not to be baptized? These infants of whose Parents they have saddest thoughts, are children of God, Ezek. 16.21. Whether servants of God ought not to be baptized? These children of such Parents are servants of God. Levit. 25.42. Whether Saints are not to be baptized? Such children are Saints, where one Parent is removed from an infidel, 1 Cor. 7.14.

But the greatest part leave us not out of error, but neglect; not as being misled in judgement, but prophane: Let these seri­ously take to heart these Queries. 1. Why did you joyn in any Ordinance in publick, as that of praying, hearing, singing? was it not upon that account, as of God, by his appointment? Why then are those attended, and this (which you allow also to be of God) neglected? 2. Is this the closing duty, doth not a blessing follow upon this Ordinance? quitting this you quit both; you will joyn with others in the duty: but you will give them leave to be alone in receiving a blessing upon it. 3. Is not he, she, or they, that now are to be received a fellow-member, or members? must not thou, and they, make up one body? are not they a part of Christ mystical, as thou? It is but a little ho­nour that thou givest them, when thou hast not patience to abide a few minutes, to be a witness of their happy initiation. 4. Doth not their case, upon this account call for thy prayers? the Churches prayers.? It would scarce please that thy own child should be offered to God in this Ordinance, without a word of prayer to God. They that consider the great busi­ness that lyes upon the hands of a Christian, that high engage­ment to which this Ordinance tyes, the manifold temptations [Page 71] that accompany a Christian course cannot but confess, that their case calls for all mens prayers. 5. Note the scandal, and of­fence that thou givest; the censure that thou leavest behind thee upon others that joyn in the duty; and on the other hand, the censure that thou bearest from them, in thus forsaking of them; either Minister, and people do manifest their trifling folly, and so a taking of Gods Name in vain in the open Con­gregation on the Lords day in his presence, to wait upon such an Ordinance that is unworthy of the honour of thy presence; or else thou manifest much sinful neglect in thy refusal, or with drawing of thy self. Thou canst not but think their continuance is vain, or else must conclude thy own departure to be wicked. 6. Is there nothing of edification in this Ordinance? no Word to be heard, by which thou maiest profit? dost not thou here see Gods engagement to thy soul, and thy souls engagement unto God? Doth Baptisme save, as the Arke of Noah, and is there nothing in it, whereby thou maiest be benefited?

But here is objected, weakness of body, or haste of business, that lyes upon them in that they can bear no longer.

Answer, 1. How is it, that these reasons do not send thee away from other Ordinances, as well as barely from this? that thy weakness can bear, and thy business stay just to this time, that thy patience is bespoke for this work: when the Minister intreats to stay this Sacrament, a man might think mens ears mistook, and they thought he said. Turn your backs, clap to your pew-doores, tumble down the stayrs, haste, be gone, give your Amen to no more prayers, stay for no blessing; If these were the words, many could make no more haste to be gone, then they do on request to stay. 2. Let that text be well weighed, Ezek. 46.9, 10. where order is given, both for the comming in, and going out of the publick assembly. The Prince may ordinarily speak of as much business-intanglements to hinder as any other, by reason of the burden of his heavy employments, and yet he is to go in with the first, and stay in with the last; and his ex­ample is prest, that it may be a precedent to others. Some are slow to come in, and as hasty to be gone; come as a Bear to the stake, and fly away as an Ape from a whip. They are for Or­dinances, and from Ordinances, as a truantly boy is for school, and from school. These have none of Jacobs thoughts, Surely God is in this place, Gen. 28.16. or that they have to deal with [Page 72] God in all the Ordinances of the day, otherwise they would rise up early (as Job to his sacrifices) to partake of them, and would not make any such forward haste to be quit of them.

And this respect, that it hath God for the Author, should move us not barely to vouchsafe our presence in the occasional administration, which may be done gazingly, carelessely, slee­pily;An improve­ment is to be made of Bap­tisme. But we should make use of our own Baptisme; being in­stituted of God as a standing Ordinance of his Church; we should have other thoughts, then that as soon as it is past in the act, it is over in the use: we should eye it all our dayes as our inlet into the society of Saints, which is a greater honour then a Kings Coronation, and as a high engagement unto duty: to faith in the blood of Christ, to a death to sin, and a resurrection to righteousness by power of the Spirit of Christ. Though it be low in the Ceremony, it is high in the obligation, tying us fast to him whose name we bear by vertue of our baptisme, our whole business should be, that our conscience may answer this obligation; as a seal put to, the promise for pardon of our sin, and salvation. If Baptisme saves by the resurrection of Christ (as the Apostle tells us, 1 Pet. 3.21.) there should be other im­provement of it; were it aright considered, and duly improved, it would neither suffer sin nor doubtings, it would not suffer any way of sin, nor any prevalency of doubtings concerning our spi­ritual state and condition.

Parents should look above ci­vil decency and comple­ment.It should quicken Parents to think of more then bare Cere­mony, civil decency, and complement in the work: which is al­most the whole of all that is regarded: If friends in due order be invited, and in a way suitable to their place entertained, that is the great care; any blessing on the Ordinance is but little mat­tered. When they give a child in marriage, they do not neglect a wedding-feast, and such civil appurtenances that usually attend: but their great care, is about assurance for their livelihood: on this account counsel is retained, friends consulted: But this be­ing as the day of their espousal for visible communion with Jesus Christ, little thought is taken of the weight of that work, few prayers sent up, or sought for that purpose: did they think they were dedicated to God, they would be at care, and would not grudge pains to seek a blessing from God.

For the Lords Supper, that seemes often to have a little ho­nour, [Page 73] when that of Baptisme hath none at all, being administred in times of mens growth, when the other was over in mens infancy, carrying terrour in the face of it by reason of those ex­plicite words of the Apostle upon the Corinthians prophanation of it: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eateth and drinketh his own judge­ment. The examination called for upon addresse unto it, and those lists of judgements that are upon record upon the propha­nation of it, many weak, and many sick, and many sleeping: And perhaps some reliques of superstition not yet wholly outed, since that time that a corporal presence was believed, and the bread worshipped: As is said of some, that they receive so devoutly, as though God were in the bread; and they live as though there were no God in heaven. But if the Author and nature of this Sacrament were aright weighed, another reverence, a reverence beseeming the glory of it, would be given it, which is not my business now to prosecute, being to speak here of the general nature onely of Sacraments. Men would then be con­tent, that the whole of the Administration should be carried on so as becomes the honour of the Ordinance, and would make it their business to promote a way that a due preparation might be made in fitting the communicants, and taking cognizance of them that come, that they may be able to discerne the Lords body, and so honour, and not prophane it. They would then take care to avoid unworthinesse, lest the Author of this Feast should detect them, as the Master of the Feast did detect the man that came without his wedding-garment; we should see more reverence in the duty, more careful consciencious waiting upon the duty.

SECT. I. The adaequate subject of Sacraments.

THe next thing here to be considered in this definition of a Sacrament laid down by the Apostle, is the subject of it, grounded upon the person that here received this sign of Circum­cision and considered, as accepting of the Covenant of God, [Page 74] as we have heard: He entered the Covenant in his own name, and in the name of all them that were confederates with him: And he received Circumcision the sign of it: and they in their time respectively were also circumcised: and from hence these Conclusions may be drawn.

1. The Covenant-people of God, are the adaequate subject of the Sacraments; They, and they onely, have their right and interest in them

2. Sacraments are not arbitrary, but necessary; they are not only priviledges, but duties: The Covenant-people of God may, and they must receive them.

3. Their efficacy depends upon their use; They are no Sacra­ments to those that do not partake of them. Of these in their order.

The Covenant people of God are the adae­quate subject of Sacraments.First, The Covenant-people of God, are the adaequate subject of the Sacraments; They, and they only, have their right and interest in them. There can be no truth more clear then this, in case we look into the Scriptures, and for full proofe of it, I shall lay down these Positions.

Propositions evincing the truth of the Point.First, It is upon the account of the Covenant, that any among the sons of men are of the people of God; that they have any rela­tion to him in order and tendency to their everlasting welfare. Where the Covenant is not, all relation-interest in God is wan­ting; these are without God, Ephes. 2.12. Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your Captains of your tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Israel; your little ones, your wives, and the stranger that is in thy Campe, from the hewer of wood, unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may stablish thee to day for a people to himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn un­to thy Fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. They that were no people, by Covenant are made a people, as he that was no servant, by Covenant is made a servant; and she that was no wife, made a wife: These are nigh, when others are afar off, Ephes. 2.17. Hereupon the Jewes to whom the Covenants per­tained, Rom. 9.4. have this glory, Psal. 148.14. A people neare unto the Lord. A wife is called by the name of her husband, Esay 4.1. And the whole of the family, by the name of the Ma­ster [Page 75] of the family, so all of the people of God in Covenant, are called by the Name of God. He owns them as his, Ephes. 3.15. God mentions it as a motive taking with him, to hear pray­ers, 2 Chron. 7.14. If my people that are called by my Name, do humble themselves and pray, I will hear: And the people of God urge it, as a motive to prevail that they may be heard, Jer. 14.8, 9. O the hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night? why shouldest thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, we are called by thy Name, leave us not, Esay 64.18, 19. Our adversaries have troden down thy sanctu­ary: we are thine: thou barest not rule over them, they were never called by thy Name; upon termes of Covenant onely they are the Lords.

Secondly, It is upon the same account that they have any interest in the Sacraments, which are the badges and markes of a people of God in profession. When the Covenant was entred with Abraham, and his seed, Gen. 17. Circumcision was forthwith instituted; These therefore were called the Circumcision, & all others the Ʋncir­cumcision, Ephes. 2.11. The title Jew did denote the people of God, Thou art called a Jew, (saith the Apostle) and restest in the law and makest thy boast of God, Rom. 2.17. and Jew and Circumcision are the same, Rom. 2.25, 26, 27. Rom. 3.1. And hereupon, as Abraham entring Covenant was circumcised, and his seed: so proselytes joyning to them and their seed, were circumcised. And the self same that had their title to Circumcision, had their interest in the Passeover, and onely these, as to males, Exod. 2.43, 44, 45. This is the ordinance of the Passeover, there shall no stranger eat thereof: But every mans servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eate thereof; A Forrener and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. Rivet on the words con­cludes the Ergo Ben necar est homo alte­rius populi qui neque in popu­lo Dei natus est neque ascitus. stranger to be every one that was not borne among the people of God, nor taken in into them, Exod. 12.48, 49. And when a stranger shall sojourne with thee, and will keep the Passeover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near, and he shall be as one born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eate thereof. One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you; whence we see that as the Covenant did entitle to Circumcision, which is called the Cove­nant, [Page 76] Gen. 17.10. Acts 7.8. so Circumcision did entitle to the Passeover. Hereupon there were ordinances enacted in Israel, for observation of it through Israel; as, Levit. 23. Numb. 28. may be seen. After a long time of intermission of it, we see a proclamation by Hezekiah throughout all Israel, to invite to it not onely those of his own subjects, but all the rest of the revol­ted tribes, 2 Chron. 30.5. The invitation reached to all in Cove­nant, and onely to those in Covenant, cleerly shewing that all Covenanters, and Covenanters alone, are inrighted in the privi­ledge of Sacraments. In New Testament times, it is as cleer, disci­pling and baptizing go together in Christs commission: Disci­ple Nations, and baptize them, Matth. 28.19. as it did before the enlargement of that commission, Joh. 4.1. When the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made, and baptised more dis­ciples then John. Being made disciples, we see they were baptized. And a disciple of Christ, converted to the faith, and in profes­sion a Saint, was never doubted to be in Covenant with Christ, being of those that belong to Christ and bear his Name, as the thing it self speaks, and the Evangelists compared shew, Matth. 10.42. Mar. 9.41. Upon conversion there was no delay of Baptisme, as appeares through the history of the Acts, Chap. 2.41. Chap. 8. ver. 12, 13.38. Chap. 9.18. Chap. 10.48. Chap. 16. ver. 15, 33. Chap. 18.8. Baptisme inheriting the roome and honour of Circumcision. As the Covenant gave immediate title to Circumcision in the former dispensation: Now it gives the like title to Baptisme. For the Lords Supper, it was never doubt­ed but Christians made up into Churches by this Ordinance of Baptisme, were inrighted in it; and the Apostle plainely shewes it, 1 Cor. 10.17. For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are partakers of that one bread. And therefore Ravanellus in verbum Sacramentum, inquiring into the terminus cui, and cujus, for which they are appointed, saies, The terminus cui, the end for whom they serve, is soli foederati, alone persons in Cove­nant; and then explaines himself, thatInter foedera­tos autem Dei censentur om­nes illi quisunt in externa Ecclesiae Communione, et profitentur se in Christum credere: ar vero, cum inter nos quidem possunt esse Hypocritae et impii, ideo Sacramenta in Ecclesia communia sunt piis et impiis, ita tamen ut impii pro piis probabiliter habeantur. All these are reckoned within the Covenant, that are in the external Communion of the Church; and professe to beleeve in Christ. And seeing that among [Page 77] those there may be many hypocrites and ungodly, therefore the Sacra­ments in the Church are common to the godly, and ungodly; quoting 1 Cor. 1.27, 29. and giving instance, that Circumcision was thus conferred on Ishmael, Gen. 17.23. on Hemor, Shichem, and the men of their Cities, Gen. 34.24. Baptisme on Simon Magus, Acts 8.15. and the Lords Supper on Judas the traitour, Luke 22.21. When he saies that the Sacraments are common to the godly and wicked, he presently inserts indeed by way of parenthesis [So that the wicked are probably judged to be godly;] In which he seems to meane no other, but that their very profession is the proba­bility, (as some say none can conclude any professour of Christi­nity to be ungodly; there may (say they) be some sparkes of grace under ashes, and seed in due time to sprout out, yet lying under the clods, and not appearing) else he contradicts himself in dis­tinguishing ungodly and hypocrites asunder, and the text also that he quotes; There was but little outward probability of god­linesse in those that so prophaned the Lords Supper, as in that chap. is held forth. And though few in their Treatises of the Sacraments in general, stand much on this particular, who they be that have their interest in these priviledges, nor do explicitely put it into the definition; yet we have it almost from every penne, and sounding out of every pulpit; Are not Sacraments called seales, and that of Gods Covenant? are not arguments drawn in behalf of those, that some would exclude from Sacrament priviledges, that they are Foederati, and therefore should be Signati? They are in Co­venant, and therefore are entitled to the seales of the Covenant, which is an argument of undenyable strength. So farre as a man is vested in a grant, so far he is entitled to the seal, for ratification of it, and may require it; why is there a phrase borrowed from these proceedings among men, in case it be not so here as it is in their proceedings? Look into all Grants, Patents, Charters, Deeds, Leases, Bonds, Testaments, you shall still see the Covenant, and seal of equall latitude.

Here indeed is somewhat objected which hath over and over been answered.

First, That servants bought with money, and taken into Abra­hams family, were to be circumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13. and so also into the family of others in Israel, Exod. 12.44.

Answ. 1. This is strangely brought to prove that men out of Covenant, should be circumcised, when the text saies, even [Page 78] of them, My Covenant shall be in their flesh. Is the Cove­nant of God in the flesh of those that are out of Cove­nant?

Secondly, It is no where enjoyned to compel them to Circumcision, nor yet is there any Example of such com­pulsion.

Thirdly, Every Masters duty was (as Abrahams practice) to Catechize their families, and so, not to compel them, but to in­vite them into Covenant. Cajetan, Cajetanus ergo qui necessitatem hanc supposuit, cum videret non convenire Sacramento qua tali, ut ab in vito susci­peretur, existimavit invitos qu [...]dem fuisse circumcisos servos, sed ad fidei professi­onem non fuisse adactos: notam vero istam fuisse, istis, etiam in vitis impressam quatenus erat signum Reipub. politi­cum seu externum, quo Israelitae ab ali­is gentibus discernebantur. as he is quoted by Rivet on Exod. 12.43, 44. (supposing that the words sound towards a compulsion) understands, that servants were compelled to receive Circumcision, but onely as a mark to distinguish them in a political way from other Nations; seeing it agrees not with a Sacrament as a Sacra­ment to be received against heart. Rivets own thoughts about it may be brought into four heads. 1. That as to the cutting off the foreskin, and the smart suffered in it, it was no injustice in Masters to compell them, seeing they were their Money. 2. That he best approves of their opi­nion, That hold that the Law of circumcising of Proselytes was on that condition, that they were willing to be circumcised. 3. That Masters ought to make it their businesse to perswade them; but not against heart to circumcise them. 4. If that any think that a neces­sity lay upon Masters to circumcise all servants, it is safest to be of Cajetans mind, to deny it to be any note of profession of the Jewish Re­ligion.

Secondly, It is objected on the other hand, that some in Co­venant were denyed Circumcision; as, 1. Infants before the 8th. day: But that is unworthy of any answer. A stated day for it, is not any denyall of it. 2. Females were not to be circumcised, seeing the institution is onely for the males. To which three things may be answered. 1. For those that make use of this objection, they have authors of their own, namely, Walafridus Strabo de rebus Ecclesiasticis (as he is cited by à Lapide on Genes. 17.) affirming that they were circumcised. 2. The reason of their exclusion from any actuall participation, was their incapacity of it. And thirdly, they were circumcised virtually, and so reputed of that number, as appeares in that they were admitted to the Passeo­ver, [Page 79] when the law was expresse, no uncircumcised person must eat of it, Exod. 12.48. And Samson was charged that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines, Judg. 14.3. So that I say, a Co­venanting people of God, and they onely are entitled to the right of Sacraments; when they are given to a people out of Covenant, a seal is put to a blank, which must needs be an horrid prophanation of the seales of the Covenant of God. And when they are denied to those in Covenant, (as not their right) they are injured from whom they are thus detay­ned.

SECT. II.
FOr further explanation of this point, several Propositions must be laid down.Explicatory Propositions.
Proposition. 1.

First,A Covenant properly so cal­led is entred between God and his people. God enters a Covenant exactly and properly so called with his people. A Covenant in the true nature of it, passeth between God and man: I took this for granted in the introduction into the Treatise of the Covenant of God entered with mankind, where in its proper place it might have been handled, supposing that there had been none that had denyed it; But since that time I have seen my mistake, and among the many questions that have been moved and agitated about the Covenant, it is questioned whether there be any such thing as a Covenant entered between God and any of the sons of men upon earth? Commands and pro­mises are confest, but a Covenant is disputed. The way to make it good, is, to prove from Scripture the name, and the thing; when these are proved, all is clear.The word Co­venant proved. The word we find in places above number, Deut. 29.12. They stood that they might enter into Covenant with the Lord God. God is often put in mind by his people of his Covenant, Psal. 74.20. and he promises, Levit. 26.42. to remember his Covenant. These are then such transactions between God and his people that are cal­led by the name of a Covenant; when this cannot be d [...]nyed, the impropriety of the word is objected, that the word of command given of God out of Soveraignty, and the word of promise [Page 80] given out of mercy; they are called by the name of a Cove­nant, when strictly so called they are (as is objected) no Cove­nant at all. But to avoyd this, the thing it self may be as easily proved as the word,The th [...]ng it self proved and when we have nomen and nominis ratio­nem, then we have a Covenant not aequivocally, but truly so called. And here I may deal liberally with any adversary, and undertake to make proof not onely of all the essentials of a Co­venant, but the usual adjuncts: not onely all that makes up the nature, but all accessories usually added to the solemnity of Co­venants. For the essentials of a Covenant, or real properties, they are (as Mr. Burges saith) A mutual consent and stipulation on both sides. In the essenti­alls of it. Parties, consent, and mutual engagement is all that is required to the being of a Covenant; when two parties agree, and either of them both have their conditions to make good, there is a Covenant or bargaine; see it exemplified in se­veral instances given, Treatise of the Covenant, Pag. 3. All of these we find in that one place, Deut. 26.17, 18, 19. in the Cove­nant that God enters with his people, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his wayes, and to keep his Statutes, and his Commandements, and his Judgements, and to hearken to his voyce: And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his Commandements; And to make thee high above all Nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou maiest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken. There are the Covenanters, God and his people. There is consent on both parties. Thou hast avouched, the Lord hath avouched. And there is a stipulation on both sides; On Gods part, to make them high above all Nations, which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour: On the peoples part, to keep all his Commandements, to be an holy peo­ple. There are Covenant-mercies from God to his people, un­to which of grace he engages himself; and there are Covenant-duties unto which man stands engaged, Psal. 103.17, 18. But the mercie of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto childrens children; to such as keep his Covenant, and to those that remember his Commandements. Let none say that this was a legal Covenant, in which man had his conditions, but is freed from all in the Covenant Evangeli­cal. Not to mention what I have elsewhere said, Mr. Ball, Trea­tise [Page 81] of the Covenant, Pag. 102, 103, 104. Mr. Burges, Vindiciae legis, Pag. 224, 225. have abundantly manifested the contrary, and most amply of all others (that I have read) Mr. Cobbet in his Vindication, Pag. 60, to Pag. 70. where he delivers this conclu­sion, that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace, making it good with twelve arguments, and answering as many objections. Gods engagements in Gospel-times none deny, mans restipulation is all the question. And this is as clear in New Testament-times, as it was in the dayes of the Law; that of Christ fully holds it out, Joh. 8.51. If any man keep my sayings, he shall never see death. Christs engagement there, is to keep from death; and upon these termes, that man keep his sayings: Here is a full tender of a Covenant, and Covenant-termes on Christs part, he that accepts of Christ as his Lord, and professes to keep his sayings, enters Covenant: he that hath in him such an heart as God wished in Israel, To feare him, and keep all his Commandements alwayes, Deut. 5.29. keeps Covenant. Gospel-Preachers hold out Christ in Covenant, and they do not onely tender mercies, but engage to duties: Act. 5.31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince, and a Saviour, to give repentance and re­mission of sins: and this duty of repentance is in order to the pri­viledge of remission of sins, as we find from Peter, Act. 3.19. Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out: when the duty of the Covenant is neglected, the mercy of the Cove­nant is lost. This caused them in their Ministery, to be so zea­lous to urge men to it: Testifying both to the Jewes, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Christ.

For the usuall solemnities of a Covenant,In the usual accessories on solemnities. These are found in the transactions between God and his people, as well as the essen­tials of it. 1. Covenants used to be written for memorial for po­sterity, and so is the Covenant between God and man, as in Old, so in New Testament-times. These things are written that you might believe, and that believing you may have everlasting life, Joh. 20.31. 2. Covenants used to be confirmed with outward visible signes, as the killing of beasts, Jo. 15. Jer. 34 This was done in the old administration, Exod. 24. Half of the blood was sprink­led upon the Altar, to denote Gods entering of Covenant, vers. 6. The people also were sprinkled with blood, to shew their voluntary entering into Covenant, vers. 8. And in the new dis­pensation, [Page 82] a new and unheard of ratification was used, the blood of the Mediatour of the Covenant, Matth. 26.27, 28. This Cup is my blood in the New Testament which was shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins. This latter is a plain allusion to the former, in which you may find, 1. A three­fold agreement. Either of both these were Covenants. 2. Ei­ther of both these had their ratifications and confirmations. 3. Either of both were confirmed with blood. 2. A three­fold difference. 1. The former was the Old Covenant, which was antiquated; This is the New. 2. The former was ratified, and sanctified with the blood of beasts: This is ratified and sanctified in the blood of Christ. 3. That blood could never take away sin, Heb. 10. This was shed many, for remission of sins.

Thirdly, Covenants use to be confirmed by seal: so is this Co­venant between God and his people, as remaines to be spoken to. As the being of a Covenant is thus plentifully proved by Scrip­ture-testimony, so we might as amply prove it by arguments drawn from thence.Arguments e­vincing a Co­venant in the proper nature of it. The Churches of Christ are espoused unto Christ, Hos. 2.19, 20. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousnesse, and in judge­ment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies; I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulnesse, and thou shalt know the Lord. 2 Cor. 11.2. I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you to Christ; and Spouses are in Covenant with their Bridegroom. The Churches of Christ are married to Christ: Esay 54.5. Thy maker is thine Husband, the Lord of hosts is his Name, and thy Redeemer the holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called. And wives are in Cove­nant with their husbands. Their sins against God are branded with the names of Adulteries, Whoredomes; and these are not barely disobedience of a Command, or neglect of a favour, but breaches of Covenant. The Churches of Christ are servants of Christ, Levit. 25. houshold servants, Ephes. 2.19. and ser­vants are their Masters by Covenant. Their sins in this relation are not barely obstinacy, stubbornness, or ingratitude, but they are charged with treachery, falsehood, dealing falsely in Cove­nant, and their hearts being not stedfast in Covenant. It is above me to conceive, how man can be a Covenant-breaker, not alone respective to man, but God as he is frequently charged, [Page 83] when there hath past no Covenant between God and man. They may question whether there were ever any such thing as a Cove­nant in the world.

SECT. III. Proposition. 2.

SEcondly, Whereas there is an usual distinction (almost in all that write or speak of the Covenant) of a double Cove­nant between God and his people; one external, and the other internal; one passing outwardly, and the other inwardly kept and observed. Or (as Doctor Preston expresseth it) a single and a double Covenant, which I shall forbear to examine, seeing I know there is a right meaning; though I much doubt whether there be in the Reader a right understanding. My second Pro­position shall be, that it is the external Covenant, not the inward, that exactly and properly is called by the name of a Covenant: and to which priviledges of Ordinances and title to Sacraments are an­next. This Proposition (occasioned by this received distincti­on) is of three heads, which in case the Reader please, he may subdivide into three distinct Positions.

1. The outward and not the inward Covenant is most exactly and properly called by the name of a Covenant, The outward and not the inward Cove­nant, is pro­perly a Cove­nant. which I thus make good: That Covenant to which the definition of a Covenant doth belong, hath exactly and properly the nature of a Cove­nant, this none can deny: The definition sets out the nature of the thing defined; But the definition most actly belongs to the outward Covenant, not to the inward, this is plain; An agree­ment of parties on tearms and Propositions is the definition of a Covenant: Now the outward Covenant, is an agreement on tearms and Propositions, as elsewhere I have abundantly decla­red. In that Covenant God engages himself to man for his happiness; and man engages to faith and obedience. The in­ward Covenant hath no tearms or Propositions at all for man to make good upon account of his Covenanting: seeing the per­formance of the conditions of the Scripture-Covenant, is his very entrance into the inward Covenant. He that believes and [Page 84] repents keeps Covenant, nothing more is expected of God, or promised by man: But believing and repenting is the first closing with God in Covenant according to them that speak of an in­ward Covenant. A Covenant to perform conditions is a Co­venant properly so called; But the outward Covenant, not the inward, is a Covenant to performe conditions, is plain: The con­ditions in the inward Covenant are the Covenant. That which confounds entrance into Covenant and keeping of Covenant, is no Covenant properly so called; In a Covenant properly so called these are distinct: But the inward Covenant confounds entrance into Covenant and keeping of Covenant, and there­fore in exact propriety of speech is no Covenant.

The outward Covenant is most usually in Scripture called by the name of Co­venant.2. The outward and not the inward Covenant is most usually in Scripture called by the name of a Covenant; which is plain, in that they that have no part or portion in the inward Cove­nant, are still spoken of in Scripture as a people of Covenant; God calls all Israel his people, and that upon Covenant termes; see the place quoted, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. All of those that there thus Covenanted with God, were not in the inward Co­venant. This people at their worst, and the worst among them, are called the people of God, as by those that were strangers to this Covenant: These are the people of the Lord, (say the men of Babylon) and are gonc forth out of his land, Ezek. 36.20. so also by the Lord himself, Jer. 2.32. Can a Bride forget her attire? yet my people have forgotten me dayes without number. How often doth God own Israel as his people, when he yet brands them as a rebellious, revolting, stiff-necked, treacherous, and adulterous people. They that forsake the Covenant of God, that break Covenant, that deal falsely in it, upon whom God brings a sword to avenge the quarrel of his Covenant, are in the outward, not in the inward Covenant: But such there be among Gods Covenant-people, as he frequently complaines, that break Cove­nant, &c. These are not then in his inward, but outward Cove­nant.

The great objection is, (and all that carries colour against this) Jer. 31.32, 33. where the Lord differencing the Old and New Covenant, saith, This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah: not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my [Page 85] Covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, saith [...]he Lord: But this shall be my Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those dayes saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. That is alone the in­ward Covenant, and the elect regenerate are alone within it. The inward Covenant then is called in Scripture a Covenant, and is in exact propriety of speech a Covenant.

For answer, I shall refer the Reader to what I have said, scil. Treatise of the Covenant, Pag. 64, 65. 66. In this place onely putting these Queries.

1. Whether those that carry this text to an unconditionate Covenant, and restrain it to that which they call the inward Co­venant, do not make the Covenant in the time of the Law, and that in Gospel-times essentially different, and consequently ei­ther make two Covenants of grace, distinct in kind; or thrust those under the Old Covenant out of all hope of salvation, con­trary to all Interpreters, who make these Covenants one in sub­stance? See the last larger Annotations on the words.

2. Whether such an Interpretation do not utterly contra­dict New-Testament-light, which holds out the New Covenant in like latitude with the former, in which many are called, but few are chosen; and where conditions are as explicitely, and fully required, as in Old-Testament-dispensations?

3. Whether when Scripture speaks of things in opposition to mens erroneous conceits, and for a further explanation of them, and rectifying mens judgements in them, it do usually lay down a full compleat and formal definition, to which nothing is to be added? or whether it doth not usually supply that, in which men through mistake were defective and short? And whether those texts, Esay 58.6, 7. Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickednesse, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoak? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out into thy house, when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thy self from thy own flesh? Jer. 22.15, 16. Did not thy father eat and drink, and do justice and judgement, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy, and then it was well with him; was not this to know me, saith the Lord? Jam. 1.27. Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the [Page 86] Father is this, to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their afflicti­on, and to keep himself unspotted from the world, are not parallell to this text in their way of delivery. And in case we cannot find a full definition of a religious Fast in that of Esay, nor the whole of it that makes up saving knowledge in that of Jeremy, nor the whole that makes religion compleat in that of James; why is it that we should earnestly contend, that the full nature of a Covenant is in this text exprest, being fully parallell in the way of delivery to those other texts.

Men enjoy pri­viledges of or­dinances and interest in Sa­craments upon account of the outward Cove­nant.Thirdly, It is upon the account of the outward Covenant, and not the inward, that men enjoy priviledges of Ordinances, and interest in Sacraments; men that are so farre honoured as to an outward Covenant, have just title to these priviledges. It is in behalfe of the Jew outwardly that the Apostle, Rom. 3.1. puts the question; having so decried his condition, respective to the approbation of God, he objects, What advantage hath the Jew? what profit is there of Circumcision? The Jew and Circumcision are there one; A Jew outwardly, and Circumcision in the flesh go there in equal latitude. He that by nature is a Jew (as Paul speaks, Gal. 2.15.) is of the Circumcision; And to these the oracles of God are com­mitted; The instruments, deeds and evidencos of the Covenants, say the last Annotations. It was the priviledg of Israel, Psal. 147.19. Rom. 3. and then the priviledg of no other Nation; now it is the priviledg of all engraffed in their stead. This is confest even by a great part of those that understand the inward Covenant (or Covenant keeping to acceptation,) almost whensoever they mention a Covenant, in that they baptize infants upon Covenant grounds, all their infants that make a Covenant profession, and that upon just warranty: Scripture honouring them (as I have shewen) with the name of children, and servants of God. It is further plain in reason. The outward Covenant must have privi­ledges suitable to it, otherwise there is no manner of benefit or advantage of it. This priviledg of the Sacrament is suitable, being outward as the Covenant is outward; And it was sufficiently clee­red in the proofe of the main observation, where the Covenant people of God are affirmed to be the adaequate subject of the Sacraments, and all the Scriptures there urged, lead us to an out­ward Covenant, or (as some speak) to the interest of an outward administration of it; So that in case any will contend still, that it is an inward Covenant that Scripture usually mentions and honours [Page 87] with that title, yet being here in (as for a great part we seem) agreed, that priviledges of Sacraments are annext to the outward Covenant or outward administration, we have what we de­sire.

When this was almost ready for the Presse, Mr. Baxters Apo­logie came forth, in which, pag 103. I am challenged for this di­stinction of an outward and inward Covenant, as though I had been the Author of it, when all know that it is a distinction, that of a long time among Divines hath been in common use; and in case it had not been commonly received, I should have forborn the use of it. As I heard Mr. Ball once in discourse say, that he denyed any such distinction of an outward and an inward call to the Ministery, all calling being external, unlesse the man called were a Prophet. That which men terme an inward call, being one­ly qualifications fitting for the work: so I deny in exact propriety of speech, that the inward Covenant is any Covenant, but the an­swer of the soul unto that which the Covenant requires. And whereas Mr. Baxter saith, It is apparent that Mr. Blake distin­guisheth, ex parte Dei, between the outward and the inward Covenant; It is probable that he thus distributes them, from the blessings promi­sed, whereof some are inward, and some outward; for though he ex­plain not himself fully, yet I know no other sense that it will bear. I thus distinguish them, to apply my self to the Readers understan­ding, that hath been accustomed so to call them; and I say indeed, that men that barely Covenant, and keep not Covenant, have onely privlledges that are outward, they are visible Church-members, and they have visible Church-priviledges. And those who answer to Covenant engagements (which usually is called the inward Covenant) have priviledges both outward and in­ward. A Jew outwardly had outward priviledges, A Jew inward­ly (that is, he that answered to his outward profession, that wor­shipped God in his spirit) hath both those that were outward and inward. It is there said, It is evident that his outward Cove­nant hath no seal; for it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis; If there­fore it have a seal, it is either the same which is promised, or some other. What he meanes, when he saies, it is a Covenant de sigillis conferen­dis, I am to learn; If he mean that the seal followes the Covenant, and is put to after the Covenant, so it is in all Covenants whatso­ever. He saies, they no where tell us what is the seal of their outward Covenant; me thinkes we had no need to tell what the seal of [Page 88] that Covenant was, that the Jew entred; was it not Circumcisi­on? and did there not another follow, viz. the Passeover? Now I tell him, that Circumcision and the Passeover were, and Baptisme and the Lords Supper are seales of this Covenant. The Nation of the Jewes were in Covenant, as Mr. Baxter (though he would, yet) must not deny they were in no inward Covenant; and yet they had these seales. Mr. Baxter sayes, we are bound to give the seales to such, Apolo. 88. Vocation which is effectual onely to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith, is larger then election, and makes men such, whom we are bound to baptize; And such we say have right to Baptisme. And to help Mr. Baxter, those men that he saies the Church must baptize, though without right, we say are truely in Covenant, and have right; when he knowes what child he is to baptize, he knowes who we say are in Covenant, and have Covenant right to Baptisme; so that a second Covenant of which he speakes to give right to a first, is a strange fancy. But of this I shall have further occasi­on.

SECT. IV. Proposition. 3.

Fundamental rihgt and pri­viledge of ac­tual admission to be distin­guished. VVE must yet distinguish between a fundamentall right, and title to the Sacraments, and the priviledg of actual ad­mission; between a first and second right in them; between jus ad rem & jus in re. In civil titles this distinction holds; A child in non-nage upon his Fathers death is entitled to his inheritance; A post thu­mus child, whose Parents death prevents his birth (which was the case of Asher the son of Ezron, 1. Chron. 2.24.) upon the first instant that he sees the light, stands thus entitled, yet the law suffers not his admission to an actual personall managing of it, till he be able to improve and employ it to his own and the pub­lique benefit. The leper whom the Priest had pronounced un­clean; so that he must dwell alone without the Camp, in a seve­ral house, severed from all company (which was the case of Ʋz­ziah King of Judah, 2 Chron. 21.26. according to the law in that case provided, Levit. 13.46.) had in the mean space title [Page 89] to his house and his whole inheritance, and upon his cleansing, was to be actually received unto it. There is a Sequestration, and there is a confiscation, and proscription. Men that are held from their estates upon just reasons, are not yet totally, and finally outed; This distinction also holds in Ecclesiasticall immunities, in that Passeover held in the Wildernesse by Gods appointment, the fourteenth day of the first moneth, there were certain men that were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the Passeover on that day, and they came before Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, We are defiled by the dead body of a man, wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering to the Lord in his appointed season? Numb. 9.6, 7. They stood equally entitled with the rest of the children of Israel to that Ordinance, yet there was a barre in the way, that they saw, to keep them back: They therefore plead their priviledg, and hold it as a matter of grievance, that there was any obstacle in their way. This puts Moses to a stand, he cannot deny their right, yet by reason of the barre in the way dares not give them admission: therefore he saies, Stand still, and I will hear what the Lord will command con­cerning you, ver. 8. And the Lords order upon it was, If any man among you, or your posterity, shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey, a farre off, yet shall he keep the Passeover unto the Lord, the fourteenth day of the second moneth, at even shall he keep it, ver. 10, 11. Their right is there confessed by the Lord him­self, and the present barre also acknowledged. A physicall barre is confest, when being distant in place, they cannot come; A le­gal barre is also confest, when in their present condition they are not fitted for it. And when some that were under this law of suspension in Hezekiahs time, came to the Passeover otherwise then was written, having not cleansed themselves, even many of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulon, Hezekiah prayed for them, 2 Chron. 30.18, 19. The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctu­ary; The answer of the Lord we have, ver. 20. The Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people; which doth either imply, that they were struck of God for their sin, (as was Abimelech, his wife and maid servants) and were healed by Hezekiahs prayer, (as they by Abrahams) or else that by their sin they were in danger of Gods hand, and by Hezekiahs prayer preserved; [Page 90] so that enough hath been said for this distinction between a first and second right, a fundamental right and priviledg of actual admission. There may be a true right when yet there is a barre that stands in force.

SECT. V. Proposition. 4.

AS the fundamental right to Sacraments must be grounded on the written Word of God; so the barre to actuall admission must be written likewise. Fundamental right and bar to actual ad­mission must be both writ­ten. None may be admitted without known right, their visible Covenant-title must appear; in such case a seal would be put to a blank, and the Ordinance prophaned. It was there­fore provided that no uncircumcised person must eat of the Passeover, Exod. 12.48. and none in Covenant in right, that stand in any visible relation to God, without a known barre may be kept back. There must be a reason seen of their admission, and a reason seen of their suspension. The sin of those of E­phraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulon was; that they ate of the Passeover otherwise then was written. There was that barre upon them, that according to the written Word they were not in present to eat of it. He that gives warranty to his people to come, must also put in the exception against those that are to be denyed. No Person, no Church must take in, or refuse by their own power; this were to Lord it over Gods heritage, and an high usurpation of a power not put into their hands. Ste­wards in great houses are to take in, and hold back from the family, not at their own will, but according to their Masters pleasure

SECT. VI. Proposition. 5.

THis right unto, or barre put to detain from Sacramental parti­cipation, is not alwayes explicite, and expresse, Right unto, or barre to de­tain from Sa­cramental par­ticipation, is not alwayes and explicite. it is sufficient that by a clear and full consequence from Scripture it may be dedu­ced. The fundamental title is clear, and before cleared. It is the Covenant that gives a title, the outward Covenant is a suffi­cient title to all outward priviledges, prove a Covenant made, (kept or not kept, if not renounced) and then a right stands. The right unto, or barre put to present acceptance, is often more disputable, which the written Word in expresse termes or by ne­cessary consequence must also determine. When those were kept back by reason of a touch of a dead body, from eating the Passeover, Num. 9. there was no expresse precept in the Law for such prohibition of them; but seeing such were to be kept out of the Campe, Num. 5.2. and they must be clean that eat of the offerings of the Lord, they were evidently included, and it appears that they saw it. And when the Lord himself names those barres, which in after times should withhold an Israelite from the Passeover; the instances which he gives are no suffici­ent explicite enumeration: It is there said, that he that is in a journey could not eat of the Passeover, neither could he that was in prison, or imployed in war, or under sicknesse: One le­gal uncleanness is there named, which did defile; there were other defilements as well as that, which disabled an Israelite actual participation, Num. 5.2. Onely those that inferre such consequences, must be able to make good their consequences, and take heed of framing principles of their own, and then de­duce consequences from them: were this heeded, the door would not be set so wide open, as many complaine, not yet kept too narrow, as perhaps there may be cause of complaint, ac­cording to many mens rules, though according to their practice, perhaps there is no such great cause of grievance; perhaps the grievance may be found on the other hand.

SECT. VII. Proposition. 6.

Rules for actu­all admission and bars put in Old Testament times were more explicite and expresse. IN Old Testament-times Scripture-rules for mens actual admis­sion, and barres put to detain them, were more explicitely deli­vered, When men (according to the rule of the Sanctuary) were to be received, or denyed (as other circumstances of like na­ture) were then more punctually delivered, and fitted to the Churches minority, which was taught, as a child with a feskue: In Gospel-times when there is more light, and the Church hath attained further growth (as it doth not need; so) we do not find such punctual direction. The nature and use of the Sacraments being known, together with the end of their institution, general Scripture-rules observed, (that all is to be done to edification) and the end of the Ministerial function compared, for the per­fecting of the Saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ; It may be more easily collected, to whom the Sacraments may be of use, and to whom they will be unserviceable.

SECT. VIII. Proposition. 7.

Admission un­to the Sacra­ment of initia­tion is facile.THere being a double Sacrament in the Church, both in the Old and New Testament: one for initiation into the Church visible, the other for confirmation: one in which it is sufficient having a due title to be passive, and the other such in which we must be active. Admission unto the Sacrament of initiation, seems more facile, whether it be of grown persons in the first plantation of Churches, upon conversion from Gentilisme, Judaisme, or any other way distinct from Christianity, or of infants that are confederate with their parents; and though some lay it down as a Maxime, Adultorum eadem est ratio utriusque, There is the same reason for admission of men of years to either Sacrament; yet it is but gra­tis dictum. Neither any Scripture text, nor solid argument drawn from thence doth evince it. Lesse is expected in a childs [Page 93] entry into the School, or a youths matriculation into the Univer­sity, then in the time of growth and further proficiency. Pro­fessed Disciples are taken into the Church by Baptisme to learn; but they must be proficients as shall appear, before they are able to make improvement of the Supper.

For infants there can be no barre at all for their initiation.There is no barre to the initiation of infants in con­federation on with their Pa­rents. They that hold that Sacraments conferre grace non ponenti obi­cem, that is, upon all such that put no barre or obstacle to it, do withall conclude (and undenyably if they can make good their Position) that all infants in Baptisme, are regenerate, seeing, they put no actuall barre, either by sin or unbeliefe, to the work­ing of it for regeneration; so we that hold that infants are con­federate with their Parents, do conclude likewise, that they put no obstacle or barre to their admission to the sign or seal. As there was no further qualification required in an infant for title to Circumcision, then to be the son of an Israelite, or one by Circumcision joyned to Israel: so there was no barre by reason of uncleannesse, or want of previous purification mentio­ned either in the command given to Abraham, Gen. 17. or in the Law given by Moses, Levit. 12. There is mention made of the uncleannesse of the Mother, that hath born a man child, Levit. 12.1, 2, 3. she was to continue in the blood of her purify­ing thirty three dayes, and to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sactuary untill the dayes of her purifying be fulfil­led: but nothing said of the uncleanness of the child, but on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin was to be circumcised; with­out mention either of uncleanness, or purification. Those that can find no barre in the child tendred to Baptisme, but seek for one in the Parent, to withhold it from this initiating Ordinance, may here see that when the Parent was personally polluted, the child was clean; when the Parent might touch no hollowed thing, the child was yet to be circumcised. And moral unclean­nesse in the Parent can have no more influence on the child, to indispose for this priviledge, then legal, when according to them­selves Original sin (though transfused by the Parent into the child) is no barre. In vain do they make the Parents actual sins an obstacle, which is terminated in the Parent as defiling the per­son, but transmitting no blot to posterity. It is a most un-Scrip­tural way in those, that in their judgement are for Paedo bap­tisme, to inhibite the tender of infants, upon pretence of either [Page 94] their Parents sin, or their want of Congregational membership. And here that supposed great argument, to debarre the infants of ignorant and scandalous persons from Baptisme, may have an easie answer; Such Parents, if they were now to be Baptized, ought not to be Baptized; Ergo they cannot challenge it for their children; Baptisme belongs primarily to the Parent. The conse­quence is here manifestly false, seeing such Parents have unquesti­onably a fundamental first right, both to Baptisme and the Lords Supper, in their respective order, by virtue of their pro­fession of the worship of God in Christ as their God, in oppo­sition to all false gods; and their profession of the wayes of Christianity, in opposition to all other wayes; though their ig­norance and scandal do prove a barre to their present admission to either, and having this right, and being to be Baptized, their children with them are enrighted; and children putting in no barre, may be actually admitted. Priviledges in Church, and Common-Wealth, are ex traduce, and so are not crimes. In this I have delivered my self, Treatise of the Covenant, chap. 46. as also in my Birth-priviledge, making good this position by se­veral arguments, That the children of all that by profession are Christian, are by virtue f Covenant-interest to be received into the Church by Baptisme; Enlarging my self in several particular in­stances, in such whose seed some would debarre, which yet ac­cording to Scripture rules we ought to receive; Examining Mr. Firmins grounds to the contrary in his serious question stated; Mr. Firmins appendix as to the latitude of infant-Bap­tisme exami­ned. And answering his arguments, he hath been pleased in one day to read, and undertake to refute what I have spoke. He must therefore give his Reader leave, from his own mouth, to believe that it is a very hasty birth, and what need there is that he should yet lick it over, the work it self will speak. I little expected (I confesse) so unfair dealing from a man of his candour, he might easily have seen that all that I speak to him in this thing there, is by way of Corollarie or inference drawn from that which by Scripture-testimony, and arguments in several foregoing Chap­ters I had made good. Which (as it appears from his own hand) when his refutation came out, he had never read, and therefore (by his own acknowledgement) hath taken my con­clusion into consideration, having never seen the premises, and so must judge according to his own reason, onely having never had any sight of mine. Before I come to give answer to his [Page 95] exceptions against that which this Position affirmes, I must clear my selfe from some imputations of his, touching my dealing with him.The Author cleared from some imputa­tions. I observe sometimes (saith he) you dresse my argument in such a fashion, that I cannot know it to be mine but, disclaime it, then you find fault.

To give the Reader here an account, Mr. Firmin had framed this argument against the power of mediate Parents to conferre Baptisme on posterity; If that promise doth give this power to pre­decessours, then though there were none to educate this child (for the ignorant and prophane Parents will not, but teach them how to breaks Covenant; predecssours cannot, they are dead, and are not) yet we must seal to the child. Having explained my self to avoid mi­stake, I first answer, that Mr. Firmin himself here concludes such a childs interest. In case he can be brought to break Cove­nant, he is interessed in the priviledges of the Covenant; to which he sayes nothing at all, but either in haste or prudence passeth it by, and dealing with Mr. Caudrey speaks fully to con­firm the strength of it: Interest in the Covenant of the Gospel (he saith, Pag. 4.) gives first right to Baptisme. This child hath this interest, otherwise he can be in no capacity to break Covenant, he hath therefore this first right, and let Mr. F. see how he can deny an infant the second. I add in the second place, let him make it up into a formal argument, and then it runs thus: That child whose immediate Parents will not bring it up to the power of Godliness, hath no right to Baptisme. Here his exception lyes, and therefore he demands, Where have I mentioned the power of Godlinesse, as a requisite in him who claimes Baptisme? but to bring up a child in it, is harder matter. To which I reply, 1. That here is a strange question, seeing we were not speaking to any pre­requisite for Baptisme, but after education, which was his excep­tion. 2. Though he mentions not education in the power of godlinesse in words; yet in case his meaning be not so, his argu­ment answers it self; For the child of such a parent that he menti­ons, shall infallibly (so farre as man can judge) have education in a away of Christianity, so farre as to be of the Society of pro­fessed Christians, under the dispensation of those Ordinances that are able to save the soul, and are called by the Apostle the power of God to salvation, Rom. 1.16. He further addes, Sometimes your answer is a bare laying down your own judgement, with a similitude added for illustration, quoting pag. 441. He addes, [Page 96] we call for Scripture and reason, Similia ad pompam non ad pugnam. This that he relates unto was thus occasioned: In his serious Que­stion stated, pag. 8. he saith, If the predecessour may by this promise give right to Baptisme without the immediate parent, then I pray tell us how farre we may go for this predecessour? how many genera­tions? where hath Gods Word limitted Ministers? you may go to this predecessour, and no further. After that I had replied, that I knew but few that say the predecessour gives right, without the immediate parent, but all concurre in a joynt way to commu­nicate a Covenant interest; I there for further satisfaction of his Question demand, in titles of honour and inheritance of Lands which men claim by descent from their Ancestors, where is it that they will stay? adding that it will soon be answered, that they stay, when they can go no higher, to find out any other predecessor vested in such honour, or inheritance; and then I bring it home by applicatian of Scripture instances, full to our purpose. Some can make no claime at all from parents, they are the first of their house in honour or inheritance; and this was the case of Abraham, he had no interest in Covenant from Terah; such was the case of the primitive converts; and such is the case of the Indians, that now by a gracious providence are converted by the English. Some can go no further then their immediate parents, they were the first in honour, or that gained an inheritance to their house; This was the case of Isaac and those children called by the Apostle, holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and will be the case of the children of Indian converts. Others can rise to the third or fourth generation; others can go as high as the conquest; some can claime beyond the conquest, by Deeds without date: so it is with Christians, they may go as high as Ancestors have been in Christi­anity. I here demand, whether there be not reason in this parallel, seeing Christian priviledges (as I have proved at large, and he never denyed) are descendable from parent to child, as are honours and inheritances, and whether Scripture be wanting in that answer? I had proved at large, pag. 436. that mediate parents give this right: and I appeal now to the Reader, whether that question of his, Where we may stay? hath not a sufficient answer both from Scripture and reason, so that he might have spared his call for it?

I tell Mr. F. that his first argument brought for the exclusion of infants of ignorant and scaudalous persons from Baptisme [Page 97] managed in the way that he doth, was Mr. Blackwoods argument before him, to debarre all Infants from Baptisme, putting his own Medium into Syllogisticall forme against him, with equall force concluding against all Infant Baptisme, which he saies, Sir, is no clever way of disputation, pag. 53. Then I am to learn how to dispute cleverly, if I may not deal by retortion against a man, with his own weapon: did not Christ dispute in a clever way with the Pharisees, when they charged him to cast out devills by Beelzebub? answering them, By whom then do your children cast them out? Matth. 12.27. He answeres for himself, that he never saw any thing of Mr. Blackwoods, and I never had it in my thoughts to charge him with borrowing from him, but onely to shew him that either his arguments might have an answer, or else he must deny Baptisme to all Infants, which is against both his own judgement, and practice. He tells me that Mr. Johnson hath answered the argument before me, and I in his words, though he saies, it may be I saw him not, which to me is strange, that we should so hit in one, I having seen no more of Mr. Johnson then he hath done of Mr. Blackwood; but it is worth the observing how he goes about to avoid it, as turned against himself; For he knew well that I brought it not as an argument ad rem, (for he saies, I have answered it) but ad hominem. His argument is this, pag. 18. of his Serious question, Such persons as de jure ought, and de facto are excluded by godly Ministers from the Lords Sup­per, ought also to be excluded from their childrens Baptisme: But such persons as the question mentions, de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper: Ergo. The Major he proves thus, If Baptisme doth seal to the same Covenant, which the Lords Supper doth, and doth signifie and seal as great blessings and priviledges, as the Lords Supper doth, then those who are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their childrens Bap­tisme: But the antecedent is true: Ergo the consequent is true. This in Mr. Blackwoods behalfe I thus urge against him, If Baptisme doth seal to the same Covenant, which the Lords Supper doth, and doth signifie and seal, as great blessings, and priviledges as the Lords Supper doth, then those that are excluded from the Lords Supper ought also to be excluded from Baptisme: But all Infants are excluded from the Lords Supper eo nomine because they are Infants; and therefore they are to be excluded from Baptisme. Further adding, when Mr. Firmin hath given a fair, and [Page 98] a full answer to this Syllogisme, he may easily fit it to his own, to give like satisfaction.

All his answer is, My argument is not hurt at all, though the parent may be suspended for a time, what is this to the suspen­sion of three parts of a Church, six or ten yeares together, and never proceed further? And I say, what is this to the purpose? Though parents be suspended all their daies, whether justly, or injuriously, root and branch are not therefore under suspensi­on.

Words of mine, pag. 426, 424. he challenges: Infants of pa­rents that are nomine tenus Christians have right to Baptisme, if they professe the worship of the true God, though nothing more of a Christian be in them. In which how much my words are curtail­ed, for haste, I leave to the Reader, by comparing to find out.

For answer, He speakes first by way of concession, I make no question but many such nominal ones a Minister may baptize, and their children, though they have not truth of grace in them; and goes on, But I perceive your scope is to spread the Word very large, and that directly opposite to my question; If they will say they are Christi­ans, bear the Name of Christ, own his worship (though it be but from the custome of the Nation, others do so, and so do they) though their course and frame of conversation be like the infidels, or worse, yet they are Christians nomine tenus, hence we must baptize if they have but fides, no matter for observation. The great fault is, it seemes, that I presume to go opposite to his question, which I must in­genuously acknowledge; but seeing I am allowed to baptize both parent and child, where there is no truth of grace in the parent, and yet am chidden for being too large, I demand when I must stay? in what latitude I may walk? Men of the Congregational way are wont to limit me to parents one or both of the truth of grace, and will allow none but beleevers children; If justifying faith be not in the parent, no baptismal water shall come on the child. All other Christians from the beginning of Christianity (those excepted that as of yesterday have opposed infant Bap­tisme) look upon them under what notion you will, have allowed to go as farre as profession of Christianity. Mr. Firmin that will be larger then the one, and narrower then the other, must tell us where we must fix. He hath my rule to except against, I have not his to challenge. To let me understand my error in being [Page 99] too large, he demands, But, Sir, I pray what if they be heretical about the natures of Christ, as of old some deny the humanity of Christ, and some the Deity of Christ? and then proceeds to further instan­ces. To which I first answer, Perhaps he may find some called Christians, that it is a contradiction in adjecto to name them so, such that receive not the Gospel at all, but professedly abhorre it. If any such are intended, I shall say my meaning is known. They that are no Turkes, Infidels, Pagans, but in opposition to them of the faith, worship, and way, that is Christian. Secondly, For the Heretiques instanced in, such as were of old, Mr. Firmin being so well verst in the way of antiquity, I wish him to enquire what the Orthodox thought in those times of their Baptisme? Did they rebaptize those that had received their Baptisme? Did they deny their infants Baptisme? They were to be trained to hear that Word that was able to convince this error: And how much worse, respective to salvation, were these tenents then that of the denyall of the resurrection? yet the Infants of som such were circumcised, (as I have shewen) and of others baptized. He goes on: What if they think Christ was a Woman? as (he saies) he hath given instance in one; And indeed a wild one, of one who had a prayer where this was often repeated, that Jesus was her name; perhaps he was a Welsh-man, and then (according to their dialect) her is the Masculine gender. This indeed were an error, full of folly, but not of such danger, for two reasons. 1. Christ were yet of mankind, and had taken our nature, had he been of that sex. 2. It were not likely that he should make over such an opinion to his posterity: He leaves heresy, (which he might have spared, such shunne our Congregations) and falls to instance in ignorance What if he knew not whether he was God or man, as be­fore? what: if ten Gods? with abundance such stuffe. I say, the case of such is sad, & more sad in the degree, then I have met with any of the use of reason, and in capacity for marriage society. I wish from my soul that all meanes were sought that these blind might see; yet as long as God is not hereby provoked to remove our Candlestick, but light still shines in our Horizon, the King­dome of God being not yet removed; so that when the parent is blind, the child may see, as I have known many happy experi­ences, yea, the ignorant parents glorying in it. There is not cause that we should be more severe then the Lord himself, as to thrust out their posterity from the society of the Lords people. This [Page 100] were to provoke them to shut their eyes, and not to open them to receive the light that shines about them; I think it were to exceed in our zeal against ignorance, as farre as the disciples did against the Samaritanes, when they would have fire to come down from heaven to consume them, Luke. 9.54. I had instanced in igno­rance in Church-members, not onely among the Jewes, but Christi­ans, as the H [...]brewes, Heb. 5.12. the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15.34. That of the Hebrewes, he saies, he thinkes hurts him not; That of the 1 Cor. 15.34. (he saies) is most likely, when I know not whether of these two is more likely. To that concerning the Corinthi­ans, some have not the knowledg of God, I speak this to your shame, (which he onely thinkes is worthy of an answer) he saies, 1. Sir, do you think it was such grosse ignorance as I have given instance? To which I answere, 1. That I know no more then the Apostle tells me, and he saies it was want of the knowledge of God. 2. I demand, will you allow me to baptize the children of those that I find not equalling such in ignorance that you mention, viz. the children of all that know that God is one, and the Comman­dements tenne? 2. He demands, Was not Paul as true to his work as Abraham or the Jewes were to be in admitting to Circumcision? which I mention, pag. 445. To which I say, I do not think that the admission of all was Pauls work, and that many were admit­ted, after he left them, before he wrote this Epistle to them. 2. I know he admitted few among them, their admission was by Baptisme; and how many, or (if you will) how few he baptized in Corinth, you may learn from himself, 1 Cor. 1.14, 16. 3. He saies, I have found so much ignorance that the persons deserved shame, but yet dared not to keep them from the Lords Supper, because I found such a work on their heart, though they could not expresse it in a definition. To which I say, that I find so much ignorance in my self that deserves shame, and such that may not be able to expresse the thing that might be in question, might passe with me, for knowing men; Periti est artificis definire; But were they such that you could say to their shame, that they had not the know­ledge of God? and yet durst you not exclude them from the Lords Supper? He tells us of many sad instances of ignorance in fathers, upon which he refuseth to give admission to infants; But were it granted that such, as to all priviledges were meer hea­thens, as it was with those in Corinth mentioned by the Apostle that were joyned in marriage with believers, and their ignorance [Page 101] not onely grosse, but total, and in all respects to be reckoned among those that were without God in the world (as I shall not yeeld as long as the candlestick is not removed,) yet I do not hear that he makes any enquiry after the mothers of those infants; that he takes the paines to go to them in Child-bed, to demand any account of their proficiency: perhaps they might give as good an account, as some that he saies he durst not keep from the Lords Table. And then as in the Apostles judgement, they sanctifie their husbands in unbelief, as to the producing of an holy seed, being no professed infidels, but in name Christians: So according to his own judgement, as to that end, they sancti­fy their husbands in ignorance, being so far knowing Christi­ans.

SECT. IX. The seventh Proposition enlarged.

AS for those that are of years,Admission of men of years examined. though we are not much con­cerned, scarce one unbaptized Person in an age, being ten­dred to us, yet it is not meet wholly to omit it; when any in the Primitive times upon the Preaching of the Apostles was ready to professe, and willing to engage in a way of Christiani­ty, he was streight (according to the order of Christ) to be admitted by Baptisme: the Commission it self speaks thus much: Disciple all Nations, baptizing them is the charge; being discipled there needs no further enquiry, and accordingly was the pra­ctice; the Eunuch upon profession of faith, and water at hand was presently baptized by Philip, Act. 8. and the Jaylour the self same hour that he was converted, was baptized by Paul and Silas, Act. 16. Those that limit Baptisme to years of discretion, appear to be wholly of this mind; Mr. Tombes, Examen. Pag. 159. is clear, that profession of faith, and holinesse is sufficient war­rant to baptize. And for their practice, let their Proselytes wheresoever they prevail speak, when such as we see are admit­ted, we may well conclude, that in their judgement none are to be refused. There are others that set up a new Church-door, having discipled any in their way, they do not (as Christ enjoy­ned [Page 102] concerning unbaptized Heathens, or as others, concerning baptized Christians) baptize them, but they tender a Cove­nant of Church-fellowship unto them, and that is their way of Church entrance, when yet their infants keep the old rode of Baptisme.

These at least some of them, are exceeding strict, and will have none admitted but those that the quickest sighthed,Admission un­to a Church-Covenant and membership looked into. Eagle-eyed Christians judge (so farre as they are able to apprehend) to have both name, and thing of Christianity. And to add honour to this way, the world must be born in hand, and that with attesta­tion of no mean ones, that the conversion of the Gentiles, and Jewes, in that infinite number as we read in the Acts of the Apo­stles, was all in reality, and that the whole Church of Hierusalem, (consisting at least of eight thousand members) was an homoge­neal body, under the same light, conscience and tendernesse; Of a more noble homogeneity, and more pure constitution sure then ever came into Christs thoughts, to see his Kingdom attain unto upon earth: He compares it to a field made up of a mixture of Tares and Wheat, Matth. 13.24. to a Draw-net cast into the Sea, which taketh fishes of all kinds, both good and bad, Matth. 13.47. And in the close o [...] two other Parables inferres, that many are called but few are chosen, Matth. 20.16. Matth. 22.14. This he spake in the ears of his Disciples; and we may won­der if they should live to see it contradicted. He tells his hear­ers, Luk. 9.27. Matth. 16.18. There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God. And can we think, that he understood a Kingdom in that resplendent glory, which he had ever denyed, when he made it his business to decipher and hold it forth unto them? When they heare of it, they hear of a field with tares and wheat, of a draw-net with fish of all sorts; They live to see flourishing fields of pure wheat, full nets of fishes that are onely good; being told that many are called but few chosen, they yet see myriads of thou­sands called and all chosen. Yea, Paul after he had seen the contrary, and gained fellowship (according to these men in such an homogeneal pure body) still symbolizes in like Parables, of a great house that had vessels, some to honour, and some to dishonour, 2 Tim. 2.20. applying it to the Elect and Reprobate in the Church of God. We are told that the complexion of a visible Church under the Gospel is conversion; the constituted matter, con­verted [Page 103] ones; and that this soul-complexion is the same in the whole body, members having received the same Spirit of Adoption, own­ing and experiencing the same grace of God. But it is plain that Christ did neither see, nor foresee any such purity of complexion, nor can they that look upon Primitive Churches in the glasse of Scriptures see any more then Christ did discover. Those words of Luke, Act. 15.3. And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy unto all the brethren, is made a fundamental ground-work of this building of such glory, as though all conversion by the Word were attended by the chan­ging work of the Spirit; which happy glosse (in case it would hold) would turne all the grounds in the parable into good ground, and a cōnvert or proselyte in an historical narrative, would ever be the same with elect or regenerate. But the words going before, and following these (if they may be but taken in) will serve to spoil all this supposed glory and purity. A sect riseth up and teacheth the Brethren, that except they be circumcised after the manner of Moses they cannot be saved, and what manner of men they were, and how their Doctrine took, we may read in Pauls Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and especially in that to the Churches of Galatia; it almost wrought to the apostatizing of those Churches from the faith of Christ to another Gospel, If ever these were one homogeneal body, respective to soul com­plexion; an abundant proof is given in against the Saints perse­verance and for their falling from grace, Paul was not so ena­moured with their beauty, when he tells them that he is afraid of them, and travells again in birth of them. And whether he had such high thoughts of the Corinthians, let sundry passages in his Epi­stles to them witnesse. Great complexion spots may be seen, 1 Cor. Chap. 3.3. Chap. 6.8. Chap. 11.18, 19, 21. Chap. 15.12, 34. 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. So that it is plain, that in primitive times Jewes and Pagans, being wrought upon (by the Word heard, and miracles seen) to make profession of, and engage to a Chri­stian faith and life, were upon that account received: of which, as some had hearts sincere towards Christ, so many were otherwise. Through the whole Scripture there is no demurre put to the Baptisme of any who made profession of the Name of Christ, save Saul, concerning whom Ananias, (being warned of God to go to him, and conferre sight upon him, being struck blind) [Page 104] objects, the evil that he had done to the Saints at Hierusalem; and that he had at present, authority from the Chief Priests, to bind all that called on the Name of Christ, Acts 9.13, 14. And when he afterwards assayed to joyn himself to the disciples that were at Hierusalem, they were all (upon that account) afraid of him. Neither Ananias at Damascus, nor the Church at Hierusalem, did put his sincerity in grace to the question, upon that account they might have challenged thousands of others; But they fea­red, that he onely pretended conversion, upon a design to ad­vance his way of persecution. Let Mr. Cobbet from New England in this particular be heard, who laies down this conclusion, That the Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace, looketh into visibility of interest in the Covenant to guide her in the application thereof, nor is the saving interest of the persons her rule by which she is to proceed. There, we find in the affirmative, what that is that must lead, viz. visibility of interest in the Covenant, and in the negative, what must not lead, and that is, saving interest in the Covenant. And visibility of in­terest is certainly theirs, who professe Christ, engage for Christ, and avouch themselves to be for him, unlesse we will utterly confound Covenant entring, and Covenant keeping, which Scrip­ture so carefully distinguishes. I know Mr. Firmin in his reply to Mr. Caudry speaking of Scandalous persons,Mr. F. appen­dix as to the admission of men of years examined. pag. 4. saith, According to our Congregational principles, that which gives a man the first right to a Sacrament, viz. his interest in the Covenant of the Gospel, this man hath not; for he doth visibly declare to the Churches, that he hath no interest in the Covenant. That interest in the Cove­nant of the Gospell gives a man the first right to a Sacrament, we willingly imbrace; but that censure of scandalous persons, that they visibly declare to the Churches, that they have no in­terest in the Covenant, we must reject, as evidently contrary to Scripture principles. Israel, of whom Moses gave that testimony, that the Lord had not given them an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, or eares to hear, speaking of the generality of them, had some that might have been judged scandalous, yet they all of them even then entred Covenant with God, Captaines of their tribes, Elders, Officers, even all the men of Israel, from the hewer of wood, to the drawer of water, Deut. 29.10, 11. Those that God owns as his people in Covenant, and calls by the name of his people, I shall take to have interest in the Covenant, though thousands [Page 105] say the contrary: But God ownes these as his people, respective to Covenant interest; they that did steal, murder, commit adultery, sweare falsely, burne incense to other gods, and walk after other gods, all men would judge to be scandalous, yet such come, and stand before the Lord in his house, and professe themselves to be his people in Covenant, and whether or no God doth not so esteem them, let his own mouth speak, Jer. 7.12. Chap. 6.26. Chap. 8.11. The Vineyard of the Lord consists of a people in visible Covenant, yet with these we find not a few scandals and scandalous ones, as Isay 5. is manifest; see, Hos. 4.6, 12. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledg: my people aske counsel at their stockes and their staffe, declareth unto them, for the spirit of whoredome hath caused them to erre, and they have gone a whoring from under their God. Shall we say they were not Gods people, or shall we say that these were no scandals? to put all out of question, the Apostle tells us, Rom. 9.2, 3. that interest in the Covenant pertaines to all Israel after the flesh, neither is it any otherwise in Gospel times, 1 Cor. 5.11. If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a rayler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, &c. he that is called a brother is visibly in Covenant, but such a one (we see) may be scanda­lous. The seven Golden Candlesticks are the seven Churches, amidst which Christ walkes, and whether there were not scandals among these, read the Epistles to them. If visible interest in Co­venant give a first right, then these undoubtedly may claime it, their first right (according to the forementioned principle) is un­doubted; and for actuall admission (as well as the first right) to the Sacrament of initiation, let the same Mr. Cobbet speak; John Baptist did, and lawfully might baptize those multitudes, albeit in the general he knew that many, yea, most of them would prove false, and frothy quoting, Matth. 3.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. and after­ward, Albeit, we may think in the general that to be sure in all visible Churches there will be some vessels of dishonour sometimes, yet Ministers which are the Churches as well as Christs servants, are not therefore to refuse to dispense Church ordinances since, they are in the face of the Church such utensills as the Lord may have and hath need of. Hence the Apostles (which are extraordinary per­sons knew the guile of persons secret from the Church, witnesse, that act against Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5.1; &c.) yet in administring the Church seal of Baptisme they refused not Ananias and Sapphira [Page 106] no, nor Simon Magnus, Acts 8. Nor thousands of other of the Jewes, amongst whom how many proved false? Acts 2.41. and 4.1, 2, 3, 4. compared. 21.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 36. and 22.20, 22 and 23.12, 13. witnesse. So that we see Scripture gives prece­dents (if we judge them safe to follow) of a very facile admission of those that professe and manifest their willingnesse to engage in Christian waies.

Mr. Firmin saies, If a bare profession of faith in Christ be suffici­cient to make a member of a Church, then no person can be justly ex­communicated out of a Church, for the vilest sinnes or heresies, pro­vided he doth but hold this profession of his faith: The consequence is cleere, the person is the same now, which he was when you took him into the Church. To this I have answered, pag. 449. The conse­quence is cleerly erroneous, for he made a profession of his faith and not of his sin. To this Mr. Firmin replyes, Then it seemes the man must professe his sin with his own mouth, as his faith, though Mr. Blake knowes he is a ranter, &c. The members of the Church witnesse it, yet because the mans own mouth doth not professe it, you admit him. I desire to know where witnesses were called in for this purpose to speake what they had to say against such and such a mans admission to Baptisme, as now by an instrument affixt on the door of the publique place of meeting men are called to ex­cept, (in case they have any thing to speak) against Ministers or­dination. Had Paul and Silas nothing against the Jaylour at Philippi? who was so serviceable to those in power, that he thrust them into the inward prison, and made their feet fast in the stockes, Acts 16.24. And wheras our author saies elsewhere, that there was a legal work on his conscience, so there is many a time on mariners in a sea storm, which a calme will suddenly quiet. Can he imagine that the lives of all the people, even the Publicanes and harlots that John baptized (Matth. 21.31. Luke 7.29. com­pared) were so inoffensive, that none could say black to their eye? whatsoever John knew (in case they had been called in and heard,) some could have said somewhat against these Publicanes and harlots, and yet even these were admitted. As to that which followes, Then, Sir, though you know the same abominations after­wards, and your members testifie it, witnesses come in you must not cast him out, unlesse he will professe it. Though he is pleased to say that this argument will cost me more then two lines, before it be answered, yet a few words will shew that it is a meer non [Page 107] sequitur. If a man make it his request, upon the fame that he hath heard, and the good that he hath seen in Mr. Firmins Family, to be admitted to serve him in it, confessing his wayes to have been bad, but now professes that he is resolved upon a new way, and in order to it, desires to be received into such a Society, where godlinesse may be learnt, may not he now admit him? and may he not afterwards upon breach of this engagement dismisse him? I will averre my similitude to be fit, yet I confesse it is not full; for when Mr. Firmin hath dismissed this servant, and put him out of doores, he hath now no more relation to him. But when a man upon profession to be for God, is once in Covenant, though his wickednesse deserves that the priviledges of the fami­ly should be denyed, yet he is still in Covenant, though under breach of Covenant, and stands related to the Church of God in title, otherwise, upon his repentance he must have a new ad­mission by Baptisme. The Church, I say, may receive a man upon engagement of amendment, (which must be done in bap­tisme) to be baptized, and upon his return to wickednesse Ex­communicate him: His profession gives him right to Baptisme, and his sin deserves excommunication. He tells us, Though we read not that Philip required repentance, yet others did: But did they so require it, as in reality to precede baptisme? Or were they satisfied with a profession of it? If they so required it as in reality to precede, they then must give a day over to give evidence of it; and whether this was the manner in Johns baptisme, in Philips, or the Apostles, let adversaries be Judges.

I cannot tell what should move Mr. F. when he had given me thanks, pag. 54. for my courteous handling of him without scorn, to adde in the next page, Sir, I thought Christianity had taken in the heart, and outward conversation as well as the head; a real Christian is one united to Christ, sound in the doctrine concern­ing Christ, and walking as Christ did [we suppose an old Adam]. Let him who is a nominal Christian appear like one, though he be not real. And I do think that it is little below a scorn, to bear the world in hand that I think otherwise; what have I said for him to Sir me in this particular? perhaps because I somewhere speak of a profession of faith, not mentioning repentance; so he may challenge Philip to be defective, who when the Eunuch deman­ded, What doth hinder me to be baptized? answered, If thou belie­vest [Page 108] with all thine heart thou mayest, Act. 8.37. And Paul and Silas likewise, who when the Jaylour ask'd, What shall I do to be saved? answered as we know, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thine houshold; Nay, will not the same charge fall upon the head of our Saviour himself, who in his Commission to the Apostles, saith, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved? None of these mention repentance; what can be said for them, will excuse me: I am so far from be­ing against repentance in a Christian, that I expect some will think that I have said too much for the necessity of it, and put too high an honour upon it. He proceeds farther, and saith, Let us view the Scripture in administration of Baptisme, Mar. 4. Bap­tisme of Repentance, that is more then Faith. More explicitely, but no more implicitely. Faith takes Christ to give repentance, as well as a Saviour to give remission of sins. They confessed their sins, saith he. 1. Some will have it to imply no verbal confes­sion, but virtual, coming for baptisme for remission of sins, it was an acknowledgment that they were guilty; which glosse car­ries strong probability with it, in regard of the multitude, that in so short a space were baptized. 2. I require more, an en­gagement to leave sin, which their taking upon them the Name of Christ doth imply, 2 Tim. 2.19. Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity. He goes on, Acts 2.37, 38. First Jewes so had knowledge not so ignorant as ours I believe. The Reader may believe the contrary, till he see some proof. Secondly, having a legal work by the power of the Word: They that had crucified Christ as a blasphemer, deceiver, must needs have some work upon them before they would take him professedly for a Saviour. Thirdly, Receiving the Word; That implies no more then giving credit to what the Apostle spake, that Jesus whom they had crucified was Lord and Christ. Fourthly, Repen­ting they are baptized, this is more still. And more then is exprest in the Text. Baptisme in his Name doth indeed imply, that now they repented that they had crucified him, otherwise, we read not of their repentance: Acts 8. (saith he) though there is not mention made of the Samaritans repentance, who were apostatized from the Jewes, but laid claim to the Patriarchs, Joh. 4.20. expected Christ, verse 25. worshipped God, Ezra 4.2. yet that Philip should know them to be so abominable in conversation, and yet baptize them, that is to be proved, since that others required repentance. He may [Page 109] adde to these Elogies of the Samaritanes, that they worshipped they knew not what, Joh 4.22. and that they bore that good will to the people of the Jewes, that when they perceived Christ with his Disciples to be for Hierusalem at the time of the Passeover, they would not let them have meat for money, Luk. 9.51, 52. And I confesse, as much of repentance in them, as was required in any to the acceptation of Baptisme, namely, a renuntiation of their false way, and a professed acceptation of the tender of the Gospel. There yet followes, If this be not a giving of holy things to dogs, (which Tertullian and Austin give warning of even in baptizing) I know not what is; Let a man be a notorious Ranter, Sodomite, Scoffer at godlinesse, drunkard, no matter what; this is known and proved, yet a Christian nomine tenus, therefore you must baptize him. Where I pray do I speak of baptizing any that is nomine tenus a Christian? My opinion is, that such that have the name Christian, are baptized already, I hope such contradi­ctions seldom come from my pen. That these are no words of mine, my adversary will acknowledge, and that any such conse­quence can be gathered from any thing that I have said, that I must baptize persons of this quality already baptized, the Rea­der can scarce imagine; this I impute to haste or passion pre­venting or obstructing the use of reason. He must then blot out Christian nomine tenus, and insert instead of it, an Heathen, Jew or Pagan (otherwise he is already a baptized person, and in incapacity for baptisme) by the power of the Word preached, brought to renounce his way of Paganisme, Judaisme: and to professe and engage to a Christian faith and conversation. These are the men that I would have baptized, and if we must account them to be dogs, and swine, all Scripture-baptizers are within the lash, they have given baptisme to them. That repentance as well as faith was required in baptisme, appeares (saith he) by the ages following the Apostles, yea, and in the Apostles time likewise. A profession of both was indeed required, they that renounced heathen worship, renounced heathen conversation with it; They engaged to a Christian faith, and they engaged to a Christian conversation. Mr. F. addes, For those who would live in their lusts, they deferred their baptisme, knowing what that required. I have read of the deferring of baptisme in those times, and the reasons assigned, why they put it off: But I have not met with this reason. Mr. Marshall in his defence of Infant-Baptisme [Page 110] hath given many reasons, why some put off baptisme. Some to be baptized at the age that Christ was baptized; Some to be baptized in the river where he was baptized; Some to be bapti­zed by some special Bishop of eminent place; Some, (which it seems was most common) because they conceived, that it takes away all sin, and therefore they would have it delayed, till sin was well over, for which he quotes many authorities: Tertullian (it appears) would have it delayed upon this ground, seeing he would not have unmarried persons baptized, but to stay till lust were extinguished; and disswading from baptisme in younger years, he hath these words, Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remis­sionem peccatorum? de baptis. cap. 18. Yet perhaps some might delay it upon the account that he mentions, though he quotes no authority for it, but that Tertullian and Nazianzen intimate it, one of whom was for delaying of baptisme in the place quoted, the other against it, as I find him cited. But in case any did de­lay it upon the grounds by him mentioned, might it not be their fault that did administer it? in keeping the door too narrow, as well as their sin who put off the time of it, seeing Mr. F. him­self complains of the rigour of some in New-England, in hold­ing men off from entrance into Church-fellowship, by that door which is set up in the room and place of baptisme.

Mr. Firmin, as well in his Serious question stated, as in his Ap­pendix against me, vouches many authorities, first Presbyterians, instancing in his margine Lond. Min. Jus Div pag. 115. But in my book that page hath no such thing; Gillespies Aarons Rod quoting many pages, I can recompence him in setting up some of the Congregational way against him. Mr. Gillesp. will not have a known unregenerate man baptized; But Mr. Cobbet saith, John did and might lawfully baptize those multitudes, albeit in the general he knew that many, yea, most of them would prove false and frothy; And makes visibility of interest in the Covenant the Chur­ches guide in application of Baptisme, pag. 52. And how large a visibility of interest is, is cleer, and I have already shewen, Let his words before quoted be considered; and to these adde that which he hath, pag. 54, 55. The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith, or repentance, or obedience, but of Gods Covenant rather: The seal is to the Covenant, even Abra­hams Circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteous­nesse; but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and offered in the [Page 111] Covenant; yea, to the Covenant it self, or promise, which he had belie­ved unto righteousnesse: hence the Covenant of grace is called the righ­teousnesse of faith, Rom. 10. Hence, Acts 2.38, 39. the seal of baptisme is put to the promise, as the choyce matter and foundation in view, and as that was a ground of repentance it self, Repent and be baptized, for the promise is to you: Not, for you have repented, as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptisme, but the promise rather.

Appendix, pag. 57. Mr. Firmin quotes in the Lump the Fathers, Councels, School-men, out of Gregory de Val. as if all were of that mind. In his Serious question he quotes, Austin, Alexander Hales, Aquinas, Gregory de Valen. In his appendix, Justin Martyr, Concil. Naeocesar. Concil. Nic. Concil. Elib. as strict in admission of their Catechumeni, concerning which I might have much to say.

First, How would he like it in other things, to leave the clear rode and track of Scriptures, to hunt after humane authorities? If we can but say, From the beginning it was not so, In case the au­thorities were more in number, more eminent in honour, we have sufficient. The Scripture-way taking in those that the Word had brought to a profession of Christianity upon engagement to it, is as clear as though it were written with a ray of the Sun.

Secondly, For Fathers and Schoolmen, their opinion about Baptisme, on which they ground the necessity of praerequisites to it, is known; and as he may quote them against me, so I can quote them against him, and those of his party. They maintain (and as unanimously as they do the thing in debate) that Sacra­ments confer grace on the receiver, in case he put no obstacle, on which account they expect not grace in the person for baptisme, (which they believe not to be possible, seeing the Sacrament is to work it) but a convenient disposition to grace, which they call merit ex congruo. Let Suarez speak in the name of the rest, having laid down this Proposition,Ut alicui digne detur baptismus, prae­ter voluntatem suscipiendi Sa­cramentum ne­cessaria est dis­positio conve­niens sanctita­ti Sacramenti. That Baptisme may be wor­thily administred; besides a willingnesse to receive the Sacrament, a disposition suitable to the holinesse of the Sacrament is required. And then answering the question, What this disposition is, he an­swers,Resp. Eam sufficere & ne­cessariam esse quae ad conse­quendum effe­ctum Baptismi fuerit sufficiens ac necessaria: quia cum per baptismum detur gratia, si aliquis est recte dispositus ad effectum baptismi consequendum in instanti, quo receperit baptismum perfectum, recipiet gratiam: Ergo cum sufficienti digni­tate & sanctitate recipit Sacramentum: Quia cum hoc sit Sacramentum mortuorum non est ad illud digne suscipi [...]ndum prae exigenda gratia ad quam conferendam ipsum est constitutum: Ergo sufficiet illa dispositio, cum qua Sacramentum conferet talem effectum. That is necessary and sufficient, which is necessary and suf­ficient [Page 112] to attain the effect of the Sacrament, and gives his reason, seeing by baptisme grace is given; If any one be rightly disposed to re­ceive the effect of baptisme, in the instant that he receives perfect Baptisme, he shall receive grace; therefore he receives the Sacrament with sufficient dignity and sanctity; further adding, Seeing this is a Sacrament of the dead, grace is not praerequired for the receiving of it, being ordained to confer grace, that disposition is sufficient up­on which the Sacrament confers such an effect, Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. Tom. 3. Q. 68. Dis. 24. art. 4. Sec. 2. p. 250. Our opinion being otherwise of the work of baptisme, it is other­wise concerning admission to baptisme, when men are willing to be received into the number of Christians, and will engage for Christian wayes, (which necessarily implies a profession of re­pentance of all unchristian practices) we judge them to have right of admission.

Thirdly, How far rules laid down by some Fathers, and Coun­cils for the way of discipline did exceed in rigour, hath been the complaint of many; not admitting those that had been overta­ken by temptation, to Church-fellowship: notwithstanding any evidence of repentance, till after many years space of humilia­tion; In which time how much advantage might be given to Satan, let men of experience judge. Mr. F. himself dislikes their long deferring of their Catechumeni from baptisme, and may not others have liberty to manifest their dislike as well as he?

Fourthly, Let it be taken into due consideration, whether such rigour in holding converts off so long a space; and requiring such an height in preparatory graces, were not a great remora to the progresse of the Gospel? and gaining in men to Christian profession? How speedy a progresse the Gospel made in the Apostles times we may see in the Acts of the Apostles, and Eccle­siastical Story. Dr. Andrewes in his Preface to his Work on the Commandements, quotes a testimony of Egesippus, That by the diligent instructing of the Church, there was no known Common-Wealth of any part of the world inhabited, but within 40 years af­ter Christs Passion received a great shaking off of heathenish Reli­gion. But how slowly it proceeded after some time, is over­plain: May not the difference of their way, that thus swerved from the Apostles, and men in Apostolique times, be assigned as a great reason? We find them facile in admission, but in the [Page 113] mean time exceeding plain in making known what was required of them in order to the end of their professed faith, their ever­lasting salvation that were admitted.

Fifthly, If it may be granted, (which according to Scripture rules can never be denied) that men wrought off from Turcisme, Paganisme, Judaisme, and brought to a profession of Christiani­ty, and a professed engagement to Christian wayes, have their right, and stand in title to baptisme; If then upon observation of inconveniences arising, (as jealousies conceived that they may offer themselves out of design to work themselves into a fairer opportunity of persecution, as was suspected in Paul) the Church in Prudence, for some space shall delay their admission, I shall not contend; Onely I assert their right, and justifie their practice, that proceed accordingly, and unlesse some great cause appear to the Churches prejudice, tendring themselves they are actually to be received.

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 [Page 188] 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, [Page 189] 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 [Page 190] 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 [Page 191] 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 the bruised reed broke. There, have not been a few hungry sad souls that I have known, that have born the terror of the Lord, separate themselves for this reason. But [Page 192] it will be replyed by those that give this warning, that they mean not these, they are not at all intended in their speech; these they would tender, and with all endeared affection of love en­courage, as those that have most need, and are most fit to re­ceive food, for their strength. But all of this helps not, when this Proposition is laid down, That no man in whom justifying faith, and a new life by the Spirit is not wrought, may dare, otherwise then on the peril of his soul, to draw nigh hither: will not such a soul, necessarily assume? A new life through the Spirit is not wrought in my soul; I am conscious to my self that I am carnal: whatsoever endeavours I have used to believe, yet how far am I from faith in strength and truth? I find my self all over doubts and fears, and plunged in unbelief. And though I have made it my businesse to keep off from sin, yet how far am I from a true change by repentance? I find my heart hard, obdurate, even as an adamant; yea, the poor deserted soul will take to it self the state of Cain, the condition of Judas: If there be any other high in wickednesse, they have matched, yea, they have exceed­ed them. They are to put it to the question, whether they are in grace or no? whether they have a new life wrought, or as yet are short of it? This they must either determine in the affirma­tive, that they are in grace, at least there are those hopeful signs in present, that they cannot but conclude it, and then they safely may come, upon sight of this they may with cheerfulnesse make their addresse; or else they must carrie it in the negative, all that is yet wrought is not life, is not grace, is not faith in its power, is not repentance in truth, as they can do no other that walk in darknesse, and see no light; that say, God hath forgotten to be gra­cious, and so they must keep off from the Ordinance, and debar themselves from those cordials, those apples, those flagons that are there tendered: and sick of love, yet dare not intermeddle with the Lords tokens that are tendered to them: or in the third place suspend, and so sit down in doubtful fears, whether they have grace or no; and then that of the Apostle, Rom. 14.23. He that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, will soon come into their thoughts, and so all that are short of fulnesse of assu­rance, must in dreadful horror separate themselves.

Secondly, This Sacrament, in that it is a Sacrament, hath the name and nature of a seal, (as we see in the text, and God willing [Page 193] shall be shewn) a visible seal, intrusted in the hands of man; and therefore must needs be of a more different latitude and large extent, then that seal which God reserves in his own keeping, the seal of the Spirit, The Lord knowes them that are his, 2 Tim. 2.19. But man is to seek who are the Lords, God knowes how to put to his seal to his own; man who hath not this knowledg must needs be here allowed a greater latitude; either men en­trusted with it, must have the knowledge of God as to this particular, who they are in whom a new life is, and grace wrought; or else they must be allowed a greater latitude to take in men that make profession of God, and as members in Church-Communion may be edified by it: I know this argu­ment is carried another way, and that we conclude the contrary upon a double account.

1. These seales of God (outward and inward) should an­swer each to other. Those that have the outward seal, they are to have the inward; those that take into their hand the seal of the Sacrament should have the impresse of the Spirit on their soules. To which I answer, That the writing of the Word with Inke and Paper in the Bible, and the writing in the heart by the Spirit, should answer each the other: that is, every Christian should make it his businesse, to hide that Word in his heart, that by the Ministery sounds in his ears: and yet Christi­ans are not warned, not to take a Bible into their hands, till the impresse of that which is there is put on their hearts. The Word is delivered in a greater latitude, and so also must the Sacrament.

2. Some say, this Sacrament seales Gospel-promises, onely they therefore that can claime the promise, and have their inte­rest in it, can claime the seal, otherwise the seal is put to a blank; there is a seal where there is no Covenant-promise. 1. I an­swer, this argument thus carried, speaks sadly to the hearts of all dispensers of the Sacraments: they must see there is a Covenant-promise, or else they must not dare to put to a seal. To put any mans seal to a blank paper where nothing is written, is a vain use of that seal; It stands there as a cypher: Now to put Gods seal to a blank where nothing is written, doubtlesse is as vain, and an high taking of Gods Name in vain: according to these the Covenant is written in non-legible and invisible characters. (This inward work is that white stone with a new name written, which no [Page 194] man knoweth save he that receives it) Revel. 2.17. and so the dispensers too often against convictions of conscience (allwayes at hap-hazard) must deliver them, any thing written or not written, whether a blank or filled up, they cannot tells, but are all at uncertainties. 2. I answer, as is the seal, so is the Cove­nant, both of them external, and one must answer to the other: Now these in question (as hath been demonstrated at large) are in Covenant, An outward Covenant is by few questioned, and so the seal is put to no blank, but given to one interested in Co­venant. It seals the grace of the Covenant, and mercy tendred in the promise on Gods termes and propositions. So that the different latitude of the seal of the Spirit, and of the seal of the Sacrament, do conclude that men of no more then visible Church-interest may partake of it.

3. The Church de facto hath injoyed it in this latitude, not to instance in some ages following the times of the Apostles, in which the Pastors called all their people to daily Sacraments, and the use of it in Austins time, when wicked ones in the Church were so numerous, that they durst not deal with Church-cen­sures; but look into the Scripture, though we are kept much in the dark concerning their practice, (little mention being made of the administration after the institution) yet we know that this Sacrament was the priviledge of visible members then in be­ing, and it is clear enough, how far many, even then were short of sincerity. If that of 1 Cor. 11. be well weighed, we may well believe that the Primitive times were not acquainted with the rigour of some persons.

4. There is no reason that this Ordinance should stand alone, that in all other Ordinances there should be a greater latitude, (and men in an unregenerate state admitted, and not held out with limit to men, in whom a life of Sanctification through the Spirit is found) and this alone pent up in so narrow a compasse. I know somewhat is said for the latitude of some Ordinances, that all are received to them, because they are Ordinances ap­pointed for conversion of men unconverted. But this Plea in many will not serve; unregenerate mens admission to prayer, to thanksgiving, to fasts, hath been (that I know) questioned by few: And those that deny that the Lords Supper hath any in­fluence to conversion, have not asserted these to have any such efficacy or power: unregenerate men then must be admitted to [Page 195] the Supper, or else they must be denyed to come to fasts, thanks-giving and prayer. Here some do distinguish between duties naturally Moral, and those that are of meer positive institution. Moral duties, as prayer, thanksgiving, &c. are confest to belong in general unto all, but it is not so (as is objected) in duties of positive institution; they are given with limit to some, and are not of universal obligation. To which I answer, 1. By way of con­cession, positive Precepts bind not all, because they are not given to all: the Gentile Nations were not tied to the Law of Ceremo­nies given to the Jewes, and meer Heathens are not now tied to our Sacraments. 2. For a positive answer I say, Positive Pre­cepts were never given in charge with any such distinction as to bind the regenerate, and to exclude men in unregeneration. Men under sin, and in nature, are bound to the affirmative part of the second Commandement, to observe every way of worship that shall be instituted by God: all of which are onely of po­sitive right. All Israel were tied to sacrifice, as well as to hear, and pray; it was a sin not to sacrifice, as not to fear an oath, Eccles. 9.2. And all Christians are now under an obligation to the Law of the Sacraments, as they are to other duties. And as to the thing in hand, this distinction of Moral, and Positive du­ties (as I conceive) is of no use; for the positive Command be­ing given, there is a Moral tie to yeeld obedience. Instance may be given in purely Ceremonial Precepts, that are seconded with this sanction, I am the Lord, Levit. 19.23, 24, 25. So that when a Precept meerly Ceremonial was broke, immediately, yet the first Command was broken interpretatively, and by way of necessary consequence, the Law of nature tied Adam to ab­stain from the forbidden fruit, when God had given him a Precept not to eat of it; and the young man in the Gospel was also bound to sell all that he had, and give it to the poor, when Christ had manifested that it was his pleasure. There are texts indeed produced, seemingly taken of men under sin, from the perfor­mance of positive duties, as, Math. 5.23, 24. and as much may be said concerning those that are Moral, Ezek. 14.2, 3.20.2, 3. We read that the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination, Prov. 15.8. & 21.27. and as much is said of their prayers, Prov. 28.9. All which text [...] sufficiently imply Gods dislike, when they are acted by such hands; but none of them imply mans disob­ligation.

Fifthly, This limit of the Lords Supper to regenerate persons, as on the one hand it will take with the consciences of many san­ctified Christians, to hold them back, as hath been said, even with all that stand short of assurance of grace; so on the other hand it will give encouragement to many unsanctified ones, to make addresse to it: Broken hearts under the body of sin having not yet attained to the light of Gods smiling face, will be so se­vere in their own censure, as to hold themselves back. The generation of formal Professors pure in their own eyes, and not yet cleansed from their filthinesse, Prov. 30.11. will flock to it. So that we must either find some other more sure rule, or else the hearts of many precious ones, whom God would not have made sad, will be sadned, and the hands of many in sin, upon their admission, will be strengthned.

Objections answered. I know there are Objections even without number multiplyed, against this that I have here delivered, and such that have taken with very many, to carry them to determine the Point in hand in a contrary way: And in case I had not seen that the weak­nesse of them is more and more discerned, and that by men of eminent parts and integrity, I should have been by the multitude as well of Objections, as Objectors, discouraged to appear against them. The duties of the Lords Supper are such, (say some) that onely the sincere servants of Christ, that are sanctified by Christ, are able to perform. The mercies of the Sacrament are such, as they onely can receive; and therefore onely these are the fit subjects of it. And these are driven on very far. The duties preparatory to the work, cannot be done by others, (as is objected) as self-exami­nation, self-judging. The duties executory cannot be done, that ac­company the work it self. How specious soever this argument appears, and I doubt not but it is with all sincerity of heart and integrity urged, yet I desire it may yet be further conside­red,

First, That this Argument, thus urged, doth disable all men not sanctified from all other duties by the command of God incumbent upon them, as well as from this duty; they must upon this account exclude themselves from every Ordinance enjoyned of God as well as from this; put the argument into form, and this will easily appear. They that cannot do the duties charged up­on those that are put upon a work, nor receive the mercies given in promise to it, are to be excluded from it: Now as these [Page 197] assume, An unsanctified man cannot discharge the duties, nor receive the comforts of a Communicant; so will I with equal reason assume, That an unsanctified man cannot perform the duties charged upon the hearers of the Word, upon him that calls upon the Name of God, or returns thanks to him; He cannot perform the duties that are charged puon him; that is, to sanctifie the Sabbath, to meditate, to instruct his family, rebuke his brother, give almes, follow the duties of his calling. No unsanctified man does all that is required in the performance of any of these, neither is any fit to receive the mercies of these duties, that is unfit to receive the mercies of that duty; There­fore it followes that he must neither hear, pray, give thanks, sanctifie the Sabbath, instruct or reprove any, give almes, labour in his Calling, or any other work. If any think to come off by way of distinction, That there is difference between this and other duties; Then the distinction should have been put into the Proposition, and it not delivered in that generality; and when­soever that distinction shall be put, I shall not doubt but an an­swer in the distinction will be suggested.

Secondly, Inabilities to perform duties, upon the bare ac­count of natural corruption, in a right way, and in that accepta­ble manner, as to receive the comforts of them, do not dis­charge a man from obligation to the duty: In case indeed it could be proved, that God never gave the Sacrament in charge to an unsanctified man, but left this visible Ordinance, as a Legacy or charge to an invisible Society, whom none but themselves, can distinguish, and few of them able to distinguish themselves then the argument were of some force; but from the inability to reason against obligation to the duty, to take men off from it upon that account of weaknesse through natural corruption, will take all men off that are unregenerate from all du­ties.

Thirdly, Those that in this way disable all men in nature from these duties which are given in charge to a Communicant, upon that ground to keep them from the Sacraments, yet confesse they may do this work in order at least to their own exclusion; they cannot examine themselves in order to receive, but they may and must examine themselves in order to hold themselves off from it. When the Apostle speaks to the whole visible Church of Corinth expressely, Let a man examine himself, and [Page 198] so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. This few (say they) can reach; but to examine, and not to eat, is in the power of all the other.

Fourthly, Though these reach not the highest duties, and so come not up to the ultimate end of the Sacrament, yet they per­form in their measure several duties, and reach the intermediate and subordinate end of it. They see Christ there evidently set forth, and crucified before them: There they see the highest ag­gravation of sin, Christ wounded for sin, bruised for transgression, under the Fathers wrath for mans guilt, suffering for sin, the just for the unjust. They see him bearing the sins of many, and they cannot nor may not exclude themselves from the number. They see there a ransome paid for sin, a discharge made to the Fathers Justice. They see Christ tendered, and offered: They may further oblige themselves to all duties required, as well to the interesting grace, which is faith, as to the qualifications of obedience; They do believe, Acts 2.12, 13. Luke 8.13. Joh. 12.42, 43. 1 Tim. 1.19. This faith is true in its kind, they do not onely yeeld assent, but reach to some measure of joy, and de­light, Luke 8.13. They are in Christ, their way of inhesion or implantation I shall not determine; But in the latitude as he is an head, he hath members that are inherent in him, he is an head of a Church visible, and hath many members suitable, as the Reader may see in Cobbet of Infant-Baptisme, Conclus. 5. pag. 56. Whilest those hearers mentioned, Luke 8.13. believed, I cannot think it was the seeds-mans office, who had sounded the Word in their ears, to have withheld the visible Word from their eyes, or advised them to have withdrawn themselves. And as they do duties incumbent on Communicants, so also they receive mercies, many intermediate mercies, though in that state they receive not the highest and choicest mercies. They par­take of the fatnesse of the Olive, Rom. 11. even all that come into that state that the blinded Jewes, and the worst part among them did relinquish.

SECT. XII. Proposition 10.

THe Lords Supper (as all other Ordinances of Christ) must be so administred, The Lords Supper must be so admini­stred, that Communi­cants may be edified. that the Kingdom of Christ may be most ad­vanced, and the Church in her members most edified. Let all be done to edification, is the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 14.26. Not as an Apostolical Canon, (as Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy hath observed; for then, if the Apostle had been silent, that in­junction had not been obliging) but as a necessary result from all that they had in charge from Jesus Christ; Prophecie exceeds unknown tongues, because it edifies, 1 Cor. 14.4. And unknown tongues are without profit, and of no use, without interpreta­tion to edifie, ver. 5. Therefore we have the Apostles resolu­tion for publique prayers, ver. 14, 15, 16, 17. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is un­fruitfull: what is it then? I will pray with the Spirit, and with understanding also; I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt blesse with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks? seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest; for thou verily givest thankes well, but the other is not edi­fied. And for the preaching of the Word, ver. 18, 19. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more then you all; yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Matters circumstantiall, and of themselves indifferent, if they be not reduced to this end, prove inexpedient, and to the doer evil. All things are lawful for me, but all thinges edifie not, 1 Cor. 10.23. The whole of the Ministerial work, and every appendant to it must be reduced hither; what have builders to do but to edifie? And if they edifie not, what do they do? In what other metaphor soever their work is set out, this is still their businesse, the perfecting of the Saints, the edifying of the body of Christ, Ephes. 4.12. When they have done this, and made it their whole businesse, they may with confidence speak to God in the words of Christ, I have glorified thee, I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do, Joh. 17.5. This thread, which runs through [Page 200] the whole of the Ministeriall work, is not to be excluded here. Those of whom there is hopes that they are willing to learn Christ, are to be taken into Christs School by Baptisme, and those are to be admitted to the Lords Supper that knowingly will engage for continuance, and comming on in the waies of Christ. Bap­tisme is the entry door into the Church visible; no man must be refused of whom there is reason of expectation that they will be professedly Christs. And the Lords Supper is the means of the growth of those that are thus visibly and in the face of the Church received; where this may conduce to their building up, it is not to be denyed, so that the dispensers great enquiry must be, whom the Lords Supper may benefit, where it may edifie? which according to Scripture rules may be discerned and deter­mined, otherwise the Apostle had not given this charge, Let all things be done to edification; and where it may edifie, to give it; and where it serves not for edification, to forbear it; not whether re­generate or unregenerate (which is an undiscernable work), and accordingly to admit or refuse.

SECT. XIII. Proposition. 11.

The Lords Sup­per with the Word as an ap­pendant to it, may be service­able to bring a man of Cove­nant interest up to the terms of the Cove­nant. THere is nothing hinders but that the Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it, may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant interest, to the terms and propositions of the Covenant; may serve to work a man of profession of faith, unto faith saving and justifying: a man in name the Lords, to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. This I shall endeavour by Arguments to confirm.

First, Men of that interest, that baptisme receives, as the intention of the work in order to salvation; these the Lords Supper serves, to carry on by sanctification to salvation, as the end of the work likewise: But Baptisme receives men of visible profession onely, and visible interest, as the intention of the work into the visible Church in order to salvation: Therefore the Lords Supper car­ries on these by sanctification, as the intention of the work to salvation. The Proposition cannot be denyed, unlesse we will [Page 201] without reason, bring in that vast difference between these two outward v [...]ble Ordinances, both intrusted in the hands of man, as that the one shall be of that latitude to receive men of visible interest, and the other restrained to invisible members; The one according to the mind of God shall let many into the Church for salvation, the other shall be in capacity to nourish, and bring on very few. The Assumption cannot be denyed, That Baptisme receives men of visible profession and visible in­terest in order to salvation, and hath been abundantly proved: we baptize infants upon the bare account of Covenant-holiness, which is onely a visible interest: men of years were baptized, (and by just warrant yet may, in case not baptized) upon a vi­sible profession. The conclusion then followes, that the Lords Supper carries on those as the intention of the work, that Bap­tisme receives to salvation.

Secondly, If it be the mind of God in the Gospel revealed, that men of visible interest having not yet attained to the grace of sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Table, then it must needs follow that it serves as an instrument with the Word to raise them up by faith, and sanctification to salvation: But it is the mind of God in the Gospell revealed, that men of visible interest having not yet reached unto sanctification, should have admittance to the Lords Supper: The Lords Supper then serves to raise up men of visible interest by faith and sanctification for salvation. The Proposition is clear, unlesse we will make mens admission (most mens admission) meerly vain, having no power, nor any capacity to advance their happinesse, but being wholly in a tendency to increase their judgement. Whatsoever the secret will of God (to us unknown) is, that in the event it shall prove; yet the work it self must have a tendency and power, respective to those for whom it is appointed, for edification, not for de­struction. The Assumption is evident (that those of visible in­terest, having not attained sanctification, according to the mind of God revealed in his Word, should have admittance) by the barres that are assigned for mens exclusion. The alone barres that are ordinarily assigned, to hold men in Covenant-interest off from the Lords Table, are ignorance, Error, and Scandal: But many that cannot be charged with ignorance, error, or scan­dall, are yet short of sanctification: Many short of sanctificati­on then have no barre to their admission. Either visible interest, [Page 202] with capacity to improve it, or saving interest in the Covenant must be the rule for admission: But saving interest in [...]he Cove­nant cannot; then (to use Mr Cobbets words, Vindication, pag. 54. it would either necessitate Ministers to come under guilt of sin, or anomie, breach of rule; or for avoiding of that which they must needs do with such breach of rule, never to administer any Church ordinances, since they sometimes shall break that rule in administring it to hypocrites; and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones, yet not being able to know that secret infallibly, they observe not the rule in faith, but doubtingly, and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations. If any reply, that saving inte­rest in the Covenant, is the rule, but we are not tied infallibly to come up to the rule, but as farre as our charity can judge men to be in grace, we must admit them to this seal of grace; To this I have several things to reply. 1. God never puts mens charity to this work, (as respective to admission to ordinances) to judge, whether in grace or not, whether regenerate or in un­regeneration. And indeed charity (which is assigned by some to that place) is most unfit to judge. A Judge, or Umpire in a businesse must be impartial, and have nothing to byasse him on any hand. But charity would be ready to cover a multitude of sins, which is no blemish of the grace, but a demonstration that this is none of its office. If then man must judge, (as he is most unmeet) his reason, and not his love must take the chair for it, and go as high as conjecture can reach. 2. If charity or reason thus set up mistake, then the rule is broke; which though these will say is not the admitters sin, seeing the thing is not so scibile, or of possibility to be known, (and by the way we observe that he is therefore no competent Judge) yet a seal is by this meanes put to a blank, which is no small prophanation, and the ordinance administred solely and necessarily for the receivers judgement. 3. Though we infallibly know a mans unsanctified condition, and were able to charge it; yet whilest it is not open, and breakes not into scandal, we cannot upon this account (as is confest) exclude him from the Sacrament. That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper most of the Ancient held, as Maldonate on Matth. 7.6. observes; we have large lists brought to our hands of names that go that way. The greater part of late Writers are of the same mind; Ravanellus as the last man, in verb. Sacrament is peremptory in it, and there concludes [Page 203] also the interest of all in Covenant, yet Judas was known to Christ, to be a thief, a Devil, and yet he receives him. Christ had doubtlesse power vested in him for his exclusion. The non-suspi­tion of the Apostles, nor the close carriage of his treachery, could not then have excus [...]d his receiving, in case it had not been the mind of God that a man of visible interest, though unsanctifi­ed, might be admitted. And to say that Christ acted here as a Mi­nister, and it was not fit that he should be both Judge and wit­nesse, though it be a truth, yet it serves not to take off the Argument. Had it not been the mind of God that men of his inte­rest should be received, then Christ would not at any hand have knowingly gone against it, and given him admission to it. And what he did, according to the mind of God as a Minister, by a Mini­ster may be done. And to pronounce him at that time, that he re­ceived it, such that had no right for admission, yet to admit him, were such a precedent as Christ would not have given. Christ would not trust himself with some upon that account, that the knew what was in them, Joh. 2.23, 24. and he would not have trusted the Sacrament with such a one, in case he had not known that it had been the mind of God, that men of that standing should partake of it. If it be objected, that Christ knew that Judas was not in a capacity to improve the Sacrament for sancti­fication and salvation, being a reprobate: I answer, respective to his gifts wherewith he was endowed, he was in capacity of im­provement. The Sacrament is of use to those that were his infe­riours, and an eye is had to the tendency of the work according to Gods revealed will, and not to that which is in Gods secret purpose. Let us summe up the argument briefly into this form, Ministers must give the Sacrament, so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction: But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified: Therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification, and not to destructi­on.

Thirdly the Law and Gospel in their joynt strength, applyed in power to the understanding, may work men of Covenant in­terest up to the terms, conditions, and propositions of the Co­venant: may work men of profession of faith, to faith saving, and justifying: may work a man that is onely in name the Lords, to be truely and savingly his. This none can deny, if Law and Gos­pel cannot do it, in the way of instruments, and ordinances ap­pointed [Page 204] of God, there is no way on earth in which it can be done: But in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel, the epitome and summe, the strength and vigour of Law and Gospel, applyed in power to the understanding: Therefore the conclusion followes, that the Lords Supper may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant, men of profession of Faith to Faith saving and justified. The Assump­tion is clear, that in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel, the epitome and summe, the strength and vigour both of Law and Gospell. There we have the curse of the Law in the highest degree held out, Christ made a curse, and bea­ring all that the Law denounces against sin, even all that which sinne according to the Law did demerit. There are sins bruises, transgressions wounds. There we have the summe and substance of the Gospel held out, Christs death for remission of sinne laid open. There we have Christ a curse, which is that which the law inflicts upon transgression. There we have Christ a sacrifice, which is that which the Gospel doth promise; all brought home, and applyed to the understanding of the communicant.

Fourthly, That which is high in the aggravating of sinne to the conscience, and clear in holding out the pardon of sinne, may work a man of Covenant interest up to the terms and condi­tions of the Covenant, may work men of profession of Faith to a Faith saving and justifying. This is clear, which way else are men brought up to faith and sanctification but upon the sight of sinne, in its aggravations, and Gospel tenders for the removal of it? The Assumption, that sin is in this ordinance in the highest way aggravated, and the removal of it held out, is also clear, and may easily per partes be proved. 1. The highest ag­gravation of sin to the breaking of the heart, and the melting of the soul is the looking upon him whom our sins have pierced, Zach. 12.10. They shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his onely sonne, and shall be in bitternesse for him, as one that is in bitternesse for his first-born; and that we thus look upon him in the Sacrament; I shall choose to set it out in the words of the Ministers, and Elders met in the Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication, where speaking to those that joyn with them at the Lords Table, pag. 104. You must so remember Christ, as to find power coming out of [Page 205] Christ Sacramental, to break your hearts for all the sins you have com­mitted against him. Christ is presented in the Sacrament, as a broken Christ, his body broken, and his blood poured out. And the very breaking of the bread, understandingly looked upon, is a forcible Ar­gument to break your hearts. Was Jesus Christ rent and torn in pieces for you, and shall it not break your hearts that you should sin against him? Was he crucified for you, and will you crucify him by your sins? And besides, the breaking of the bread is not onely or­dained to be a motive unto brokennesse of heart for sin, but also in the right use to effect that which it doth move unto. And, pag. 105. You must so remember Christ Sacramentall, as to find power comming out of Christ, to subdue all your sins and iniqui­ties, as the diseased woman felt vertue coming out of Christ to cure her bloody issue: so there is power in an applicative and fiducial re­membrance of Christ at the Sacrament, to heal all the sinful issues of our soules; there is no sin so strong but it is conquerable by a pow­er derived from Christ crucified. And, pag. 106. You must con­tinue in remembring Christ in the Sacrament, till your hearts be wrought up to a through contempt of the world, and all worldly things. Christ instituted the Sacrament when he was going out of the world: and when he was crucifying, the whole world was in darknesse and obscurity: and he is propounded in the Sacrament, as a persecuted, broken crucified Christ, despising, and being despised of the World. And if you do practically remember the Sacrament of his death, you will find vertue coming out thereof to make you dead to the world, and all worldly things. And, pag. 107. Cease not remembring Christ, till you be made partakers of the rare grace of humility. Of all the graces that were in Christ in which he would have Christians to imitate him in, humility is one of the chiefest, Matth. 11.29. Learn of me, for I am humble. And Christ in the Sacrament is presen­ted, as humbling himself to the death of the crosse for our sakes. And what a shame is it to remember an humble. Christ with a proud heart? The practical remembrance of the humility of Christ Sacra­mental, when sanctified, is mighty in operation to tame the pride of our hearts. And, pag. 110. To endeavour that your eyes may affect your hearts, when you are at the Sacrament. For as Christ in the Ministery of his Word, preacheth to the ear, and by the ear convey­eth himself into the heart: so in the Sacrament he preacheth to the eye, and by the eye conveyeth himself into the heart. And there­fore it is well called a visible Sermon. What can be more plain [Page 206] then this to set the out the power of the Sacrament to soul contrition, true humiliation, and mortification? Too many that professe Faith have their hearts lift up, and live not by faith. Here is a way to bring them down, when they see sin to be of such a provoking nature, that onely the sufferings of the Sonne of God are able to satisfie, that their demerit doth put him upon a neces­sity of all these woes. These are certainly heart melting consi­derations. If it be yet objected, that the Provincial Assembly at London speak to their own communicants, whom they suppose to be in grace. To this I reply, that in case that should fail, and some at least should have their predominant lusts lurking, and treachery against the Covenant (as in Judas against Christ) har­boured, it can be of no danger, to say that here is a means to work them on to humiliation, and brokennesse of spirit. 2. If any yet say, that their thoughts are otherwise of this Sacrament: I answer, their words best speak their thoughts, and we see what they say. The very breaking of the bread (say they) understan­dingly looked upon, is a forcible Argument to break your hearts, and the breaking of the bread may be looked upon understan­dingly by an unsanctified man: if there be truth in their Proposi­tions, as I doubt not but they are most true, then my Conclusion is true likewise. We may make up (if you please) this part of the Argument thus: A sin aggravating ordinance is an heart brea­king and soul humbling ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords supper is a sinne aggravating ordinance: Therefore it is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance. For the other branch of the Assumption, that this ordinance is the holding out of the pardon of sin, needs no proof. This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sinne, Matth. 26.

Fifthly, That which is annext to the Word to second it, in that very thing, which works the soul unto conversion to good, may bring the person of Covenant interest, up to the termes of the Covenant; may work one of profession of faith onely, unto faith saving, and justifying. This none can deny: being added to the Word, as it's second in such a work, it well may have an hand in the working of it: But the Sacrament is annext to the Word, to second it in that very thing, which works the soul unto con­version to God. The Assumption is manifest: If we consider what the Word does for conversion, and the whole, in which the [Page 207] energy and power of it (as an Ordinance) is exercised, then we shall soon see, that this Sacrament is added, as a second in that work. The Word converts, in holding out sin in its defile­ments and danger; in the discovery of the loathsome nature of it, and the cursed effects that follow upon it; together with Christ in the promises to save from it. I know no other way that the Word hath to bring a soul in sin to God, but in setting forth the lost and undone condition of it, and so to bring to con­viction, compunction, and enquiry what to do; and then to make tender of Christ. In this method, souls (as we find on record) have been brought home to God, of which there might be fre­quent instances. Now that this Sacrament is added to the Word, for further discovery of sin, in the defilement and danger: to hold out Christ in his death, taking away sin, need not to be proved. It is true that the first detection of sin is by the rule of the Law, and therefore the Apostle sayes, By the Law is the know­ledge of sin. In case the question be put, whether this, or that act be sin? then neither the tender of Christ in the Gospel, nor yet the Sacrament can have any hand in the determination of it; but they both serve for the aggravation of sin, to lay it open in the dimensions and danger of it. Sin is no where so seen in its height, as in the sorrowes and sufferings of Christ, as is by all affirmed, and these sufferings we know the Word holds out for conversion from sin. And the visible Word of the Sacrament se­conds the Word in this very thing, to set out Christs death, to lay before our eyes Christ broken for us, both for the aggravati­on of sin, and for the pardon of it. Thus if you please you may put the argument; If the Sacrament doth the same thing as the Word doth in conversion, then the Sacrament cannot be denyed to have an hand in conversion: But the Sacrament (as we see) does the same thing as the Word; it serves to the heightning of sin, and the setting out of the pardon of sin: Therefore it followes that the Sacrament may have an hand in conver­sion.

Sixthly, That which by frequent experience we see the Sacra­ment works toward, and for ought we are able to judge works unto, that we may well conclude, it is designed and appointed of God to work. This cannot fairly be denyed; yet if any think that this of it self is not of full strength, seeing our expe­rience may deceive us, we may conceive what is not, Let these [Page 208] then joyn to it what hath been already said. This experience added to so much evidence of reason, I doubt not but will be found to have strength in it. And I put it for their sakes that say, Let any give instance of any man or woman that hath at any time been converted by the Sacrament. And that there are frequent experiences of the Sacraments working towards this thing is plain. How frequent is it with men to have affrightings, soul-sha­kings, tremblings, strong present resolutions against sin, upon their approach to this Ordinance? being convinced of it to be a duty, that they ought to go to it. How mightily are their spi­rits often affected in it? If we make that an argument of the power of the Word towards wicked men in the affrighting and astonishment of them, in the terrifying and amazement, stopping for present their full swinge in sin and wickednesse, as we know it is ordinarily with those that set out the power of the Word: see Dr. Reynolds on Psal. 110. pag. 150. why then should we not make the same effects that we see ordinarily produced by the Sa­crament, to be evidences of the like power in the Sacrament? And as we read of an Ahab, a Felix, a Zedekiah, an Herod thus startled by the Word: so we may see and know such as these alike startled and affected at the Sacrament. Superstition per­haps works it in some: But we find the work in others, in whom such superstition hath no place. It can be no other then the Majestie of the Ordinance, the high aggravation of sin, and the glory of Christ set out in it. All this I confesse many times comes to nothing, it is a fit and so over; it hath not the strength to bear down mens lusts to a full change, and through morti­fication, and so it is with those also that hear the Word. They are many times Sermon-sick, and yet all soon falls and comes to nothing; yet in the nature of the work it self it hath a tendency towards a change. And that this sometimes works those of Covenant-interest unto a true change, and through work of sanctification (so far as we are able to judge,) there are not few experiments; I have known some bred onely for jollity and outward delights, that making addresse to the Sacrament have had those soul-shakings and trembling amazements, that have put them upon a serious way of enquiry, and the spark so kindled by Gods blessing, hath been nourished up into that burning heat, that their whole life hath been spent in zeal for God, and their name in life and death precious.

Seventhly, To these we add, the acknowledgement of eminent Divines of an opposite judgement, who will have all admitted, present at the consecration of the elements, to see the bread broke and divided. And to what purpose is their presence, if not for their profit? and what profit can an unconverted man find in any thing in a spiritual way, that works not towards his conversion, that is no wayes useful or improvable for it? What others may judge I know not; these arguments to which some other might be added, have taken with me to conclude the po­sition before delivered.

SECT. XIV. Objections against the former Proposition answered.

I Know that objections here are multiplied. I have read many, which in case they had been with me of weight, this that I am now upon, had been stifled in the birth, and more doubtles hath been said then I have seen, and more yet happily will be raised. To go about to meet with all were to make no end of words: I shall speak first to some general charges,General char­ges answerd. after to some particular arguments.

First, In case this holds, (say some) then all upon that bare ac­count are to be admitted to the Supper, who will hinder the conversion of any? yea even Turks, Pagans, and the vilest varlots, may then come and joyn in this Ordinance. To these I answer,

First, Were it of power,Promiscous ad­mission follows not from it. as an instrument in the hand of God for conversion of all, yet all were not to be admitted, when the will and mind of God is known to be against it: The Gospel in the mouthes of the twelve, when they had their first commission, might have been of power for the conversion of Samaritanes and Gentiles, yet they are forbidden to make tender of it to them, Matth. 11.5. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritanes enter not. The word in Pauls mouth might have been (respective to any operation in it self) the conver­sion of souls in Asia and Bithynia, as well as in Macedonia, yet the Spirit forbids them to go to the former, and sends them to preach to the other, Act. 16.6.7, 10. If the mighty works [Page 210] which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would hav repented in sackcloth and ashes; yet they were denyed to those of Tyre and Sidon, Matth. 11.21. So that though the Sacraments had a generally converting pow­er, yet in case they be appointed of God with limit to those of Covenant-interest, they may not in any greater latitude be dis­pensed, and so Jewes, Turkes, and Pagans are excluded.

Secondly, The Word it self (which is confest to be the power of God to salvation, and of the most large efficacy of any Ordi­nance for conversion) is not yet tendred to all, in any expecta­tion of conversion by it. Not to speak of those to whom God in his providence doth deny it, (who are out of the pale of the Church) but those, to whom the Church doth not make menti­on of it: Infants, Idiots, distracted ones, and deaf persons, no Minister applies himself to them, to make tender of it for conver­sion; so that there must be not onely a commission to tender it, and a clear evidence, that men have (according to the mind of God) an interest, but there must be a present capacity in such for improvement. I am not ignorant that some (seeing it seems that this doth lye against them) have pleaded for a capacity in all these before mentioned, to receive benefit by the Word, demand­ing, 1. Why are Infants, and pari ratione distracted persons un­capable of the Word? An answer me thinks is at hand, because they are necessarily in the condition of the high-way-ground, to hear and understand nothing. They profit no more then those, 1 Cor. 14. that hear words in an unknown tongue. And in case they be in capacity (as is affirmed) to receive benefit from the Word, the Minister occasionally is to make out a word of ex­hortation to them, giving them their portion as well as others; which how it would sound in the ears of those that are of growth, and have their senses and understanding, let any judge. These further demand, Where hath God said they shall be kept from it? No more hath he said that the swallow, or the sparrow should be kept from it; by providenee they have been present, when those that would have improved such an opportunity in a Spiritual way, have been denyed it. Yea, places are produced to shew that God hath commanded infants to be present at Ordinances. But where is it commanded that Idiots, distracted persons, &c. should be present? Reasons may be given of infants presence at entry of Covenants, at solemn fasts, denuntiations of blessings and [Page 211] curses, when yet they are in an incapacity to receive benefit by the VVord. Demand is yet further made, Who knowes how God may work at the Word, though not by the Word? may not the Word be an occasion of conversion unto infants, which is an instrument of con­version to elder persons? Such queries will bring in the most igno­rant and scandalous to the Lords Supper; who knowes but that which is an instrument of nourishment of men converted, may prove an occasion of conversion to men unconverted? So that this notwithstanding the position delivered will not bear this inference that is drawn from it. Though the Lords Supper (as an appendant to the Word) may serve to bring up those of Covenant-interest to the terms and Propositions of the Cove­nant; may work a man of profession of faith, to faith saving and justifying, yet there must be somewhat more to give actual ad­mission to it. Put in these two Cautions. 1. That the persons in question have their interest and first right in it. 2. That they be in a capacity to improve it for their benefit; with these cau­tions, and not else, I am for a general admission.

Secondly, It is objected, That this makes the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance as well as the Word, 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 [Page 212] 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. [Page 213] 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 [Page 214] 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, (whatsoever is charged) but enquire fur­ther what they deliver of the efficacy of it. Thomas Aquinas, Part 3. quaest. 73. art. 3. putting differences between Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, assignes this for one; Baptisme is the be­ginning of spiritual life, and the entrance of the Sacraments. The Eucharist is the consummation of spiritual life, and the end of all Sacraments. And further, The receiving of Baptisme is necessa­ry to begin spiritual life; The receiving of the Eucharist is neces­sary for the consummation of it. The Councell of Florence, quoted by Suarez, disput. 7. Quaest. 62. saith, By Baptisme we are spi­ritually born again, and are nourished by the Divine Alimony of the Eucharist. Suarez, disput. 63. Quaest. 79. laies down this conclu­sion. This Sacrament is not instituted, per se to conferre the first grace; and confirmes it by multiplicity of Authors, and the Chur­ches custome, who never used to give the Sacrament unlesse it be to those whom she believes to be cleansed from sin by Baptisme or penance. And thus argues it by reason. The Sacrament (saith he) doth not suppose the effect that it serves to work, but this Sacrament doth sup­pose the man to be just that receives it. 2. Meat (saith he) is not ordayned of it self to quicken or raise the dead, but to nourish or strengthen a man already alive. But this Sacrament is instituted, as meat and drink. And though he after affirmes that this Sacra­ment sometimes, and as by accident conferres the first grace, (which according to his principles he hath much a do to make out) yet he acknowledges that many and grave Divines held the contrary, quoting, Gabriel, Alensis, Bonaventure, and Major. And their distinction is well enough known. That as a Sacrifice offered, [Page 215] it takes away sin; but as a Sacrament received, it onely nourishes, and increases spiritual life. By all which it appeares how farre those of that part are from assent to this position; and no mar­vell, when they will hold their communicants in that igno­rance, as to look after no more then consecration, to inquire no­thing into the institution. The way of the Sacraments work, as a visible Word, as a demonstrative sign in the aggravation of sin, and tender of pardon, is to them a mystery.

As for the other part of the charge,Nor oppose the unanimous judgement of Protestant Writers. which is the opposition of the unanimous judgement of Protestant Authors; I know many are produced speaking of the Sacraments, as no causes of spiritual life, or vessels to convey it; but as seales and testimonies of Gods good will towards us. To which I fully subscribe, as after shall (God willing) appear. But how farre most of them come short when they are throughly examined, of that position which is laid down as their opinion, That they are appointed to seal unto a man that saving interest in Christ and the Covenant of grace that he hath already, may easily be demonstrated. First, That po­sition hath that confusion in it, that many of them will not own, and is inconsistent almost with all their principles. This makes interest in the Covenant of grace, and interest in Christ (which is understood of interest as a lively member) the same, when it is well known that they make Covenant-interest farre more large then interest in Christ; see Mr. Cobbet in his Vindication, pag. 48. quoting not alone Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory, Nazianzen, Jerome, Austin, among the Ancient; but also Amesius, Cha­mier, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Me­lanchton, Mr. Philpot, for this latitude of the Covenant. Pareus, (who is not looked upon as any dissenting man from the rest of his brethren) speaks fully. When it was objected that all Israel was not in Covenant with God, nor all the infants of Christians, because some among them were, and are reprobates, he an­sweres, To be in Covenant, or to have interest in it, is taken two waies, either according to the right of Covenant, or the benefit of it. He is in Covenant that either obtaines the benefits of the Covenant, which are pardon of sin, Adoption, regeneration, salvation, or which hath onely the right or outward symbole of the Covenant. He ap­plies his distinction that, that proposition, That no reprobate is in Covenant with God, is onely true of the benefits of the Covenant, which heretofore were, and still are peculiar to the Elect; but be­ing [Page 216] understood of the right, and outward symbole of the Covenant it is to be denyed; for that indifferently belongs to all that are born in the Church, among which many are reprobates, as the event doth demon­strate; neither is it lawful for the Church to exclude any, that by their own impiety do not exclude themselves (which Israelites in times past did, and Apostatizing Christians now do, to their greater damnation) whether they be of those that by a true faith receive the benefits of the Covenant, or whether they be those that remain hypo­crites. All of his practice must necessarily be of his judgement, unless we believe that their practice militates against their princi­ples. And that this is the practise of the reformed Churches in general, needs not to be shewn.

Secondly, They cannot then baptize any upon the account of Covenant-holinesse, but onely holinesse of regeneration. This is plain. If the right be theirs alone that have their interest as in Covenant, so also in Christ, onely these must be baptized, or else we must baptize without right. And that they do not onely baptize, but dispute for Baptisme upon a bare Covenant-interest without any further title is manifest.

Thirdly. This stands not with that which they hold concer­ning the way of the Sacraments sealing, which according to them can be no evidence that he does believe, as some assert, evidences of faith must be in the soul, and not in the Sacrament; neither doth it absolutely make up to the soul the benefit of the Cove­nant, then no man without infallible revelation (such as it seems Ananias had concerning Paul) could administer it. It seals the benefits of the Covenant upon Gods terms and propositions, which when the soul makes good, there is Gods seal for perfor­mance. That this is the judgement of Protestant Divines, I have elsewhere declared, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 35, 36. so that their Doctrine of the Sacraments doth not oppose the po­sition delivered.

Hitherto I have considered some generall charges against this position; now I must look into some Arguments in form produ­ced against it.

Several parti­cular argu­ments answer­ed.First, Sacraments, (say some) are signes, as appears in their de­finition, and not causes of what they signifie; signes declaring and shewing that we have Faith in Christ, remission of sin by him and union with him.

To let that slip passe, making them no causes, because they are [Page 217] signes, as though no signe were a cause of the thing signified: This to me is as strange as new, that Sacramental signes declare, and shew that we have faith and remission of sins. The Sacra­ment now in question, is a signe of the body and blood of Christ, in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know; but that it is a signe either that we do believe, or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing, (to which this engages, but not presupposes) I know not. Simon Ma­gus had not Baptisme, to signifie that all his sins were forgiven; but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven. Mr. Cobbet sayes well, Vindication, pag. 54. The initiatory seal, which holds true of the other seal, is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith, or repentance, or obedience, but of Gods Cove­nant rather; the seal is to the Covenant: even Abrahams Circum­sion was not primarily a seal to Abrahams faith of righteousnesse, but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and effected in the Cove­nant; yea, to the Crvenant it self or promise, which had believed unto righteousnesse: hence the Covenant of grace is called the righte­ousnesse of faith, Rom. 10. I confesse it is a symbole of our pro­fession of faith, but this is not the faith spoken to, neither is re­mission of sins annext unto it.

Secondly, That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith, doth not work conversion and faith: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith. The Minor is proved, Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.36, 37. ver. 41. Act. 10.4.7. All which texts are spoken of Baptisme, and not of the Lords Sup­per. To that text, Mar. 16.16. I have spoken fully, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 243. To that, Act. 8.36, 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38. I have spoken, pag. 396. and ther is no need that I should repeat what I have said. For Act. 2.41. They that gladly received his Word, were baptized, It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel; and whether this necessarily implyes saving faith, let Ezek. 33.31. Matth. 13.20, 21. Gal. 4.15. be consulted. For, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title, such gifts gave Judas a title not onely to baptisme, but Apostleship; such a faith may be had, and sanctification wanting.

Thirdly, That which gives us new food, supposeth that we have [Page 218] the new birth, and Spiritul life; and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food: Ergo.

Ans. 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllo­gismes.

2. A difference may be put between ordinary food, and li­ving and quickening food: It may be true of the former, but not of the latter.

3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food, 1. Pet. 2.2. and yet presupposeth not new life. If any reply, that the Word is more then food; it is seed as well as food, and it gives not new life as food, but as seed. I answer that the Sacra­ment is more then food. There is a Sacramental work prece­ding our taking and eating, which some say may be done to edifi­cation and profit, by those that are not admitted to be partakers; where they divide I may distinguish, and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin: to carry on the work of contrition and compunction.

Fourthly, That Ordinance which is instituted onely for believers and justified persons, is no converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But this Sacrament is instituted onely for believers and justified persons. The Minor is proved, Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 4.17. much more then Baptisme; and if Baptisme, much more the Lords Supper.

Ans. Upon this account it must needs follow, that as Abra­ham was a justified man, so Ishmael was justified also, who ac­cording to the mind of God, and in obedience to his commands was circumcised, Gen. 17.23. yea, every Proselyte that joyned himself to Israel, and every male in Israel according to this In­terpretation must be justified. 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person, yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification, but a distinct text of Scripture, Gen. 15.16. quoted by the Apostle, ver. 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith, and not by works, the Apostles words onely shew that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant, not of works, but of faith; so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument, are a full answer here.

Fifthly, The Apostle argues, that Abraham the Father of the faith­ful, and whose justification is a pattern of ours, was not justified by [Page 219] Circumcision. Circumcision was not the cause, but the sign of his justification. Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justica­tion.

Ans. Though animadversions might be made on these words, yet if any will put them into form, I shall grant the conclusion, when I say the Sacrament, as an Appendix to the Word, may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith, I am far from saying it is any cause of justification; I look on faith no otherwise, then as an instru­ment in the work, and the Sacrament as an help, and not the prin­cipal to the work of faith.

Sixthly, There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer.

Seventhly, That Ordinance unto which none may come with­out a wedding garment, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sup­per of the Lord, the marriage feast of the Kings Son, is an Ordi­nance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument.

Ans. 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tendernesse. But in this Argument here is much bold­nesse, to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast. 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it, that this feast is the frui­tion of Christ in his Kingdom, as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper, Luk. 14.15. And when one of them that sate at meat with him, heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Now those that pretend a forwardnesse towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it, (according to the scope of the Para­ble) shall be cast out from it. This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances, and yet remaine in their sins, shall come to heaven; But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance, then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word; The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feast, as the Lords Supper.

Eighthly, That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per is not appointed to work faith; Ergo. The Assumption is proved, Rom. 10.14. Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the Word of God; then not by seeing; if by the Word, then not by the Sacrament.

Ans. If faith comes by hearing, will it therefore follow that hearing can receive no help from, but must exclude seeing? [Page 220] Did the Bereans when they had heard the Apostles, yet nothing towards faith by their search of the Scriptures? Act. 17.11.12. or did they not make use of their eyes in the search that they made? When Christ had Preached to the Jewes not yet in the faith, and commended to them the search of the Scriptures, Joh. 5.39. can we think that this search could be no step in their way of believing? Why were miracles wrought, if they were of no use to the work of faith f What comment shall we make on those words, Joh. 2.23. Many believed in his Name when they saw the miracles that were done? If the Word do work faith, it will by no means follow, but that it may take in assistance by miracles, and Sacraments, by signes extraordinary and ordinary. That consequence, if by the Word, then not by the Sacrament, will ne­ver hold, till the VVord and Sacrament are proved to be oppo­site, and not subordinate.

Ninthly, That Ordinance, which hath neither the promise of the grace of conversion annext unto it, or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath no such promise of the grace of conversion, neither is there such an example: Ergo.

Answ. For Examples, though we could give instances of men being converted by receiving of the Lords Supper, yet it would still be denyed to have any possible influence towards conver­sion; as the last Argument is an evident witnesse. We bring Examples of men that have been brought to the faith by seeing, and yet it is still denyed that fight can be any help towards it. And though we could bring a promise of such grace annext, yet we should have little hopes to be heard or heeded, seeing we can bring a Promise of blessednesse to reading, which is by sight, as to hearing, Rev. 3. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy. 2. We have as many examples of mens conversion by the Sacrament, as we have of their recei­ving strength and nourishment: If one may be asserted without an example, then then other likewise. 3. We have no particular precedents by name (except at first institution) of any that were Communicants, and therefore we cannot expect examples of conversion, or receiving of strength by communicating. 4. The examples of conversion by the Word perhaps well examined, would prove short of such conversion as here is intended. The conversion in Gospel narratives is to a Christian profession. A [Page 221] man may evince calling thence, but not elctdion, and this is the work of the Word without the Sacrament, seeing it must precede the receiving of the Sacrament.

As to that of no promise made to it, 1. When the adversary shall bring a promise made to the Sacrament for Spiritual strength, it will happily be found of an equal force to the giving of a new life. 2. Though we have no promise explicite, and expresse; yet we have promises implicite and virtual. Every promise made to the Word is made to the Sacrament; The Sacrament being not opposite, but subordinate to it, an appendant that receives strength from it.

Tenthly, That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unwor­thy person to partake, is not a converting Ordinance. But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy per­son to partake: Ergo. The Minor is proved, 1 Cor. 11.27.

Answ. This Argument well followed will take off every Or­dinance from that honour of conversion, as well as this of the Lords Supper: seeing many Texts may be produced, equally calling for qualifications for them as for this, equally shewing the danger of unworthy addresses. As to this for hearing the Word, see 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evill speakings, as new-burn babes desire the sincere milk, of the Word, that ye may grow there­by. Jam. 1.21. Wherefore lay apart all filthinesse and superfluity of naughtinesse, and receive with meeknesse the engraffed Word, which is able to save your soules. Is not the Word a favour of death unto death to such? 2 Cor. 2.14, 15, 16. Shall i. not be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon then for them? Matth. 11.24. For prayer to God, see James 1.6, 7. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth is like a wave of the Sea, driven with the wind, and tossed; for let not that man think:; he shall receive any thing of the Lord, 1 Tim. 2.8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting: Good will never be had by such mens prayers. Esay 1.15. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you when ye make many prayers, I will not hear, your hands are full of blood. Zach. 7.13. Therefore it is come to passe, that he cryed, and they would not hear: so they cryed, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of Hosts. Shall we now say, that neither Word, nor prayer is a converting Ordinance? But perhaps it [Page 222] will be said, Men unworthy must hear, must pray to be made wor­thy, must come in unconversion to be converted. But they must bring worthinesse hither, or else this can have no hand in making worthy they must bring conversion, or else this cannot convert. This is a begging of the question. And as to prayer, there is no more ground, or colour to make it a converting Ordinance, then the Supper; we must pray in faith, before we can pray, with ac­ceptance of our persons, and so must the Word be mixt with faith when we hear it, Heb. 4.2.

Eleventhly, That Ordinance which is eucharisticall and con­solatory, supposeth such that partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given, and are such as are fit to be comforted: But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance eucharisticall and consolatory: Ergo.

Answ. And might not the Assumption. as well have been, That the Word and Prayer are Ordinances eucharistical, and con­solatory? I hope none will deny the Gospel (our good tydings) to be eucharistical, and consolatory; nor yet thanksgiving which is a branch of prayer. And then in case the Proposition be of universal truth, both Word, Prayer, and Lords Supper, are excluded from any power of conversion; The Proposition then must be understood with limit, and restriction; That Or­dinance, which in whole and in part is eucharistical and conso­latory, can have no hand in conversion, and then (though per­haps exception might be taken at it) it had colour in it: But then the Assumption, That this Ordinance is in whole and in part eucharisticall and consolatory, must be denyed. It is for humbling, heart-breaking, as it is comforting: There we shew forth Christs death, and see him broken for sin; and it is no matter of consolation, but humiliation and horrour to see our soules un­der that guilt that brought upon Christ a 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. [Page 223] 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 [Page 224] of Saints, is intended onely for such as are Saints, and not for unconverted sinners: But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints, and those that are members of the same body of Christ. The assumption proved, 1 Cor. 1016, 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1.2.

Answ. Saint, is either such that are so by calling and separa­tion for God, or else by qualifications and regeneration from God. In the former sense, unconverted sinners, prosessing the Gospel, are Saints: as of old they were of the people of God, and called by his Name: Saint is a New Testament-word, taking in all of a Christian profession, and outward Covenant-interest, and then the Proposition is to be denyed; Saint being taken in the latter sense, the assumption is false. This Lords Supper is a priviledge of the Church as visible, dispensed by visible officers, not as invisible, as those very Texts quoted do manifest.

Fourteenthly, If Baptisme it self (at least when administred to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance, far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordi­nance: But Baptisme it self (at least when ministred to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance: Ergo.

Answ. This Argument seemeth to suppose an opinion of re­generation or conversion, by the very work done in Baptisme, and the Lords Supper; which seeing I do not own, but in either of both disclaim, I need to give no further answer.

Fifteenthly, If the Baptisme even of those that are at age must necessarily precede the receiving of the Lords Supper, then the Lords Supper is not a converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But Baptisme even of those that are of age must necessarily precede the Lords Supper: Ergo.

Answ. I see no necessity of this consequence, unlesse I should believe that all that are baptized, are ipso facto regenerate; and that not with an initial regeneration (of which some speak) that may be lost, but the immortal seed of the Spirit that abides for ever; But being not (as I am not) of that faith, I suppose a baptized man may be (to use Pareus his phrase) Chri­stianus non regeneratus, sed regenerandus, a Christian not regene­rate, but to be regenerate: and so regeneration may, as ordi­narily it doth, not precede, but follow Baptisme.

Sixteenthly, There is an Argument drawn from the Parable [Page 225] 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 (whatsoever interest they may claim, or on their behalf be claimed) are justly debarred from it, and in present denyed admission to it. And on the contrary, All that are in a pre­sent aptitude, and capacity to improve it for spiritual advantages are regularly to be received and by no means to be denyed. This is plain, it must be administred to the Churches advantage, and edification, unto every members possible advantage; They that are in an utter incapacity to receive benefit, are in all reason to [Page 226] be denyed it, and those of capacity to be received to it. Some would have those debarred (or at least to debar themselves) that hopefully may profit; and we may not plead for their admission, that are, in the judgment of all reason, in an incapacity of profi­ting. Those that stand in this present incapacity, are of two sorts; 1. Such that through inabilities cannot make any im­provement of it. 2. Such that resolvedly, and obstinately will not.

Those that through inability cannot, are of four sorts.

First, Those that by reason of minority and non-age are not yet ripe for the use of reason, as Infants, and young­lings.

Secondly, Those that by providence are denyed it, as natural idiots.

Thirdly, Those that are berest of it, as distracted persons, aged persons grown children.

Fourthly, Those that by their grosse neglect in spiritual things, never made improvement of it.

First, Infants, These the Church, as well Popish, as reformed by an universall received custome denies to admit; As the Disciples sometimes rebuked those that brought infants to Christ to re­ceive a blessing: so the Church now provides, that none shall bring them to partake of this Sacrament. And though the Dis­ciples suffered a check from our Saviours mouth in the one. In­fants having title to, and being in a capacity to receive bene­fit by that Church-priviledg, as being Church-member: yet we believe the Church is free from reproof in the other, upon the ground laid down before, viz. their incapacity to improve it to their spiritual benefit. It is true that the practice in the Church for at least some Churches) anciently was otherwise: as those know, that are verst in antiquity; several quotations out of Dionysius Areo pagita, Cyprian, Austin, the Councell of Tolet, may be seen in Suarez, disput. 62. quaest. 79. Art. 8. sect. 4. Though according to Thomas Aquinas Dionysius his words make not for it, as may be seen, part. 3. quaest. 80. Art. 9. This custome Maldonate in Joh. 6.53. saith continued in the Church, 600. years, but he onely saith it; and Suarez in the place before quoted saies, it was never received of the whole Church, and perhaps (saith he) the practice was not Common, seeing there is no more mention of it among the Ancient; and quotes the opi­nion [Page 227] of some, that day, The Fathers never observed this custome, but onely tolerated it, because they could not resist the multitude. And one that speaks enough in favour of it, findes the practice of it in Africk, and Europe, but can bring no testimony out of Asia for it; onely he saies, that he does not read, that the custome was contrary in any part of Asia. The Schooles have disputed in­fants capacity of it; Thomas Aquinas, in the place quoted, is against it, together with many others, whose names Suarez men­tions. Suarez himself is for the affirmative, that infants are in capacity of it, as that which (he saith) is farre the more proba­ble, and hath most reason and authority for it. And in the con­clusion hath much ado to excuse the Church of Rome for the neg­lect of it, as Jansenius hath for their Communion onely in one kind, Harmon. Evang. cap. 131. when the practice of all antiqui­ty he confesses was otherwise; and Bellarmine for their eating on fast daies before the evenning against all Scripture precedent, Bellar, de bon. oper. lib. 2. cap. 2. But the Church of Rome her self hath reformed this, and hath not put our Reformers to the trouble of it, though a man might wonder what moved them to it, giving so much to this Sacrament as they do, to conferre grace by the work done, and to fortifie the foul against Satan. But it is plain, that the high reverence they gave to their tran­substantiated elements, moved them to it, lest any thing unwor­thy of them should befal them; upon the same account that they deny their cup to their laity, they deny the bread to those that are in minority, see Jansenius ut supra: an eminent Writer of the Protestants appears much in favour of this practice, not up­on the reasons that moved those Fathers, (which was a supposed necessity of it grounded on those words of Christ, Joh. 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, understanding it of Sacramentall eating at the Lords Table) but on other grounds, 1. Those that are parta­kers of the thing signified, are not to be denied the sign. 2. In­fants are of the Church, they serve to make up that body, and Christ the Saviour of the body. 3. Christ himself saith. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdome of heaven. And from each of these he drawes up formal Arguments for infants admittance. And he supposeth that that text which is brought as a barre to hold them back, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [Page 228] that bread, and drink of that cup, may be easily answered, that it is to be understood of those onely that are in danger to eat and drink unworthily, and so to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, of which (saith he) there is no fear of infants. These Arguments undoubtedly are of strength to conclude their fun­damental right and title, as to baptisme, so to the Lords Supper, but they are two weak, to give them actual admission; They conclude their jus ad rem, but not their jus in re; They have upon these grounds a first right, but they must wait a further growth till they have a second. Baptisme gives right in the face of the Church to all Christian priviledges, and this is a Christian priviledg; so also the hearing of the Mysteries of Faith, the highest of Mysteries, to be taken into debate of doubts, of the highest na­ture are Christian-priviledges, yet as every baptized person hath not forthwith these high Mysteries communicated to him, nor yet is admitted to such high debates, as Christ was at the age of 12. years which is recorded as a miracle: so neither are they there­fore to be actually admitted to the Lords Table. And if that text of preexamination may be avoided, yet sufficient may be said for a barre to their admission. They cannot do that which is outwardly to be done at this Table, they cannot take and eat; see Whitaker, pag. 373. And in case the bread be put into their mouthes, it is more like to be cast out then eaten. They cannot answer the end of the Sacrament, to do it in remembrance of Christ, or to shew forth the Lords death in that ordinance; And so no possible benefit can be conceived in reason to come to them by it. In baptisme it is otherwise, there is nothing requi­red to be done by him that is baptized. It is sufficient to be passive, there is advantage by it, the person (whether infant or of age) is enrolled into the society of the people of God, is a mem­ber of the body of Christ, visible, mystical: and upon that ac­count interessed in the prayers and blessings of the Church: is enrighted, and upon that account, as growth makes fit, to be admitted to other priviledges, and assoon as of any discre­tion to discern, they know to what societie they do belong, and accordingly to applie themselves; And therefore infants have a bare fundamental right to the Lords Table, but actual admission to Baptisme. And where as it is objected, that infants had not onely right to the Passeover, but were also actually admitted to it, they had not onely their jus ad rem, but their jus in re, and [Page 229] consequently infants have like right to the Lords Supper: To this I answer, 1. That infants properly so called, did not eat of the Passeover, being by reason of infancie in an incapacitie, for such solid meats, as Rivet observes. 2. It no where appears, that infants did partake otherwise then as they were involved in the houshould. There is no Ordinance requiring infants to repair to the place that God chose for it; It is for those males (saith Ainsworth) which were free-men perfect, males in health, able to go up to the place of publick worship: quoting withal the Rab­bies Authority, That all men are bound, except the deaf and the dumbe, and the fool, and the little child, and the blind, and the lame, and the uncircumcised, and the old men, and the sick and the tender, and the weak that were not able to go on their feet. When we read of the pains that they took to go up to Jerusalem on these occasions, through the valley of Baca, Psal. 84.6. we hear nothing of their pains to carry along their infants, which must have been their care if by Divine appointment the Paschal Lamb as a Sacrament had been ordained for infants. 3. The Passe­over as Manna, and the Rock is considered two waies. 1. As common food, and means of present livelihood and subsistance. 2. As visible pledges of Gods abode among them, and protect [...] ­on of them. As common food, and means of present livelihood, infants did eate of the Manna, and drink of the water of the Rock, and so also did their cattel, Num. 20.8. and young ones (as soon as able to digest it) of the Passeover, when they were present with the rest, of the houshold: But as visible pledges of Gods abode among them, and protection of them, or remembrance of their present deliverances; onely professed believers, and neither infants, nor bruit creatures could make use of it, and in this sense onely it was a Sacarment: so that we see infants title, and also their bar to this Ordinance.

For those that by Providence are denyed the use of reason,Natural Idi­ots. Distracted persons are uncapable as natural Idiots, their case is the same with infants, as also those that are best of it, as distracted persons, and those that by age, or disease are grown as Children: Thomas Aquinas in the place quoted distinguishes of distracted persons, some wholly want the use of reason, and some have onely a weak use of it; as some see not at all, and some have a weak sight. The latter in some case be­ing restored in part to the use of reason, he would not have to be denyed; In this case prudence must judge, in case before this [Page 230] stroke, by the hand of God upon them, they were judged meet for this Ordinance, as they were for other civil employments, and now upon recovery or upon their intervals (as many times it happens) are able in some good measure to manage their busi­nesse; as way is given to them in one, so it is not to be denyed them in the other.

For those that never made improvement of their reason in spi­rituals, but being men of years, are still children in knowledge, they have their title or fundamental right,Grosly igno­rant ones a rein an incapa­city. (as I said before of in­fants) but they are no more meet for this Ordinance then infants; such I mean, that for the time might be teachers, and yet have need to be taught which be the first principles of the Oracles of God. If I should demand, why boyes and girles as soon as they can eat of the Bread, and drink of the Cup, be not received to this Supper; but all in non-age by general consent exempted, and therefore none offer themselves? No reason (to me imaginable) can be given, but their inability of improvement of it to their Spiritual advantage; years of discretion are expected, and then they are to be admitted: and this is generally acknowledged to stand with reason, And what reason is there that without any discretion they should be admitted at the usual year of discretion? At one and twenty years men arrive at the age to enter upon their possessions: yet when it may appear that at these years they have not abilities to manage it for their benefit, the Law hath provided that they shall not be intrusted with it. The igno­rance before mentioned in the several kinds was ignorantia purae negationis, They understand not, because God hath denyed them understanding: It is their defect or affliction, but it is not their sin; this that we now mention, is ignorantia pravae dispositionis, a withstanding of the light that is tendered and offered. All of these are in an equal incapacitie of benefit by the Sacrament: but these last in a sinful incapacitie. And when the former, whose ignorance is not their sin, are confest to be uncapable, I do not see how sin can put the latter into a better capacitie of it. When a Covenant was entered in Israel, Nehem. 9.10. all sorts and sexes having knowledge and understanding entered, Nehem. 10.28. If any had sworn to the articles, and had not at all un­derstood them, such an oath would have done no service; there­fore it was provided, that onely they that understood, subscribed, and sealed. They that receive this seal, and consequently put to [Page 231] their seal, when they know not the articles of it, or any use of these Sacramental signes, they see not themselves at all obliged, when the Covenant of Israel was to be sealed understandingly, the Covenant of the Gospel is not to be sealed ignorantly: A book in the hand of the unlearned that cannot read, is of as much use as this Sacrament to him that doth not understand. It is to these, as the painted frontispices that we see in many books, without any key to open them; they be full of mysteries, but the ignorant beholder sees nothing but an outside. He may gaze an hour together, and be as wise as before. Such an one sees bread and wine, but what they mean, he knowes nothing, nor any proportion between sign and thing signified, or what the Ministers tender, or his own receiving speaks to him. These may (perhaps) have some blind devotion towards this Sacrament (which Popish Schoolmen judge sufficient, if not obstructed with mortal sin) by reason of the Churches custome to receive it, and some high opinion of some hidden and unknown vertue in it, but it is not the least account that they can give of any ne­cessity of it, as a reason of their devotion towards it, being scarce able to produce any command for it, not knowing either the author, time, or end of the institution of it; much lesse are they able to understand any need their soules have of it. When the Corinthians came unworthily to the Lords Table, all is laid upon this, that they discerned not the Lords body: I do not think that this is alone the ignorant mans sin: All are in their measure guilty that do not considerately observe the glory of that Ordinance, and of Christ in it. A man of rude behaviour, in a great Personages presence, is told that he knowes not where he is, or to whom he speaks, when he well enough knowes, and needs no information; but doth not consider his distance: but I say there is a necessity of that guilt in all that are ignorant. All do not consider as they ought, that know; but none that does not know, can consider. This is to be done in remembrance of Christ, which contains in it a calling into our thoughts all the work of his sacrificing himself for sin, which is never done by the man that knowes not sin, that knowes not the Law, which is transgrest by sin; that neither knowes the nature of sin, nor the guilt of attending it; that hath not any possible experimental sense of the danger of it, and that re­maines ignorant of Christ that redeems from it; being able to [Page 232] give no account why the blood of Christ, rather then the blood of any other should take away sin; or how this death hath any such satisfying temitting vertue, as to answer the Justice of God, or merit his Grace; neither knowing the Person of Christ in his humanity, or Deity, nor able to give account which Per­son in the Trinity took our nature, and gave himself a ransom: perhaps they will say that Christ was God, and Man; and as ready to say that the Father, the Holy Ghost, were God and man in like sort: knowing as little or lesse of his offices, what he does as a King, or what he does as a Priest, or what he does as a Prophet, for his Church. If you look on the Sacrament as a spiritual medicine, they never knew their soules sicknesse, nor ever understood any healing vertue in it. If you look upon it as spiritual food, for the strengthning of graces, they never knew what hunger was, or any strengthning vertue that here can be found: look upon it as a spiritual cordial, and they never had sense of sin to any swooning fit, nor yet knew any restaurative vertue to be found in it: look upon it as an heart-breaking, soul-melting Ordinance, as the Law never discovered to them the danger of sin, so they see nothing here held out for the aggra­vation of sin. They see what in course the Minister does, and what the Communicants do; But any end, or reason why he, or they do it, they know nothing. If the Word which is added to the element to make up a Sacrament, were a bare Word of con­secration, to be muttered over the elements for their change, so that the bare participation would serve turn, (as Physick works without any regard of the Patients knowledge or ignorance) it were somewhat. But the Sacrament (as hath been said) is a seal appendant to the Covenant of God, and there is no improve­ment of it, other wise then as the Covenant and the Promise is improved, (which must be known before it can be believed and applyed) ignorance is a necessary barre to all benefit by it. Though I account it the weakest thing in the world, to make ig­norance of this nature in the parent, any just ground of non-admission of the Infant to Baptisme. There is no necessity to conclude, that the child (who is born, and to be bred, in a vally of visions, and interested in Ordinances able to save the soul,) should unavoidably be ever held with Parents in blindnesse; yet I can Judge no otherwise, but that it is a just barre to the parents, when it is enough for the Infant to be passive, in his first admis­sion, [Page 233] the parent must act and make use of his light, for further growth and confirmation. Some (I know) have said, Who can tell but the person deemed to be ignorant, and heretofore such indeed, yet making addresse to the Lords Table, and there hearing that my­stery laid open, and the use of those elements unfolded, and cleared, may in that very time receive competent instruction, and be put in­to a capacity for this Ordinance knowingly to partake of it. Whe­ther or no there be any absolute possibility in this, I will not de­termine. I am sure there is little moral probability, or possi­bility, that a man that hath lived under Ordinances 20, 30, 40, 50, perhaps more years, and all of this time hath been confes­sedly ignorant; and upon that account, in an incapacity of this Sacrament for his profit: that now at this time, in a few minutes he should grow such a proficient as to fit himself for it; And in case any such thing, if not by miracle, yet, to wonder and amazement, should happen, it will be little losse for such a one, to delay his actual participation for once, that he may give an account of his profiting, and upon a further progresse in know­ledge have admittance the next time with greater satisfaction. If any do desire to know the minimum quod sic, where is the lowest pitch of knowledge, that will put a man into a capacity of im­provement of this Ordinance to his advantage? this of necessi­ty must be lest to ministerial Christian prudence, in which there must be much of care and tendernesse, not to make blear-eyed­nesse, blindnesse, nor a dim-light midnight darknesse, where the wretchednesse of sin is known, and Christ (who is our re­medy) so understood, that account can be given of his person, and that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved, and the Sacrament so understood, as that Christ crucified is there held but under those elements, and tendred to believers: I durst not passe a vote to have such a one excluded let this be got out of them, in language of any kind, such that we may discern that they know it, though they can scarce expresse it: in which also many circumstances should be prudently weighed, as the natural ingeny of the party, if ripe in other things, it is an evidence of affected ignorance, to be havy and dull here: The means that they have enjoyed for help in their knowledge, the longer at School, the better the Master, the more inexcusa­ble the truant: The growth of years that he had upon him, when he first manifested a care to know, age is unteachable in [Page 234] comparison, of youth, a low measure of light sometimes drawes on more strength of affections; But where sin is not seen, nor Christ known, and consequently the soul is so in the dark, that no use can be made of this ordinance, for spiritual advantage, the person may justly be judged to be in a present incapacity. In which for the most part, it will be more safe to delay, then de­ny to perswade the party to forbear a little time: and in the mean while to commend meanes of further growth, by all means to endeavour his help, that he may be fairly drawn on, and not driven back from this Supper.

In the next place, those that resolvedly will not make im­provement of this Supper, but wilfully put a barre to their benefiting by it, are to be taken into consideration. And his is done,

1. By error entertained in their judgments, by a taint in the faith that they professe.

2. By viciousnesse of life, or a profligate course.

Now, either of both these (to speake a few words of them joynt­ly) are either such that are so in private and secret, or else openly and professedly. Those that are indeed such, though in way most secret, in the present posture as they stand, are in an equall incapacitie to make inprovement of this ordinance, with him that most openly proclaimes it; Judas was unfit when he did communicate, as well as Barabbas, if he had communicated. But of these the dispensers of this ordinance can take no cogni­zance,Men wicked in secret cannot be debarred from the Sa­crament. they cannot follow men into their chambers, and closets much lesse can they make a scrutiny into their hearts. Here may be a just barre, when yet none may justly debarre them. Here there is almost an universal agreement; those that pretend to the the greatest care in their admissions, not dissenting, though it give no small check to that glorious homogeneity of which they speak in the Churches of Christ, and utterly overthrowes the definition gi­ven by many of the Church visible. He that pleases may read Sua­rez in tertiam partem Thomae; disput. 67. Sect. 4. putting this to the question, whether it be lawfull to deny the Sacrament to a secret sin­ner desiring it publiquely, and by many reasons determining it in the negative, as also in the following Section, resolving the question: who is to be accounted a publick, and who a pri­vate offender? And what is spoken by him of sin, may be applied to error.

Those that are openly such,Excommuni­cate persons are to be judged to be in a present inaptitude for the Sacra­ment. by sufficient detection of their er­ror or crime, are either such that are under the Churches censure, and stand excommunicate, or else they are such that the Church doth tolerate, whether because that censure is not in use in the place, or otherwise. Those that are under the Churches censure upon account of that sentence, must be deemed in an incapacity, when the sentence, whether for error or for scandal, hath had its due work for reformation (as upon the incestuous Corinthian) it must be supposed that the Church will again restore them to their freedome: in the mean space, whether the Church hath pro­ceeded right or wrong, be over rigid or just in her censure, it is not in any one single Minister to determine. There is a famous story related by Mr. Hooker. in His Ecclesiastical Policy, of one Bertelius, that was excommunicated by the sentence of the El­dership of Geneva, and had procured from the Senate of the place, by common consent, under their seal, a relaxation, further decree­ing (with strange absurdity, as the Author censures it) that it should belong to the same Senate, to give final judgement in mat­ter of excommunication, and to absolve whom it pleased them. Calvin hearing the report of it, said, Before this decree shall take place, either my blood or banishment shall sign it. And two daies before the Sacrament, kill me if ever this hand shall reach forth that which is holy, to them whom the Church hath judged despisers. Men under publique sentence must be deemed to be such, as by sentence they are adjudged. But for others that stand free from censure, their present aptitude for this ordinance is to be considered.

First,Error in judg­ment, and wickednesse in life, equally indispose to this ordinance. As to them that are in error of judgement some (other­wise sufficiently austere) would have all indulgence shewen, and men of all judgements admitted, enlarging liberty of conscience so farre, that it should exempt men (respective to their judge­ments) from any sentence secular, or Ecclesiastical; not conside­ring that as we find one ordered tO be sentenced for lewdnesse, 1 Cor. 5. so also others under the same sentence for errors, 1 1 Tim. 1.20. 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. And concealing (if it may be) that the same words that are produced by them, for cleansing the Churches of wicked persons, 1. Cor. 5.6. A little leaven leaven­eth the whole lump, is by the Apostle applyed in so many words, to set out the danger of error, Gal. 6.9. upon which account, doubtesse it is that some that professe so much zeal against loose­nesse [Page 236] of life and plead for so much indulgence, in difference in judgement, ever quote those words out of Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians, concealing that text to the Galatians, that it may not appear that there is a like danger in either; But whilest some are over indulgent, others must not be too severe, but carry an equal hand in regard both of errors in judgement and in pra­ctice.

As for errors in judgement, they may be either immediately against these Sacramental ordinances or against Christ the summe and substance of them, and all Gospel promises in Christ. Errors of the first kind are, 1. Theirs that are above ordinan­ces, either upon pretence of the Spirits immediate work, without any agent or instrument on earth, so that there needs not, ei­ther Word, prayer, or Sacraments, the opinion of Swenkfeldius; or else because all is grown corrupt, since the Apostles times, that a company cannot be found with whom they may communicate, as Musculus speakes of one in his Common places, that had not received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper of twelve eares, be­cause he could find no pure Church in which to observe it. I fear shortly we shall have many such; But we need not here trouble our selves with these, seeing of their own accord, they keep at a distance from us. 2. Theirs that look upon the Sacraments as matters either antiquate and obsolete, as belong­ing to the Churches infancy, in which it was indulged, those car­nal observances, too low (as they think) for grown Christians; or else as things of meer indifferency, which may be used or neglected; such are unmeet to be received. If any such be detected, seeing though the substance of religion be not in the Sacrament so much as in the Covenant, yet a man of so low an opinion of this ordinance, of necessity debarres himself of any benefit of it. a diffident opinion of a medicine, or conceit against it, is said to hinder the working; I am sure it will obstruct the working of the Sacraments, which have no innate physical vertue, nor any other efficacy further then our understanding, and faith makes improvement. For errors against Christ, the summe and sub­stance of the Sacraments, as every error is some way against him who is the foundation and carries on the whole work of our sal­vation) that which I have delivered, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 232. (where I made it my businesse, to give rules concerning separation, when we are to stay with a Church, and [Page 237] when to leave it) may here be taken into consideration, weigh­ing both the kind and degree of these errors, and the place that they have got in the affections and resolutions. Those errors that necessitate us to leave a Church, when it is in the whole face of it tainted and polluted; may justly give occasion to deny a member accesse, in case he tender himself to this ordinance. These (as hath been said) are either such that render Christ in an uncapacity to be our Mediator and Saviour, or such that are inconsistent in whole or in part with his Mediatourship; of the former kind are those that are against his person. 1. Those that impugne the Godhead of Christ, such that though they give him the glory to be above Angels, yet will have him to be no more then a creature, a God in title and place, as are Magistrates, not in nature or power; an opinion that involves the Aposto­lique Church, and all Churches in succession, in Idolatry; giving the honour of God, the worship due to God, unto him who by nature is no God; a doctrine that will make Christ an impotent, and not an omnipotent head, too weak for his work, to governe the world, to bring under his enemies. 2. Those that deny his manhood, as having not taken our flesh, and so no suitable head, but a phantastique, or seeming body. Those that are against his Mediatorship, are either such that obscure, or some way eclipse it, (as every error doth that is any way considerable) or such that rase, if not utterly overthrow it, in some of the ne­cessary parts of it, his Kingdome, Priesthood or Prophetical of­fice. These are overthrown either directly, in termes of full opposition, or else by consequence; and this either is immediate and evident, (the truth being confest, they cannot be denyed) or else the consequence more remote, and not so easily discerned. These things being premised, we must bring it home to our pur­pose. 1. Where fundamental truths are not onely questioned, doubted, and disputed; but abjured and denyed, errors directly,Errors direct­ly against the foundation, or by clear conse­quence, oppo­sing funda­mental truths, tender the pe [...] son uncapable of benefit by the Sacrament. or by immediate cleer consequence introduced, so that the funda­mental truth cannot be known, but the error must be seen; Here is such a flaw in the Covenant, that no improvement can be made of the seal, to allude to that of the Psalmist, Foundations are destroyed and what can the stewards of the mysteries of God do? Such a soul hath framed to it self, such a Christ as the Gospel never held out for his salvation: These are such (of whom the Apostle speaks, Col. 2.19.) that hold not the head, from which [Page 238] all the body by joynts and hands, having nourishment ministred and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God: and how can they then find any spiritual nourishment? When they thus with­draw from Christ, they are justly denyed to sit at his Table. But when the error is of an inferiour nature, as neither rendring Christ in an incapacity to be a Saviour, nor yet wholly inconsi­stent with the work of his Mediatorship; or at least, not such directly, but only by way of consequence; and that not immediate and evident, but more obscure, and remote: so that it may justly be hoped, that in case the consequence were seen, the conclusion that they draw would be best, rather then the principle of truth denyed, the case is then otherwise. As we might live in such a Church, in case doctrine of that kind were received and taught; so we may not refuse such a member, making his farther con­viction, our businesse; where ignorance may stand with grace, there errour is not wholly inconsistent with it: And where there is any fair possibility that Christ may be, there this Ordi­nance is not to be denyed. And in case the opinion entertained, and contended for, be yet more soul, so that we have just cause, as the Apostle of the Galatians, to say, that their doctrine is inconsistent with grace; yet being not (as we can discern) fixedly settled, and resolutely received, and concluded upon; but with hesitancy and wavering, their faith rather staggered then de­stroyed; these should not hastily be refused; But as the Apostle gives counsel respective (as I take it) to private converse, After once or twice admonition reject: so let it be here, make essay to regain a brother rather then lose him. It cannot be conceived that the Apostle when he wrote his Epistle to the Churches of Galatia, would upon the account of their error how dangerous soever, have discontinued this ordinance as long as he saw any hopes of their reestablishment; though they were in eminent dan­ger to be dischurched, yet he would continue Church-ordinances.

Men of a re­solved profli­gate course of life, are unca­pable of bene­fit by the Sa­crament.As for those that put a bar to their benefiting by the Sacrament by their vicious life or profligate course, most mens verdict is soonest of all other against them, with the Poets Peribomius, Morbum gressu incessuque fatentur, they have their faults written in their foreheads. And certain it is, that those men that are in their sin, and resolved for sin, in present can receive no benefit by the Sacrament.

First, They that look upon Christ to receive benefit in the Sa­crament [Page 239] look upon him pierced by their sins, and that withall sorrow and grief of spirit: The greatest grief in Family or Com­mon-Wealth is borrowed to expresse it, Zach. 12.10, 11. They shall mourne for him, as one mourneth for his onely son, and shall be in bitternesse for him, as one that in bitternesse for his first-born: In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Had adrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. VVhich was the mourning upon occasion of Josiah's slaughter, 2 Chron. 35.24. But these now look upon him suffering for sins with all pleasurable delights and content in sin: they see him under all this burden for our trangression; and in the mean time, take de­light to add to the weight of it, and so stand at the greatest di­stance from acceptance.

Secondly, They that worthily shew forth his dearh, and ac­ceptably keep a memorial of it, will not without horrour and trembling, have a thought of drawing upon themselves the guilt of it; we would hot bear the guilt of the blood of the meanest peasant in the world, not of such a one that Job would not set with the dogs of his flock, Job 30.1. Such may with David, Deliver me from blood guiltinesse: How much lesse would we bear the guilt of the Prince of life? To have this in our thoughts, that he must be our Judge, we have been his murderers, may indeed set pricks in the heart, as it did in Peters hearers, Act. 2.37. These men of sin that come to the Sacrament in sin, wilfully, furiously draw this guilt upon themselves, and become accessary to it: He that sleightly passeth over the death of an innocent person, making a small matter of it, either he makes the innocent, to be indeed no­cent, one that hath justly deserved to be slain, who being slain de­serves so little regard; or at least he makes himself nocent, breeding ajust suspition that he was, or would have been consenting to that mans death, saith M. Pemble, pag. 33. These in the sleighest way passe it over, not with the least evidence of zeal or indignation against it.

Thirdly, They that judge Christ fit to be numbered with ma­lefactors and transgressors, discern not his body, do not judge of him according to his glory and excellency, and so cannot with comfort come to the Lords Table: But these judge him fit to be numbered with transgressors, when in their foulest sins they dare joyn themselves to him, and have communion with him: This is their case that come in sin to the Lords Table.

Here some may object, that according to the principles laid down, the Ordinance may be an hopeful meanes to take such off from their wayes of sin; having previous light to see what they do hear they may see high aggravation of their wickednesse; An heart-breaking, a soul-melting Ordinance being set before them, there may be all hopes that it may be efficacious unto soul-melting and heart-breaking; here they may see what their ugly sins have done, and who it is that their sins have pierced and crucified, whereof a Publican or Harlot may easilier be convin­ced then a Pharisee or justiciary. And Christ being here set out both bearing sin, and a sacrifice for sin, the sight of their just de­merit in his suffering, and hopes of freedom from guile by his blood-shed; there may be expectation of conviction, and con­trition, and consequently somewhat at least done towards con­version: and upon this account some would have the worst of men admitted to the view, though not to participation in this Ordinance; Others taking advantage of this admission of them to the view of it, and knowing it to be a novel thing, that any should gaze, and not partake, they conclude they are to be admitted unto both. The further improvement of it by them seems at least some way hopeful, when to the ignorant and erroneous it is impossible.

That I may speak my whole thoughts to this thing, somewhat is necessary to be premised, both by way of concession and asser­tion. By way of concession it must be yeelded,

1. That there is more weight in this objection then personal­ly hath been acknowledged, which I see upon conference with many godly learned is more and more discerned. It is not so easie to evince all hopelesnesse of good in a bad mans receiving the Sacrament, as in a man that is grossely ignorant; no text so fully and clearly to any grounds to put a barre to men in sin, as to those that are in ignorance; neither doth the nature of the Sacrament so clearly evince it. 2. Arguments usually brought to conclude against their admission to this Ordinance that are in wayes of sin, and under no sentence of excommunication, seem to me scarce concluding. It were too long to name the Argu­ments, and point out the exceptions: Some of them also peri­lously ensnaring, and upon several accounts, 1. Their Argu­ments conclude equally against such mens, hearing, praying, and attendance upon any other Ordinance, as they do against their [Page 241] participation of the Lords Supper; the same Medium where­with they conclude against one, concludes against all, as hath been shewn. 2. These Arguments intended: onely against the scanda­lous to conclude a necessity of their exclusion equally, conclude against all that are not actually in grace, when yet the disputants themselves will not yeeld, that either actual grace or positive signes of such grace should be any rule in such proceedings, as to instance; some say that Ministers in holding out the Sacrament to wicked persons whom they have excommunicated in the Word, shewing that no unrighteous person shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, they absolve them in the Sacrament; and if this have any force in it, it must conclude in this manner; None may be ad­mitted but these that may be actually absolved, and while they assume that the wicked may not be actually absolved, others will alike assume, that no unregenerate man, how knowing civil and unblameable soever, may be absolved. And the same guilt that these in their reasonings conclude that Church-officers bring upon themselves in admission of the scandalous, they contract that admit of any ungenerate ones.

By way of assertion it must be delivered, 1.2. By way of as­sertion. That the funda­mental proper right unto, or interest in, this Ordinance is not questioned, Church members lay a just claime to Church Ordi­nances, visible members to visible Ordinances; If this be once denyed we are in inextricable snares. 2. Here can be no such prophanenesse in promiscuous administration of this Ordinance, as the putting of Gods seal to blank paper: There is no blank, but a name legibly written where there is a Covenant entered; and that there is a Covenant entered with such, as it cannot be denyed by any that will confesse that the Scripture should be umpeir; so it is yeelded by all of those that baptize the infants of such persons. The first right of parents that are such is taken for granted, when their children are thus received. 3. It is then an orderly edifying and prudential wa in administration that is here enquired after, and this admits of a greater latitude then Covenant, and no Covenant regenerate or, non-regenerate in which if an hairs breadth should misse there were a transgres­sion; as we discern the person to whom it is meet to give onely milk, and to whom to give strong meat, so we judgeof those that we admit onely to the Word and Prayer, and those that we admit to the Lords Table. And though I see not concluding [Page 242] strength in several Arguments produced, but suppose they are grounded on mistakes (which also apt to lead into danger, other­wise I had been silent) yet I cannot recede from that ancient re­ceived opinion of Fathers, Schoolmen, Protestants, whether of the Episcapal, Presbyterial, or Congragational judgement; that scandalous person is are justly dibarred from this Ordinance, see­ing any possible hopes of gaining good is very low if any which yet is all that can be pretended tor the expediency; and Argu­ments on the other hand for the inconvenience and danger, are many and weighty. These Sacramental signes are not barely teaching, but engaging signes; and not barely signes, but seals, in which by acception of these seales, we engage to God to make good his terms and propositions. The Minister of Christ there­fore hath little encouragement, and slender hope: to tender it to such, or to admit such to it, that are in a continual way of Covenant-breaking, and proclaime to all their resolutions in it. A continued dissolute course of life speaks no better then a full purpose, and setled resolution for sin; it can then little avail such a one to take anew these symboles and badges of a Chri­stian profession upon him, and put himself on an hypocritical profession of tht service of Christ, making discovery of such resolusion, it doth appear to be in vain to give this way and free­dom to him. Knights of the post, that have often forsworne themselves, are not by any prudent Judge permitted to sweare; and those that have so often desperately broken Covenant, and wilfully gone against all former engagements, and still palpably appearing that way, are as unfit to engagae; And the more clear­ly any that is produced as deponent appears to be such, with more full resolution any prudential Judge will except against it.

And whereas it may be objected, that such upon the grounds here laid may as well be admitted to the Lords Table, as to hear Sermons, joyn in Prayers, observe Fasts: They are engaging Ordinances whilest they are done by persons in Covenant, as is receiving of this Sacrament.

Answ. First, They are not certainly so highly and explicitely engaging; The very name Christian is an engaging tye indeed to Christian duties and wayes; To enjoy any further Christian pri­viledge is more; But to take these pledges on the tearms pro­posed, hath ever heen accounted the highest.

Secondly, Though the Sacrament serve as hath been said for [Page 243] aggravation of sin, yet as the Word is the alone means in the dis­covery of sin, so it hath infinitely the advantage in the aggravati­on of it. The Sacrament doth nothing at all in this work without the Word, and the Word does exceedingly much more then the Sacrament; and when it is clear, that the Word for so long hath wrought nothing for conviction, there is little hopes that the Sa­crament will work any thing to aggravation.

Thirdly, As the hope of good is either low or none at all, so the danger on the other hand is high and full of terrour, as we see it by the Apostle aggravated, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28. The unwor­thy receiving of the Word is indeed of danger, and a savour of death to death; But the hopes are fair by hearing to be brought to worthinesse. The danger of unworthy Communicants is far greater, and the hopes little, if any at all.

Fourthly, The scandal here taken is exceeding great, and though happily sometimes weak ones take more offence then is given, and are offended above reason, yet when there is so little of good to be hoped in that in which they are so scandalized, and so much danger in the offence, it is by no means to be neg­lected.

Fifthly, There is more fair hopes of good to be done them upon their denyal then upon admittance to this Ordinance; when they see their own unworthinesse observed, and those proceed­ings upon it, they may more seriously reflect upon their unwor­thinesse. When a Physician shall forbid some meats upon obser­vation of a patients disease, it is a way to make him more sensi­ble that he is in danger; so when the Minister of Christ upon ob­servation of mens wayes, shall deny this Ordinance, there may be hopes of an answerable work to bring the person to some more sad and serious reflections upon his own state and condi­tion. If any think that these arguments singly considered, not to be of that strength to evince a non-admission of men of open­ly sinfull courses to this Ordinance, I shall answer in the words of the Assembly of Divines, unto the reasons of the Dsslenting brethren against the instance of many Congragations in the Church of Ephesus: Arguments of necessity are to be answerable to the things they prove, which as well holds int hsi of expediency or in­expediency, to which I speak, as it doth in matter of fact, of which they speak; and so say they, Though the several particu­lars of this proof should be singly but probabilities, yet being joyned [Page 244] together make a sufficient proof, as many concurring likelihoods in Courts amount to a good evidence, and many lesser stars make up a Galaxia. They are with me at least so far prevailing, That I be­lieve that such are worthily excluded; and as they do not come without scandal, so they cannot come to their advantage. In case after a former way in sin, or sad fall to the scandal of the Church, upon admonition there appear, convictions, and serious promises, the case is otherwise; there is all cause then to take in such a one to this Ordinance, in which his sin appears in the highest aggravation, and a tender and offer is made, and the way held forth of pardon and forgivenesse. Many of the Ancients were hasty enough to give the Sacrament to men at the instant of their death, as a Viaticum to heaven, when it was all too late to make any right improvement of it: But we are in the mean space too slow, and over-rigid, in admission of professed penitents to it, as appeares in many examples. That of Serapion is notable mentioned by Eusebius, who had lived a great while in the Church, without blame, but at last fell in time of perso­cution; And often desiring to be received again by the Church, no man hearkened to him, till at last being sick, and ready to dye, he sent a boy suddenly to fetch a Priest, who was found sick by the messenger, that he could not come to him: But he gave the boy a little of the Sacrament, and bid him put it into the mans mouth; who when he had tasted of it, presently dyed. That was expected here from the Sacrament, which it wanted, viz. some hidden power to carry up the soul for heaven and glory; and in the mean space that was not seen for which it was instituted, A provocation to repentance, and corroboration, and strengthning of the soul in wayes of holinesse; when there was hopes of good, to accrew by it, it was denyed; and when all hopes were past, it was indulged. After-ages appeared more facile, but then profession of repentance was turned into a form of auricular confession; they might confesse and take penance, and be fit for the Sacrament; and sin as soon as it was over, and go again to confession; That formality of confession put the Sacrament as they thought into a posture of working, which sin unconfest did hinder. To deny penitents, where there is any fair and possible hopes, by reason of conviction wrought, is their sad discouragement; we see them lame, and weak, and we deny them a Crutch that is provided for them. And to receive obsti­nate [Page 245] ones, that without remorse carry it on in wickednesse, seems dangerously to strengthen them in their wayes; and not at all to help them out of their ungodly courses. From this that hath been spoken, a fair answer therefore may be given to the argu­ments before past by, concerning any power in this Ordinance for conversion. And first, for that from the, Directory where the ignorant, scandalous, and prophane that live in any sin, or of­fence against their conscience, are warned not to presume, to come nigh that holy Table, it is meant of those that purposely resolve to hold their sin, and doubtlesse that purpose standing, here is no comfort to be put into their hands. It is no other then that counsel of our Saviour, Matth. 5.23, 24. If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first he reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Sacraments will not be accepted from that hand, where malice is seated in the heart, and implacably continued; but it followes not but that where the soul is startled, and such resolutions for sin do not appear, this maybe a means further to awake; and provoke to a resolution against it. As to that of Communica­ting to Heathens, Pagans, enough hath been said before, It can neither be done with allowance, nor any possible benefit. And for Excommunicate persons, they are supposed to be in an obsti­nate way of wickednesse. The last is onely worthy of conside­ration. That Ordinance that is not communicable nor lawfull to be administred to any known impenitent sinner under that notion, but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins, is not a con­verting but a sealing Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not communicable nor lawfull to be administred to any known impenitent sinner, &c. Ergo. Here I might justly except against that opposition that is still put between converting, and sealing Ordinances; as though it must be taken for granted; that no sealing Ordinance could have any hand in, or towards con­version. Gods seal added to his promise, may by the blessing of God be serviceable here, as well as his oath, added for con­firmation; but this is grounded upon the mistake of the way of the Sacraments sealing, in which I have sufficiently expressed my self. For answer to the Argument it self, The major Pro­position is not true, unlesse it be understood with just limita­tion; Reproof is an Ordinance that may well be reckoned among [Page 246] those that work to conversion, being the way of life, Prov. 6.23. and called the reproof of life, Prov. 13.31. an excellent oyl, Psal. 141.5. and upon that account to be used towards a bro­ther in sin, Levit. 19.17. And yet prudence must be used in the application of it. Every man is not a meet subject to get good by it. There is no such warinesse explicitely required in the dispensing of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as there is in the application of reproofs; nor yet any so punctually pointed out not to communicate, as there is not to be reproved. The Wise­mans observation is, that He that reproveth a scorner, getteth to himself shame; and he that rebuketh a wicked man, getteth to himself a blot: Therefore he gives advice upon it, ver. 8. Re­prove, not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Every Ordinance therefore that is for conver­sion, is not meet to be applyed to every man in an unconverted condition: Rebukes set out the danger of sin, and the Lords Supper is for the aggravation of it, in holding forth the sad effects of it, yet neither of both meet to be applyed to all in sin. That charge of our Saviour is deliveted in an universal way, Cast not holy things to dogs, nor pearles before swine. The Proposition there included is general. Nothing that is holy, no­thing that is of the honour of a pearly, is to be cast to any dog or swine; whence we may assume; But there is no converting Or­dinance, but it is of the number of holy things: Ergo. No con­verting Ordinances are to be given to any that are dogs and swine, which way soever any think to extricate themselves, by putting limits to any term in the Proposition, they must neces­sarily be brought to yield, that all converting Ordinances are not promiscuously to be applyed to all in sin; But choyce must be made unto whom they may with profit be delivered. And thus I have spoke my full thoughts of the subjects of this Ordi­nance, concluding without the least hesitancy or scruple, That all in Covenant have a fundamental, or first right to it, a jus ad rem, and making it my businesse to find out who they be that may be admitted, in expectation of benefit by it, and who are justly detained from it; In which I trust I have given just offence on no hand, either in giving way to the admission of any that according to any Scripture-rule, or just deduction thence should be held back, and so hardening them in any way of ignorance or sin, in giving them any encouragement. I have a witnesse in [Page 247] heaven, that I intended nothing in this but to find out the mind of Jesus Christ, and to have this Ordinance so administred, that the edification of the visible Members of Jesus Christ might be most prompted, and godlinesse encouraged. And in case that this which I have done, may not be serviceable this way, I de­sire that it may prove an abortive. I know there is a distinction used by some, and applyed to admission both of Infants to Baptisme, and men of growth to the Lords Table; that there is a twofold title, one in foro Dei, in the Court of Heaven, and here onely the Infants of the elect regenerate have title (as they say) to Baptisme, and the elect regenerate themselves to the Lords Supper. The other in foro Ecclesiastico, in the Court of the Church, and here all tiie Infants of professed believers have right in Baptisme, and the knowing and not scandalous, though unregenerate, to the Lords Supper. By the favour of which; distinction, those of that judgment and I may be well enough agreed; and as I think there is small difference about the per­sons to be admitted to this Supper, yet for the distinction, I con­fesse I do not understand it; Both the Sacraments being Church-Ordinances, I suppose God keeps no other Court about them, save the Court of his Church. If they have this right in foro Ecclesiastico, then it is the mind of God that the Church should admit them, and so they have right in foro Dei likewise. And I marvel how those that bring this within the power of juris­diction, can here apply this distinction, seeing it overthrowes that which they apply hither, Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Many that are admitted ma want acceptance in heaven; but having their right, and putting in no visible barre, their confessed Ecclesiastical right concludes, that their ad­mission is with acceptance of heaven; and my great businesse hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admit­tance, that their benefiting is possible that are thus admitted, And here I might take into consideration the opinion of those that would have a promiscuous admittance, and indeed I had it in my thoughts to have given a brief answer to Mr. Humphrey's Scriptures, and Reasons, so much by some applauded, and so strongly bottomed, Because all Communicants must drink of the Cup, therefore all must communicate, with some limits, which being yielded, as I have proved they must, will draw the limit [Page 248] necessarily, yet somewhat more narrow. But this is by one hand already done, and I have lately had the happinesse to see a second learned Piece fitted for the Presse; dealing largely in it, which I doubt not may both satisfie the Adversary and the Reader, so that my pains may well be spared; onely I cannot but take no­tice of his fourth Reason for a promiscuous admission, which he faith will arise from the vanity, formality, impossibility of select­ing people to this Ordinance: Look to the heart of all these separations, they come to nothing: For put the case you will have a gathered company, I pray who do you account indeed to be fit and worthy receivers? If not all that make profession, as we do mixtly, then those onely that have an interest in Christ, and are true be­lievers. Well, but how will you be able to know them? The heart of man is deceitfull above all things; who can know it? And if we can hardly discover our own hearts, how shall we discern others? so that all will come, but to these that have the fairest shew, those that seem such, and you cannot be secured, but there may, and will be some hypocrites; and so this true partaking as all one body, and one blood, in such an unmixt communion, as you pretend vanishes, and there can be no such matter: But now if men stand here upon a formal purity, and will have the outward purest Church they can, they go to separating again, and never leave separating and separating, (as we have daily testimony) till they are quite sepa­rated one from another; Even as in the peeling of an Onion, where you may peel, and peel, till you have brought all to nothing, unlesse to a few tears perchance, with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing. To this I answer, If the rule to take in this gathered company, be interest in Christ, to take in those of a saving interest, and refuse all others, if regenerate, then he shall be admitted; in case unregenerate, then he shall be refused; then I shall yield his conclusion, I shall leave that distinction to him, that knowes what is in man. I should fear many a man of non-interest might be let in, and many a man of true interest refused; a glozing tongue may here carry it, further then an upright heart. And for his next of a formal purity, to get the Church as pure as we can; though this ought to be our endea­vour, to get the Church as pure, not formally, but really, as possible; yet I make it no rule: But following the Apostles rule, to do, as all things else, so this, to edification; though it be a matter of much care and prudence, yet not vain and impossible [Page 249] in a good measure, to determine it; upon this rule I pitch, till I hear something that may take me off it.

SECT. XVI. An enquiry into the power authorized to judge of mens meetnesse for the Lords Supper.

THe adaequate subject of Sacraments being found out, and some discovery made of those, that according to Scripture prin­ciples stand in a present aptitude for actual admission; A great question yet remains. Who must judge of this fitnesse,Who are to judge of mens present apti­tude. so as to approve of men as such, and Authoritarively to refuse, or passe by others; in which we may seem to be much in the dark, fin­ding no one expressely set up for that work, nor any Scripture-precedent of any that have taken upon themselves such power. And herein men have been very different in their thoughts;The various claimes that are made to this power. The Church of England heretofore hath vested the Minister in sole power, as appears in Canon 26. which provides. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy commu­nion, of his cure or flock, which be openly known to live in sin, notorious without repentance nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours, untiil they shall be recon­ciled. As also the Rubrick to the same purpose. It is true that those that made it their businesse to scrue up Episcopal power to that height that it could not bear, did interpret this of such notorious offenders, that by the Ordinary had been so adjudged, and under present censure, expressely contrary to the very words of Canon 27. requiring every Minister so repelling any such up­on complaint or being required by the Ordinary to signifie the cause unto him and therein obey his direction; In case of such a prece­ding censure upon the person thus refused, he had beforehand his direction, and complaint is then supposed to be made onely for his obedience, in refusing those that according to command given, were to be denied. The Schoolmen generally go this way, putting the sole power into the hands of a Minister, not so much disputing it, (so farre as I have read) as taking it for gran­ted. Suarez putting it to the question,Utrum tene­antur Ministri hujus Sacra­menti non da­re illud homini existenti in p [...]c [...]ato morta­li? Whether the Ministers of this Sacrament are bound not to give it to a man in mortal sinne? [Page 250] answers,respondetur certum esse habere Mi­nistros hujus Sacramenti hanc obligati­onem simpliciter & absolute loquendo. That they are simply and absolute­ly under such an obligation, mentioning none that are over them, or assistent to them in it. And in his first reason he saith, ThatEx quibus sequitur primo, hanc obli­gationem oriri ex ipsa lege naturali ac divina supposita tali Sacramenti insti­tutione, & potestate ac munere com­misso Sacerdotibus. this obligation doth arise from natural and divine Law an institution of the Sacra­ment being supposed, and such commission gi­ven to the Ministers; so that he doth no more question the Ministers authority in this thing, then he doth the institution of the Sacrament it self, Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae, quaest. 89. disput. 67. sect. 1. And Thomas puts the questionUtrum Sa­cerdos debeat denegare cor­pus Christi pec­catori petenti? whether a Priest ought to give the body of Christ to a sinner seeking it? part. tertia, quaest. 80. Art. 6 without mention of any other in power for it. The Fathers were also of the same judgement, we need not quote testimonies from them, of exclusion of men from the Sacraments, he that will be furnished. let him read Mr. Gillespy Aarons rod, lib. 3. cap. 17. And we read of no other joyned with the Minister for that work. Dionysius Areo pagita, who is reckoned amongst ancient Writers, though not of that standing to be Pauls Scholar, Hierarch. Ec­cles. cap. 3. pag. 3 having spoken of those that were possest with Devills and tormented, called Energumeni, and of flagitious per­sons, saith,Primi igitur isti & quidem rectius quam illi Mini­stri officio & voce separen­tur. Let these therefore first, and much rather then the other, be separated by the voice and office of the Minister. It was then accounted to be his office, to see to that work. That of Chrysostome frequently quoted for exclusion of scandalous per­sons from this Supper speaks fully to the power of dispensers for it, Homil. 83. in Matth. Let no cruel one, no unmerciful one, none any way impure, come unto it. I speak these things to you that do receive, and also to you that do administer, even to you this is neces­sary to be told, that with great care and heedfulnesse you distribute these gifts: there doth no small punishment abide you, if you permit any to partake of this Table, whose wickednesse you know, for his blood shall be required at your hands. Other reformed Churches place, for the greater part, this power in the Eldership, preach­ing and ruling Elders joyned together in Consistory. Those of the independant Congregational way, judge it meet, that the whole Church, even all the body of the faithful, should have their vote in it. The best way for the discovery of truth, is to hear what each part have to say for themselves, and then to [Page 251] examine proofs brought, together with inconveniencies that may be objected, and are like to follow from any one of these, by whom power is claimed: and lastly, to pitch upon that which we judge to be most suitable to Scripture, and to answer the in­conveniences charged upon it. For that party that can speak most of reason according to Scripture-rule, and whose way is fol­lowed with fewest inconveniences, may in all reason lay the fairest claim to it. But to do this throughly, were an endlesse labour, in which we might take in the whole dispute about Church Govern­ment, which would be an outlet, farre bigger then this whole work. Those that vest the Pastor in this power, say,

1. He is the steward of the Mysteries of God, 2 Cor. 4.1.Allegations for a Ministers sole power. And as stewards in great families, have the care of ordering the food of the whole household: so they being called to this honour, are to have the like power in the Church of God.

2. They alone are to dispense this ordinance, as upon a mani­fold account may be made good, and in due place (God willing) shall be spoken to.

3. The administration of Sacraments belongs to the power of order, wherewith Ministers are solely vested, and not to juris­diction, as is granted; and therefore his prudence must guide him in discerning the parties that are to partake of it. A faith­ful and wise steward, discerns the season when to give portions of meat to the household, Luk. 12.42. as also the persons to whom he is to impart it. This learned Mr. Jeans saith, is the opinion of the Schoolmen, though he is pleased to say, They are extream­ly out in it, in denying the debarring from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to notorious offenders, to be an act of jurisdiction; and and so they (saith he) put it into the hands and power of a Minister to deny it those that he judgeth to be gosse and scandalous sinners. pag. 46. quoting a full and pertinent passage out of Suarez. in tertiam partem Thomae. tom. 3. disput. 67. Sect. 3.Haec dispensa­tio vel denega­tio Sacramenti non est consi­deranda, ut actio jucialis, vel inflictiva poenae, sed solum, ut prudens ac fidelis administratio Sacramen­ti; & ideo non pendet ex testibus aut probantionibus, sed solum ex ea Scientia & cognitio ne quae prudenti existimatione secundum occu [...]entes circumstantias judicatur sufficiens ut sine in­c [...]mmodo possit, & debeat negari Sacramentum. This dispen­sation, or denyal of the Sacrament, is no judicial act, or imposition of a penalty; but onely a prudent and faithful administration of it, and therefore doth not depend on witnesses or proofs, but onely on such [Page 252] a knowledg and understanding of the thing; which by a prudential estimate according to emergent circumstances may be judg­ed sufficient that without any inconvenience the Sacrament may be denied.

4. If this power be denyed to aM inister, many times it so falls out, that of necessity, either the administration of the Sacra­ment must be wholly suspended, (which some of reverend worth have largely shewed to be of dangerous consequence) or else the Minister must be necessitated to dispense it to those that are most unfit to partake of it. In abundance of places no such power of jurisdiction is set up, nor can be expected, and food is necessary when we want a rod.

Allegations for the power of an Eldership.Those that contend for the Elderships power in it, affirming that it belong to them and no other; First, distinguish of the administration of the Sacrament, and admission to it; confes­sing that administration belongs to the power of order; but ad­mission, as they say, belongs to jurisdiction. Now jurisdiction is in Elders, together with the Pastor, not so narrow, as to be sea­ted solely in the Pastor; nor so large, as to take in all the people. Secondly, They dispute largely from the inconveniences that will follow, in case it be left solely in the hands of the Minister, or put promiscuously into the hands of the people; and there­fore to avoid both of these extreams, they vest the whole Elder­ship, and onely the Eldership in power with it.

Allegations for the power of the people.Those that plead for the power of the people, say; First, that they must in duty avoid such in their converse, that are thus un­der censure; and therefore are to have a hand in, and to be cal­led to counsel about it. Secondly, That in excommunication the people are to have a hand, (we find the Apostles direction for it, 1 Cor. 5.4.) and consequently insuspension, and so they con­clude, that the power is in all the faithful. I must freely pro­fesse, that the first of these (which hath been longest in use) takes most with my judgement, as that which hath most strength of reason for it, and attended (for ought I can yet see) with least inconveniences. In which (I suppose) I should yet have concealed my self, had not the present juncture of time, and state of things, put some necessity upon me (treating of these things) to speak my thoughts. Were Elderships in Congragations set­led in their desired power, and that order set up, and accordingly followed, I should so have prized the peace of the Church, as not [Page 253] to have cast any bone of contention in a businesse of this nature so disputable; and where an error of that hand is, of no so great danger. As I have without scruple acted in that way, so I am not willing to cast scruples into the thoughts of any; my reasons will afterwards sufficiently appear; But things being in that po­sture as now they are, and for ought is seen, like enough to con­tinue; Sacraments must be wholly discontinued, or anabsolute promiscuous liberty granted to any man, woman, or child, to receive it; unlesse it may appear that the Pastor according to prudence may manage it. I shall therefore endeavour, 1. To satisfie the claimes that are made on the contrary for other inte­rests. 2. I shall give answer to the objections brought against a Ministers sole and single power. 3. I shalt limit this Doctrine with some needfull cautions to avoid mistake. First, I must speak to them that say, power is committed of Jesus non uni, sed unitati; not to any single preaching Elder or Pastor, but to an Eldership; preaching and ruling Elders joyned together, for which (excep­ting the arguments drawn from the inconveniencies of placing it onely in one) this is the summe of all that I find spoken;Allegations for the power of an Eldership taken into consideration. That the power of Discipline is given by Christ, not to one Elder, but to the united company of Elders; and for one Minister to assume this power to himself, is to make himself the Church, it is to make himself a Congregational Pope: It is a bringing in of a power into the Church, that would have some resemblance (as is objected) to au­ricular confession. This argument takes that for granted which is most in question, (and that which Mr. Jeans saith, the School­men do deny, that this is an act of jurisdiction,) and belongs to the power of Discipline; and this being barely affirmed, or rather onely supposed, it may be as easily denyed. But I would give some reasons of my denyal of it, and then the whole of the argu­ment falls.

First,Reasons evin­cing that ad­mission to the Lo [...]ds Supper is no act of juris­diction. This power of jurisdiction supposed to be in the whole Eldership, is either respective to the whole businesse of the Sa­crament, or else solely to the admission or refusal of men for participation of it. If it respect the whole work, then those that are not commissioned to preach Gospel-promises, may yet apply Covenant-seales. They that have no call to open and shew forth the Mystery, have authority to dispense the Elements, Reason 1 which is against the judgement of the Learned of this opinion: If it barely respect admission, and not administration, then (un­lesse [Page 254] we had expressely the mind of Christ to the contrary) it will appear to be the greatest of soloecisms, to give a man commission for a work, and then to leave him to the courtesie of others, not otherwise interested in it, for the exercise of it. There did a complaint lye against Bishops, giving commission in Ordination large enough to preach the Gospel; yet afterwards would not suffer it, without a license from their Courts to be put into action. This at the first sight looks much like it; when Ministers shall receive power of order, which comprizes Word and Sacrament: the Gospel with the seal; yet may not act in it, without an Elder­ship to oversee it, who as to administration are wholly Heteroge­neous.

Secondly, If no other Ministerial act, is to be preregulated Reason 2 (as I may say) by any power of Discipline, or the exercise of it to be suspended, till they know the pleasure of men in juridick place and power, then there is no reason singly and singularly to subject this of Sacramental administration to it. This pro­position hath all reason in it; But there is no other Ministerial act that is to be thus preregulated, or the exercise of it thus sus­pended; Ergo there is no reason singly and singularly to subject this of Sacramental administration to it.

Thirdly, If the dispensation of the promises be committed Reason 3 to the Ministerial prudence of the dispensers, without any ju­risdiction put upon them, or any other in a way of jurisdiction associated with them, then there is no reason to be given but that they may according to Christian prudence, in like manner dispense the seales, without any such jurisdiction or association. This I see not how any can deny, seeing the promises are deli­vered upon the same termes as the seales: But the dispensation of the promises is committed to their Ministerial prudence, and no other associated in jurisdiction with them; This cannot be denyed. It followes then, that according to Christian prudence, they may dispense the seals, without any associated in any juris­diction with them. If any should object, that it will follow from hence, that the Sacraments are to be delivered unto all, to whom the promises are tendered; This I shall grant with these three limits. 1. That those to whom they are tendered, pro­fessedly accept them, otherwise the Sacraments may be delivered to Heathens. 2. That there be some competency of under­standing of them, otherwise the most ignorant of the Catechu­meni [Page 255] were not onely to come to Baptisme, but to the Lords Sup­per. 3. That they do not openly and resolvedly in their course of life go against their engagements in them. In such case the promise may be tendered to Heathens, to grossely ignorant and flagitious ones, and yet the seal for present upon these grounds withheld.

Fourthly, Where power for any work is committed to one, Reason 4 and no other named to be imployed with him, there the work is left to the sole care and prudence of him to whom it is commit­ted, and not by power of jurisdiction vested in many: But the work of administration of Sacraments is committed to one, and no other named to whom it is committed. The Proposition cannot be denyed, and I know not how the Assumption can be an­swered. The conclusion then followes.

Fifthly, If Ministers have not onely been vested with power Reason 5 for administration, but actually also have administred with appro­bation, without any jurisdiction, then it is no act of jurisdiction. This cannot be denyed, seeing that if it were the mind of Christ that a jurisdiction should be set up for administration, then the dispensers must have stayed for it (as Saul ought to have done for Samuel) before administration: But Ministers have not one­ly been in power for administration of Sacraments, but have actually administred with approbation without any jurisdiction: They have done it in unofficed Churches, where no jurisdiction had place; this is evident. To say nothing of Johns Baptisme, instance might be given in the baptisme administred by Christs Disciples we find the Eunuch, the Jayler, and others baptized, and no Eldership consulted. Christ delivered the Lords Supper where no Eldership was set up; and in case, Act. 2.42. be under­stood of the Lords Supper, (as is generally conceived) there can be no contradiction; seeing that it is not imaginable that as yet that order was established with them.

If any shall object, Object. that a command lay upon them to admi­nister the Sacraments, which must in this case of necessity be obeyed, and the duty not neglected, though an Eldership for a more orderly and regular carriage be wanting.

To this I answer, Sol. Omissions seem better to me then a prohibi­ted, or a disorderly proceeding, expressely against a Command, or Ordinance of Jesus Christ; The Arke had better stayed where it was, then a new Cart should have carried it in that disorder [Page 256] to the place appointed for it; Better that Saul and Vzziah had let sacrifice alone, then any to whom it did not appertain, should have undertaken it. This therefore with me is not cogent, un­lesse it be confest, that there is no precept respective to such juris­diction, when there is a command for administration. I never saw sufficient reason given, that a man should break an expresse rule given in Command from God, rather then omit a duty of meer positive institution: Jeroboam must rather have no sacrifice then that Dan or Bethel should be the place for it: And in case such necessity may dspense with irregularities, why may we not on the other hand be irregular? and in such necessary want of a full and compleat order, the Minister who is one, and the first in the number of such an Eldership, to take upon him the whole work, rather then on the one hand the administration should wholly cease, or on the other hand promiscuously dispensed, where there can be no possible benefit received. To this I con­fesse, I was for some time much inclined, till that upon further examination and debate, reason enforced me to conclude, that the Minister by Divine appointment is authoritatively himself vested in power for admission or denyal. And if I be driven out of this, and all these arguments here laid down fully satisfied, I shall rather believe that the Minister who is one party in the power pleaded for, as before, may rather act alone in such necessi­ty, then either the authority it self be wholly laid aside, or Sacra­ments totally discontinued.

Object. If any shall further object, That Christ and his Apostles had virtually all offices in them, so that if that order could not so soon be established among them; the defect in this impossible case was sufficiently supplyed by the Apostolical Office.

Sol. I answer. What power soever was vested in them, yet it ap­pears not, that at once they exercised the power of all of them, but acted orderly in an association when it was required. Paul Ordained Timothy by laying on of hands, but not alone, but as associated in a Presbytery, his hands were laid upon him, 2 Tim. 1.6. and the hands of the Presbytery were laid upon him, 1 Tim. 4.4. He ordered the incestuous Corinthians excommu­nication; but this he did not alone, but with the Church-Offi­cers, 1 Cor. 5. And if the Apostles Office had virtually all in it, yet it may be questioned whether it were so with Philip, un­lesse we can make it good (which is by few believed) that he was Philip the Apostle.

Sixthly, That which hath neither any law in Scripture for it, Reason 6 nor any set up for execution of it, is no Church-censure to be proceeded in, by vertue of jurisdiction; This is plain: But in Scripture there is no Law enacted for proceeding in such a cen­sure, nor men set up for to proceed in such a juridick way; Therefore it followes that this is no Church-Censure. If any say. The Keys imply this power, and those that receive the keys, are set up in power; I answer, That Sacraments are with­in the power of order, which is distinct from jurisdiction, and contains no censure; and Keys in jurisdiction imply a letting in, and shutting out: now this is a Censure of those that remain within, and neither serves for letting in, nor exclusion.

7^thly, If those must be kept back from the Sacrament in a pruden­tial Reason 7 way, on whom no sentence in way of jurisdiction ought to pass, then this rather belongs to prudence then to jurisdiction; This is plain: But those are to be kept back on whom no sentence in a way of jurisdiction ought to pass; This is also plain, Jurisdiction for censure is not, but in case of crime, & many are detained upon de­fect in judgment, no criminal charge being laid against them: Ergo.

Eighthly, The detaining of that from, or denyal of it to any, Reason 8 which they cannot improve for their benefit, but visibly tends to their danger, is no juridick act of penalty, but a prudential care for his advantage from whom it is thus detained, and to whom it is thus denyed; This is clear. To deny drink to an Hydropick per­son, or flesh-meats to one in a Feaver, garlick or onions to a woun­ded person, or full of ulcerous sores, is not to inflict a penalty, but to exercise a prudential care: But this denyal of the Sacrament to, or detaining it from the ignorant, &c. is onely to withhold that which visibly tends to danger, and cannot be improved for any advantage; Therefore it is no juridick penalty, but a businesse of prudential care. And here an Objection which carries most colour of all that can be said, is prevented, and already answered. To de­bar a man upon the grounds of ignorance, error or scandal from that which otherwise were his right, and proper interest, belongs to the power of jurisdiction; and is a censure: But in this a man for ignorance, error or scandal, is debarred of that which other­wise is his right, and therefore it belongs to the power of jurisdiction; and is a Church-Censure. To this upon the grounds before laid down, is answered, To debar a man of his right to his sensible prejudice, and to hold from him that which [Page 258] would be his present livelihood and comfort; is indeed a penalty or juridick censure; as to sequester a man from his house and Lands, to disfranchise a man of his Trade, &c. But for a Pa­rent, a Nurse or Physician, to order dyet as most for health, and to withdraw some food when digestion will not bear it, and it evidently appears to be of danger, is an act of prudence, and no censure; and so a Minister is considered in the, administration of Word and Sacraments.

Reason 9 Ninthly, If admission to, or exclusion from other Ordinan­ces of eminent height and excellency, to which all are not pro­miscuously admitted, be left to prudence, and not to the exer­cise of any Juridick power, then there is no reason to take this out of the Ministers hand, and put it over to any such powers: But exclusion from, and admission to other Ordinances of emi­nent height and excellency, to which all are not promiscuously admitted, as private Fasts, and doubtful disputations, Matth. 9. Rom. 14. is left to prudence, and not to the exercise of any ju­ridick power: Ergo.

Reason 10 Lastly, If this be an act of jurisdiction to admit to the Sacra­ment, and keep off from it, then there must be a Law of Jesus Christ in it, a Gospel-Ordinance for it; This is plain: Jesus Christ hath not left to his Officers an arbitrary Goverment, he hath left no Commission to rule at pleasure: as they are to speak, so they are to act according to his will, and pleasure known: But no such Law, no such Ordinance of Jesus Christ is found in Scriptures. A command we have in the Gospel for administra­tion of Sacraments, as well Baptisme as the Lords Supper; and Covenant-interest is our Directory (as you have heard) to lead us to those that have fundamental, interest in them: But con­cerning exclusion of any thus enrighted, there is nothing by way of Ordinance written: Therefore this can be no act of jurisdiction. The Assumption is that which many will question; It lyes upon them then to quote this Law, to make known this Ordinance of Jesus Christ: But instead of that, I shall shew upon what grounds it yet appears to me that there is none at all. If any such be, it is either in plain, and full words exprest, such as the Law given to Israel, to put out of the Camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, or is defiled by the dead, Numb. 5.1, 2. or else it must be such as is deduced by fair consequence from the nature and use of the Sacrament, or preparation to it, or benefit received by it; That [Page 259] there is no Ordinance in such plain, full words, needs not to be doubted; In all that enquiry into this so much controverted businesse, it would have been long since produced. In case it be deduced from any such consequence as hath been spoken, it will hardly be made good to be an instituted Law, or constituted Or­dinance. Mr. Firmin hath well excepted against the proof of institutions by syllogismes, though to his great disadvantage, in that dispute of a Church-Covenant. Where there is an Ordi­nance in power, (as there was for exclusion from the Passeover) proof may be made up by consequence for the latitude to discern who those be that are within the verge of it, and concerned in it. But consequences will hardly prove the enacting, and insti­tuting of it: I shall be willing to gratifie Mr. Tombs in this, that parity of reason will set up no institution. A good cause is wronged, when Ordinances of this nature are pretended, and can­not be produced; and on the other hand, when a Ministeriall prudence in the Stewards of Christ is undervalued, which might supply it. Let it be granted, that there is no Ordinance to debar an unexcommunicated man from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, yet a promiscuous admission will not follow; when the end and use of the Sacrament is considered, it will appear to them that have the care and charge about it, that some are not in a present aptitude for it. There is command for the preach­ing of the Word in a way to edification, 1 Cor. 143, 12. yet the particular way of application suitable to mens capacities, so as to give milk to babes and children, and strong meat to those of growth, that have their senses exercised, to discern between good and evil, is not done by any vertue of any specifick particular insti­tution, but the Ministers prudence: VVhich prudence was exer­cised by Paul, 1 Cor. 3.1, 2. Heb. 5.12. by Christ himself, Joh. 16 12. There is no Ordinance for admission to, or exclusion from private Fasts, or punctual direction, who are to be called, and received, or who past by; yet our Saviour Christ from the high nature of the duty, concludes that it is not for novices in the faith. And as it is a point of prudence, not to put a piece of new cloth in an old garment, (unwrought cloth some under­stand) there will be a double inconvenience, the weaknesse of the one will not bear the strength of the other, and so the rent that was before will be made greater, and the whole garment be­come uncomely and unsuitable: nor yet to put new wine (which [Page 260] is windy, and working) into old bottles, the weaknesse of such a vessel being not able to bear it: so neither had it been a point of prudence in our Saviour Christ, to have put such an austere discipline upon the necks of his newly entred disciples.

Matth. 7.6. vindicated.If any shall object that Text, Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye pearles before swine, as I know it is produced as an Ordinance for the withholding of this Sacrament from those that are ignorant, and scandalous; I shall desire the Reader, for answer, to take it into consideration, whe­ther it be not more agreeable to the Text, to make it an exhor­tation to an holy prudential circumspection in the dispensation of holy things in general, (whether in a private, or a publick way) then to make it a distinct peculiar Ordinance about any one piece or part of worship. Making it a peculiar Ordinance, we shall run our selves upon inextricable difficulties: Our Saviour laying it down in an indefinite way, All whatsoever that is holy, must there be understood; and pearles, and holy things are the same, one being exegetical of the other; holy things excelling other things, as far as pearles excel acorns. And by doggs and swine, both which were unclean in the Law, we must understand all that Scripture comprehends under those names; they are both put for one, 2 Pet. 1.21. and so the result of all is, that no person in visible uncleannesse must taste of any thing that is holy. From which it followes, that as Christ thought it not fit at that present to gratifie a Heathen with a miracle, when he said, It is not meet to take the childrens bread, and cast it unto doggs, Matth. 15.26. So it will at no time be meet, or lawfull to preach the Gospel to any heathen, or impenitent and unclean Christian, they being no other then dogs or swine, and the Go­spel the most precious of holy pearles; but understanding it as an exhortation to Christian prudence, and observing the reason added, lest they trample them under feet, and turn again and rent you, these absurdities and snares will be avoided; and the result of all will be onely this, that the holy things of God, and rich Gospel-pearles, are not to be communicated, where there is no possible expectation of doing good: But all the issue of it will evidently be danger to him that doth impart them, and all scorn and contempt of the holy things themselve; which was the Apostles way of dealing, when the Jewes were filled with envy, contradicting and blaspheming, Act. 13. and is fre­quently [Page 261] given in counsel by the Wise man, Rebuke not a scornor, lest he hate thee: He that rebuketh a sconer, getteth to himself a blot, Prov. 9.7. And the words being thus understood, though the Sacrament be not solely intended, yet it is not wholly exclu­ded, being of the number of those holy things, about which there should be all Christian prudence.

That Text also, 1 Cor. 5.11. is produced by some,1 Cor. 5.11. vindicated. as hold­ing out an Ordinance for suspension from the Lords Supper, But now I have written unto you, not to keep company. If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat. But it is more then strange, that when the Apostle speaks not at all of the Lords Supper in that Chapter, that he should in those words (in such a sort delivered) make an Ordinance about it. And it is clear in the Text, that the Apostle gives direction about the common course of our life, to shun all voluntary and free converse, out of choyce for that end which he speci­fies, 2 Thess. 3.14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. I will not stand to dispute any consequence that may be drawn from civil commerce to that which is religious, seeing (as I have said) consequences will not bear any institu­tion, or new setting up of Ordinances; and here I know there can be none at all, seeing this which the Apostle forbids, or ra­ther from which he disswades, is in our own choyce, where we may forbear; and that at the Lords Table is of necessity, where we must obey; we are not to forbear our duty, though another that should be kept back doth obtrude himself. If those, Numb. 9. which were defiled by a dead body, had come in their uncleannesse unto the Passeover, as those of Issachar and Zebulun did, 2 Chr. 7.30. others for their sakes should not have kept absent. Neither of these Texts therefore hold forth an Ordinance, but both of them Christian prudence: one of them respecting things civil, the other that which is sacred and religious. Thus I suppose that argument is taken off which is drawn from a supposition, that admission to the Sacrament is an act of jurisdiction, in which I have been large, seeing I well know that many are of a different judgment. If any can pro­duce reasons of more strength on the other hand, I shall be ready to yield. In the mean space these with me are cogent, and [Page 262] force me to conclude, That this in question is an act prudentiall, not juridicall.

Inconvenien­ces objected against the sole power of the Minister.As for the Objections that are brought from the inconvenin­ces following from a Ministers sole and single power in this action;

1. That before mentioned, that to put the Minister into any Object. 1 such power, is to set him up as a Congregational Pope, is al­ready answered, in denying it to be any act of jurisdiction, and many other things will difference him from any Lordly or Pope-like rule: 1. He may erre. In his administrations he is not in­fallible. 2. He may be call'd to question upon mal-administra­tion, and by an authoritative juridick determination be ordered to reform. If a Minister Pope it in all that he doth alone, he will be found Pope-like in many things that he doth according to the mind of Christ Jesus.

Object. 2 2. As to the other that hath been mentioned, that it hath some resemblance of auricular confession; This resemblance will be found to have very much dissimilitude in it. We enquire after knowledge in the mystery of Christ, and not acknowledg­ment of sin. We declare to men known crimes, and do not ad­jure any by way of whisper to make them known. Interlocu­tory Catechismes that are by question, and answer, may be cal­led by that name, as well as this practice.

Object. 3 3. Whereas it is said, It is for one man to make himself the Church, it is a mistake: It is no more then to make himself a steward in the Church; that is, to act in his own person, as a ste­ward set in the Church by Christ Jesus.

Object. 4 4. Men would not put their lands, nay, their goods and cattel into the hands of any one person; And we cannot then think that the Lord hath put the intererest of his people in the body and blood of Christ to a private discretion. Answer 1. Men are many times put to it, to put their lands, goods, and cattel to the arbitrement of one and many judge it better to be in the hands of one, in such a case (if of worth and place) then of many as­sociated; and have had experience of it. 2. It is not a Christi­ans interest in the body and blood of Christ, that is thus refer­red to the discretion of any. I would not put that into the hands of a general Councel; none but God is to be trusted with it: Nay it is not their interest in the elements, but their apti­tude at present to partake, in which some must judge, or else all promiscuously must communicate.

[Page 263]5. It is objected, it is like this way to go ill oftentimes with Object. 5 the deserving members of the Church, and such as most deserve shall least feel the severity of this censure; wicked Ministers would keep back whom they please. Answer 1. We can trust it no where, but through corruption there will be danger, and no where so much as in the Congregational way; when a faction shall gain a plurality of votes & it becomes a Church, then all is without redresse, and Elderships oftentimes are as likely to over-rule a Minister for corrupt proceedings, as to ballast, and keep him from them. 2. What freedom soever the bad may hope to gain from any single hand, the good for the most part may be without fear, seeing that in publick administrations goodness so far overawes, and mens own reputations that dispense them so prevaile, that they are in little danger of suspension. 3. Such a supposed wicked Minister acts either where there is a govern­ment over him, to call into question his irregularity; so that the wronged may have right upon appeal and complaint, or else, where there is no government at all, but each mans will may be a rule. In case there be such a government, there is a redresse; and what he would willingly do, that he is kept from doing. In case there be none such, but all disorder prevails, then there is no more danger in his administration at pleasure, then in his delivery of Doctrine at pleasure; there is more fear of him from the Pulpit, then from the Communion Table. And when it is com­mitted to his prudence to divide the Word, I see no reason but that he may divide the Bread and Cup. So that all things consi­dered, I suppose it to be most consonant to Scripture, that it be left to a Ministers prudence, according to Scripture-rule to manage it.

It is further said, that this is to assume a power without any Object. 6 warrant, or power from Jesus Christ. No text can be produced in which any such power is given.

To this I answer, None that would take this power from the Minister, can own this objection: It is of equal force against any other hand. Let them shew where any other is set up for it, and we will presently yeeld it. Those onely that are for promiscu­ous administration, can with any pretended colour in this way object it: and to these I suppose enough hath been spoken, that it is a necessary result from that power that is given for admi­nistration of this Ordinance: All Ordinances must be so dispen­sed, [Page 264] that they may profit; where profit cannot follow, there is to be no dispensation.

Allegations for the power of the people ta­ken into consi­deration.As to the claime of those of the Congregational way before mentioned the former failing, this falls with it: They both agree that it is an act of jurisdiction, in which one party will have all to vote, the other onely the Eldership. But when it appears that it is an act of prudence, and not of juridick censure, either of both are at losse for their interest. If these have power by their vote to let in, and keep from the Sacraments, it is either as dis­pensers of these Mysteries, or by vertue of a juridick power of rule and government vested in them. That it is not as dispensers, themselves will acknowledge, for they cannot in a joynt way thus administer: neither can it be by virtue of any juridick power of rule and government. In case it were granted, if all are in place of rule, where then are those that are ruled, and under govern­ment? If every member be an eye, where is the foot? The Apo­stle salutes the Saints, and those that rule over them, Heb. 13.24. Here are no Saints but what are Rulers: Obey them that are over you in the Lord, saith the Apostle: these must obey one another. If these thus govern, and this be an act of their government, then no man must be admitted to the Supper, but together with it he must be vested in Church-power, and rule; None must be a member, unlesse he be a Commander: Christ's Army must have all leaders, no followers; all Commanders, no common Souldiers: by this means either worthy Communicants must be shut out, or men unfit for rule promoted, seeing every godly man that hath the spirit of sanctity, hath not presently a spirit of rule. Hence will follow, that confusion by the experience of many found, and complained of by Mr. Blackwood, Mr. Fir­min and others, not to be suspected of partiality; And when they argue from their power in excommunication, to their power in barring from this Ordinance, as the antecedent is to be deny­ed, so the consequent is false. All the faithfull are not to decree excommunication: The meeting together mentioned, 1 Cor. 5.4. was not of members, but officers, there being more Congre­gations then one in Corinth, as is justly presumed, and in some Churches is undenyably proved; and therefore their members could not meet about any act of government, but officers one­ly. So also the consequence is false, and though excommunica­tion were in their power, yet the power of administration of Sa­craments, [Page 265] and mens admission may be in an other hand, as a pru­dential act. And so every part of the argument is found faultie. It is true that excommunication being a juridical suspension from all Church-Communion, and Participation in Church-priviledges, comprizes in it suspension from the Lords Table, as he that is cast out of the house, is no more ordered for his diet in the house, but kept from it. Yet there may be a non-administra­tion by the Minister where there is not any such Church-censure. A Christian in his minority (suppose of the age of ten, or twelve years) is not upon the account of his minority to be excommu­nicated, yet he is not of that age, as to be admitted to the Lords Supper. And whereas it is said, that it is their dutie to avoid such in their converse, that are thus denyed; I answer, that were it granted to be a Church-censure formally executed, Mr. Ru­therford hath sufficiently answered, that their duty to avoid them under censure, is no argument that they are to have an hand in the censure: But being denyed to be any formal censure of the Church, there needs no further answer, and they are to avoid them no further then the manifestation of their condition, ac­cording to Scripture-grounds, gives them occasion: So they must avoid children, youth and all others that are not competently in­structed in Gospel-wayes, and (according to the principles of many of them) all those that are not highly vers'd in Christian Mysteries. And as for crimes that carry the name of scandal, the Minister is in a publick way to debar none, but upon known manifest evidences openly seen; of which any may be compe­tent witnesses. And in case they suffer wrong by the Ministers imprudence or otherwise, they are not to suffer farther by other mens avoiding their society, and communion. The com­munity of the faithful therefore having no power of juridick censure, they have no colour of claime to it under any such a no­tion. And being no formal censure, Elderships that have that power, are not formally qua rulers vested in it. It therefore re­mains, that it is an act of prudence in the dispenser, and no act of jurisdiction in them that have right of censure, or inflicting of penalty.

Some cautions are here needful for a right understanding and to avoid mistakes in that which hath been delive­red.Cautions to be observed in these procee­dings.

1. This which hath been spoken, must not any way be under­stood Cauti. 1 [Page 266] to be prejudicial to Church government, or the power of Church censure. For though Governours are not to be con­sulted before these seals be dispens'd, yet government still stands in due power notwithstanding; of this we have all cause to be tender, seeing whilest some dispute in what hand to place it, others take their advantage quite to abolish it: But that Scrip­ture speaks of a Government distinct from that which is in the hands of civil powers, is a truth that carries such evidence, that it can with no colour of truth be opposed. As the Romans divi­ded that state into Senatum populumque Romanum, implying that some were in power of Governing, and others were to yield subjection; the Spirit of God himself makes like division of the state of Israel into Elders and people, Ruth. 4.9. So the Apostle to the Hebr. in like sort distinguisheth Christians: Salute the Saints and those that rule over you, Hebr. 13.24. Some were without any power for rule, and these are styled Saints without any further addition; others are in power for Government, and these have their just title given them. The same title that is gi­ven to Cyrenius in Syria, to Pilate in Judea, Luke 2.2. Luke 3.1. is given by the Apostle to these here mentioned. A mili­tary or politicall word (saith one) which is spoken of a publick per­son who is possest of power either in Common Wealth, or Army. And if those other texts of the Apostle be consulted, Hebr. 13.17. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Tim. 5.19. 2 Cor. 2.6. and 5.12, 13. 1 Thes. 5.12. (to mention no more) so much will easily be found in them, that speaks a government within the Church it self, not going out of its own limits. Whether some texts ordinarily produced hold out so large an enumeration, as is by some bot­tom'd upon them, may happily be disputed; but that there should not so much as any government at all be spoken to cannot be imagined: which thing in reason is also plain, 1. The Church is a society, a visible Kingdom, an incorporation, a body, and when all of these have their lawes, governours, censures, pu­nishments, it cannot be thought that this society should herein so farre differ, and be so farre inferiour to all other societies, as to be wholly destitute: when all others enjoy government, go­vernours, for their strength. defence and more compleat being, the Church alone shall be like that City which the Wise man speaks of, broken down, and without walls, Prov. 25.28. 2. The Church consists of men, as do other societies subject to fai­lings, [Page 267] yea, to enormities, and exorbitances in judgement and pra­ctice. There hath no age past in which the Church hath not had her schisms, errors, and scandals. No society or body politick is so like to run upon miscarriages, seeing the lawes to which Christ ties, are so averse to our natures, when we can bear others; we are apt to say, we will break these bonds, and cast them away from us. Satan envies no other society, or bond of men, as he doth the society, or bond of Christians. His kingdome will consist together with all other states and kingdomes; they may rule, and he rule likewise; onely this of Christs Kingdome, is wholly averse to Satans; and militates against it, for the ruine of it. 3. The Church from the beginning hath exercised this power with­in it self, when all other powers were adverse, and contrary to it. How long was it before the Church had a Christian Magi­strate, and lay under the persecution of heathen states? in all which time a discipline vvas yet kept up. If the Church had no such povver, hovv could it then exercise it? 4. The Churches that have been remisse in their improvement of this povver, have had their check from Christ himself in glory. He manifests his dis­pleasure from heaven against the Church of Pergamos, that they had those that held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; and against the Church of Thyatira, because they suffered Jesabel to teach and seduce his servants, Rev. 2.14, 15, 20. The censure that lyes upon the Kings of Judah upon neglect of reformation in their time, argues that they vvere in povver for it. So the censure of these Churches upon like ac­count argues their povver in like manner. Even those that plead most for freedome of conscience, and liberty in religion, vvith all impunity from the civil povver, yet confesse from these and like texts, a povver vvithin the Church it self for censure of delinquencies. To all this some are ready to subscribe (as being not able to gainsay the clear Scripture evidence of a povver Ec­clesiastical) and confesse, that it vvas so in those times, but novv they contend that the case is othervvise. Providence hath or­dered a change of things, and all is swallowed up in the hand of him that is chief in power, since the time that the Church hath enjoyed Kings for her nursing fathers, and Queens for her nursing mothers, not barely accusing them of error that dissent in opinion, but charging them to resemble those sons of Belial, that upon the Israelites institution of Kingship, were ungratefully asking this [Page 268] question, How shall this man save us? 1 Sam. 10.27. Making good their assertion of a change of this nature by this similitude, As in the first Church among the Jewes whilest they were in a wan­dring condition, as their need was greater, so Gods personal provi­dence, and guidance of them was more expresse, and apparent, and therefore whilest they were in this Theocraty, their government was not to be managed by any setled universal authority, besides that of God himself, or any one who took not in all weighty things immedi­ate direction from him, until such time as being throughly settled in peace, and security from their enemies he might make his recesse, and permit and appoint to them a King of their own Nation; So in the first founding of the Christian Church during the time of their persecution, as their weaknesse required, were in a Theocraty too, guided by the expresse direction of our Saviour himself given to the Apostles during the time of those fourty daies that he was conver­sant with them upon earth; but now after the time that God hath perfected the time of the Churches deliverance, and free establish­ment in peace, and rest from all about her, and the Prophecy is ful­filled by appointing Kings her nursing fathers, and Queens her nur­sing mothers, and having sons to be set as Princes in all Lands, so that now under Constantine the uproomes, and wandring Tabernacles, (as formerly under Solomon) are converted into stately temples, for men now to think of their running into their Wildernesse, and persecuted condition, by entertaining those temporary forms which unto that condition were most fit, doth import both ingratitude and murmur against God, and imprudence towards themselves. Thus farre this similitude. But those of this opinion I doubt would take ill that free dealing toward themselves, which they use toward others, and that upon their casting off all Ecclesiastical govern­ment, under the notion of temporary forms, we should apply that speech of the Lord himself to Samuel, concerning the peo­ple of Israel upon their resolution to make a change in govern­ment, 1 Sam. 8.7. They have not rejected thee, but they have re­jected me, that I should not reign over them. And to make the dissimilitude in this simile further apparent, it should I suppose be taken into consideration, that when God was pleased first to permit, and then appoint a King over Israel, that the former fa­brick of Government written in the Law was not taken down, but the whole Levitical order still stood, as to all purposes prescri­bed of God; the change was no more, nor further but in him [Page 269] that rul'd in chief. Instead of one raised by an immediate hand of God, as their exigence required, they now had one after the manner of other Nations, of constant standing. And God for­bid that we should murmur, that the Church hath her sons for Princes, and that those that rule over us, serve the Lord Jesus with us. But we think that these servants of Christ thus raised in honour, should see that what Christ hath set up should be aright managed, and that they should have that inspection, as the Kings of Judah had, to rectifie what they find out of order, but not to pull down any thing that Jesus Christ had raised up, no more then the praise-worthy Kings of Judah, did that which Moses had pre­scribed; especially seeing the Lord Christ, even in the space of those forty daies before mentioned, asserting his pleni-potentiary power that he had received from his Father, and giving power to his Church, declares it to be of that lasting tenure, to continue to the end of the world, Matth. 28.18, 19, 20. And because these words which import this continuance, are variously inter­preted, and some will understand them with limit to the end of the Apostles age, seeing the age of a man is often set out by the word seculum, the sports at Rome which were seen once in mans age, were called ludi seculares, and so we have this text against us. But against this interpretation let the Reader observe, 1. The frequent use of the phrase, [...], to the end of the world by this Evangelist, chap. 13.39. The har­vest is the end of the world, ver. 40. So shall it be in the end of this world, ver. 49. So shall it be in the end of the world; and, Matt. 24.3. Tell as when shall these things be, what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? none of all which can be understood of the end of one, but of all ages. 2. Let the context there be considered; Christ there promises his presence in the work of discipling all Nations, but that was not the work of one age onely, many ages are past over, and yet many Na­tions are not discipled. His presence is promised in the Word and Sacraments, which must have their continuance till Christs se­cond coming, 1 Cor. 11.26. The Apostles words, Heb. 9.26. may well serve for a comment on these words of our Saviour; the alone place (as Gomarus notes) where this phrase is used, excepting the texts out of Matthew mentioned: But now once in the end of the world he hath appeared, to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. There are two ages of the world, one determining upon Christs suffer­ing, [Page 270] resurrection, and ascension; the other commencing at that time, and concluding at the end of all time; and therefore the space betwixt Christs first and second comming is ordinarily cal­led the last daies. Christ dyed at the consummation of the first, and the promise of his presence is made till the consummation of the second; and the power given and received, is no otherwise temporary.

Cauti. 2 2. Neither is this to make for the prejudice of the office of ruling Elders,Ruling Elders not hereby prejudiced, Various opi­nions concer­ning them. concerning whom there is in the Church so hot dis­pute. Some own no such power, but make it to be a new de­vice not heard of before this last age. Others plead a divine right for it, and produce Scriptures that appear to speak very fair that way, though they meet with very shrewd objections. A third not insisting upon any such formal institution, being jealous that the texts held forth will scarce bear it out, yet concluding that the whole body of the faithful have their interest in go­vernment (Church Government being neither Monarchical, nor purely Aristocratical, but mixt with a Democraty) they bring in ruling Elders, not as officers set up by any immediate institution, but as representers of the people. So that as Knights appear in Parliament, not in their own names (as the Peers of the realm heretofore have done) but in the name of the respective Counties, and Burgesses in the name of their respective Corporations; so ruling Elders chosen by the vote of the people, have no other power, but what they exercise in the name and right of those that set them up. Pastors have their power primitively vested in their own persons by immediate appointment of Christ Jesus. These have power by way of delegation from them that autho­rize and appoint them; others yet are not at all displeased with this power, but upon neither of the former grounds, but as a pru­dential course for the more easy and orderly regulating of the affairs of the Church, in case either the chief Magistrate shall set them up, or the Church it self by his appointment, allowance or connivance: Asserting a liberty in the chief Magistrate, or Church for this purpose, That as in the Jewish Sanedrim, there were of the people appointed to assist the Priests, both in civil, and sacred affaires, so when nothing to the contrary appears in New Testament-times it may be still so provided. As the Church might set up some to determine Controversies, and prevent law­suits, 1 Cor. 6.4. and might appoint a brother to be joyned with [Page 271] Apostles, to receive and disburse the Churches Alms, 2 Cor. 8.9, 10. And the Church of Antioch might delegate some to be present at the debate, and determination of the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem in a case then controverted, Act. 15.2. so it is not unlawful with prudent limits to appoint some that may be assistant to carry on Church Government. I shall not deter­mine on what bottome it is safest to fix them; I onely say, that I do not see how the Church can well want them. And though Mr. Mede (whom some adore as their oracle for antiquity,Apparet ex his quae diximus in munere adses­sorum, qui non­nullis in locis in usu sunt (quos distincti­onis causa temporarios aut laicos praes­byteros appel­lare possumus) nihil esse quod possit repre­hendi. Non deesse in pia antiquitate exempla, quae si non plane conveniant, certe ad hunc morem acce­dunt. Quae urbs, si non prima [...], certe praecipu­os ejus defenso­res edid [...]t. and all deservedly magnifie) calls it a new device, yet Grotius of no lesse esteem, speaks with more favour, Imper. Summar. po­testat. circa Sacra. Cap. 11. After a large discourse about them, He saith, that it appears by that which we have said, that in the office of Assessors, which are in use in some places (whom for distinction sake we may call temporary, or lay Elders) there is no­thing that may be blamed. Affirming further, that there is not wanting in Sacred Antiquity examples which come very near to this custome, though not wholly up to it. Neither does he make Geneva, with some others, the first Authors, but onely the chief defenders of this order, instancing in the benefit that may hence arise both respective to the civil Magistrate, and Church Pastors. The second of these with me is very rational, and being fixt upon that bottome, though those exceptions hold that are usually taken against those texts, on which their Divine autority is usually built; yet the order may still stand, and those negative arguments which are brought against them, from the Apostles inscription of his Epistle to the Philippians directed to Bishops, and Deacons without mention of ruling Elders, as also from the distinct qua­lifications required in Bishops and Deacons with their wives and families, when as to these Elders there is all silence, may be more easily answered in case it appear that these had not any constant standing in this work. I onely here say that on what bottome soever they stand, this which I have said can nothing prejudice them.

3. Neither must this exempt admission to, or exclusion from Cauti. 3 the Sacrament, from all cognizance of Church power, nor quite take it out of the verge of their censures,Not to be wholly exemp­ted from all cogn [...]zance of Church-pow­er. though those in juridick place be not aforehand consulted or taken into association in it. For though it be left solely to Pastors to discern those to whom they may distribute these Elements, as it is to divide the Word, and [Page 272] give every one his portion, yet upon mal-administration they may be called to question. If pro imperio they shall keep back those that are duly qualified, or admit such that evidently accor­ding to Church-determination should be denyed; they are liable to censure, as they are for corruption, or imprudence in doctrine. And therefore it was well provided, Canon 27. That he that shall repel any from the Sacrament, upon complaint, or being re­quired by the Ordinary shall signifie the cause to him, and therein obey his direction. Presupposing Church power to be vested in him (who for the most part was a meer lay person, which might cause ruling Elders to stand more right in the eyes of some persons) this was well determin'd. Should Pastors be set up for this work, without any appeal or controul, it migbt then indeed be spoken to as a grievance.

Cauti. 4 4. It is a Ministers wisdome, if it may be, to see with more eyes then his own,A Ministers prudence to take in assi­stants. and to take in to himself, if they may be had, assistants in this work; especially to judge of men as to their conversations, and to be witnesses of their promises and engage­ments in case admonition be needful for amendment and refor­mation. More eyes see more then one, and reason it self suggests the convenience of all helps to be taken in to lighten the burden. Paul tells Timothy of the profession that he had made before many witnesses, 1 Tim. 6.12. as a Motive to be constant. An engagement made before witnesses, carries authority with it, and possesses with shame upon violation of it. Thus the Pastor al­so shall in a great part avoid that charge of partiality, that not­withstanding all circumspection he is like to suffer. If any ob­ject that this is to set up officers pro arbitrio, which will make way for the introduction of any upon like grounds of supposed prudence; I answer, this were somewhat if he should make over his power from himself by delegation, being himself in of­fice; But discharging his duty in his own person, he may doubt­lesse take in all usefull helps. Paul may make use of Tertius to write Epistles to Churches, and yet not make him an Apostle; Aaron and Hur may stay up Moses his hands, and yet not usurp Cauti. 5 Moses his place.

Where an El­dership is erected to im­brace them as helpers.5. Where an Eldership is erected, then gladly to imbrace them as helpers in the work. Happily they may think their power weakened, and their right denyed in case they joyn not in it. If the Pastor be of another judgement, it is not yet his [Page 273] prudence to raise stirs about it. If others come in as assistant to carry on what he might otherwise do alone, he hath small cause of grievance; it favours too much of arrogance, and of the spirit of such as love preheminence to affect to be alone, though it is ordinarily most seen in resolving, and attempting to overrule all where a man confesses himself to be no more then in association with others. And for those that refuse to come where an El­dership sits, it argues too sullen an humour. Were I an inhabi­tant in London or like place, I should take my self to be bound to passe through all the Elderships there, rather then hold out of Communion.

6. In making scrutiny into the knowledge of them that offer Cauti. 6 themselves to deal with all gentlenesse,To proceed with all gen­tlenesse in try­all of mens knowledge. especially towards such as have been of a more mean education; many times such know that which they can scarce expresse, and strength of affection is often seen in plain hearts without any great light. Let these be holpen in their words, and let speech be to them in words fitted to their capacity. Let not a question be put of any thing save that which is needful to be known; when it appears that the creation is known, and particularly mans estate by creation in the image of God, and his fall by sin, and redemption through Christ; so that the party can distinguish the Persons in the Tri­nity, to give an account which of them is the Saviour of the world, that each person is God, the second God, and man in assuming our nature; and withall able to give an account of the death of Christ in satisfaction for sin, our way of interest by be­lieving, the necessity of repentance and a new life, as qualifi­cations of those that shall be saved: knowing the outward signs in the Sacrament, and in some competent measure their signifi­cation and use; Such may be exhorted with tendernesse to grow in knowledge, but not to be kept back as ignorant ones.

7. Neither is a Minister upon whisper of any scandal,Not to refuse but upon known crimes. Nos a Com­munione quemquam prohibere non possumus nisi aut sponte confessum aut in aliquo judicio Ecclesiatico vel seculari nominatum at (que) convictum to set Cauti. 7 upon proof by witnesses, much lesse to undertake the giving of oathes to that purpose, as hath been observed out of Suarez: But upon evidence of knowledge of a way in flagitious practices known to him, and scarce doubted by any. That of Austin is famous, We can forbid none Communion, unlesse he voluntarily make [Page 274] confession, and be called and convicted in some Court, either Eccle­siastical or Civil. I know this is produced by some, to prove that a single Minister may not in any case withhold the Sacra­ment from any person. But this is a great mistake, it onely proves, that upon any particular charge it cannot be done with­out due proof, and proof cannot be made without power of ju­dicature, either Civil or Ecclesiastical. Aquinas quotes this of Austin, Sum. 13. quaest. 80. art. 6. and yet he never doubted of the sole power of the Pastor in it. It plainly thence appears, that there were both Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts, then appointed to take cognizance of crimes, which some would make to be in­consistent; And that Ministers did take occasion upon convicti­ons there, to deny Communion. It doth no more prove that a Minister hath no such power, otherwise in an Ecclesiastical Con­sistory, then it proves that he hath no power without strength of a secular Judicatory. It indeed proves that which it is brought to overthrow, which is the Ministers single power: The Mini­ster makes equal advantage in either Court in his prudentiall proceedings in administration of the Sacrament.

Cauti. 8 8. As it is concluded by many that place power of admission in an Eldership, that a Minister wanting that assistance, may then deliver the Sacrament to those from whom otherwise; he should withdraw his hand; and a learned Treatise is written to that pur­pose wanting authority to do what regularly might be done; He is not withstanding (as is said) to do his duty in administration. So I might, I think, with as much reason say, that in case a Mini­ster be overborn with power in his people, that he cannot do that in debarring of those which his judgement leads him to de­ny,When a Mini­ster cannot do what he would, he must do what he is able. without evident hazard of the utter disturbance of the peace of his place, he is scarce to run the hazard; when he cannot do the good that he would, he must do the good that he can; he is to do so much the more in publick warning of the sin, and the danger, as he can do the lesse in authoritative denyal, and with­holding his hand from them. If it might appeare to me that God hath vested an Eldership, and no other in that trust, I think it were scarce safe to put a mans self without them upon administration, last it should be like to that of Saul, when he forced himself to offer a burnt-offering, because Samuel came not in the appointed time: But no such thing appearing in Scripture, nor any sufficient reason evincing it, I take it to be in [Page 275] the Ministers hands so to dispense it, as the Church may receive most of edification by it. And when he is so overruled that he cannot act as he would, he must act as he can. A Steward set over the house, and a Commander or Leader in any Army is sometimes put upon such necessities. Suarez is as zealous as any other against the delivery of the Sacrament to those that are unworthy of it, yet bounds it with this caution, If the Mini­ster may do it without inconvenience; And putting the objection, That not to give the Sacrament to an unworthy person is a negative precept, that binds ad semper, to all times, and therefore never to be done. He answers that this Precept is not simply Negative, but is to be reduced to an Affirmative, which is prudently and faithfully to dispense this Sacrament, which being formally taken is alwayes to be observed, as often as this Sacrament is admini­stred, and so it comes to passe that if it may be, it is to be denyed to those that are unworthy, not that it is alwayes to be denyed upon any inconvenience whatsoever.

Nor let any charge me as being too indulgent to such men, see­ing none that I know of any party is of another mind. They that stand for Elderships, will have this done by the Minister, when the Eldership overrules it. And those of the Congregra­tional way, when the Congregation in the majority, votes for it. And may not the Minister do the same thing when he sees that he is put upon like or greater necessity in it? The Churches edification in the first place should be considered, but the peace of the Church by no means neglected; alwayes provided, that unworthy ends of self-advantage, pusillanimity, base compliances (which may be as soon seen in the majority of a multitude, as in one single person) do not over-rule it, and may be our temp­tation in dispensation of the Word, as well as the Sacrament, and with all care, courage, study, prayer, to be avoided; That the Apostles severe charge, 1 Tim. 5.21. may be conscienciously heeded, Doing nothing by partiality.

SECT. XVII. A Corollary drawn from former doctrines.

FRom these two observations above mentioned, That God is the author, Sacraments are to be re­ceived from that hand that God hath assigned. and The Covenant people of God the subject of the Sacraments, this follows by way of Corollary, that The people of God are therefore to receive them from that hand, that God is plea­sed to appoint to administer and dispense them to them. If God please to vouchsafe a gift, he is worthy to appoint the hand for conveyance. This might have been the employment of Angels in glory, whom he makes ministring Spirits, and to whose charge he commits his servants; but he hath chosen another way com­municating it by man to the sons of men; honouring men so farre as to entrust them with these Mysteries, whereby he, 1. makes tryal of their faithfulnesse, whom he thus entrusts in so noble an employment, as the dispensation of his Covenant, and seal, his Word and Sacraments. 2. He makes known his power, setting up weak man in his cause to oppose, and get the upper hand over Satan, and the world; chusing the weak things of this world to confound the mighty. 3. He provides for his own glory, which would have been endangered, in case Angels had been employed in this Ambassy; when an Angel was sent to John, he was ready to forget himself, in his extasie to worship the Angel, Revel. 19.10.22.9. In case the Treasure were in heavenly vessels, the glo­ry would be of the vessel, and not of God; we should have con­ceived so much glory there, that we should looked qo high­er. 4. He condescends to our infirmity, that are not able to bear divine apparitions. This man hath known by experience, Judg. 13.22. Luke 2.9. and God himself hath considered, Deut. 18.16, 17.5. He thereby makes tryal of our humility, and obedience, whether we will submit to such which he sets up, though no other motive but his appointment appears in it: yet this is not handed over to vs promiscuously by all, or any of the sons of men, but those that he hath chosen from among men in things appertaining to God, Heb. 5.1. The Apostle lets us know that all are not Apostles, all are not Prophets, all are not teachers, all are not workers of miracles, 1 Cor. 12.29. so we may conclude all are not stewards, every household servant is not set over the [Page 277] household to give meat in due season.The dispensa­tion of Sacra­ments is a part of the Ministe­rial function. Arguments evincing it. This is a work in Gospel times proper to the Ministers of Christ, as by several Arguments may be made to appear. 1. They that were sent out to convert and instruct, were in commission alone to baptize, Matth. 28.19. But the Ministers of Christ are sent out to convert and in­struct; they onely are spiritual Fathers, Teachers, &c. There­fore this is their businesse, as before this commission it was by divine warranty practised by John Baptist, and afterwards accor­ding to the commission through the Acts of the Apostles. 2. the Supper of the Lord is a setting forth of the death of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.26. and therefore alone their businesse in a publick way who are to preach Christ crucified, 1. Cor. 1.23. 3. They are the stewards of the Mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1. These are of his Mysteries, the outward elements as they hold out, and seal Gospel-promises unto us. 4. They are set over the household of God, to give them their meat in due season, having in charge to feed the Flock of God, which is among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. 5. Sacraments are a visible Word, which never can profit, unlesse they be opened, and the Mystery be interpreted. 6. They are seales of the Gospel-covenant, and instituted appendants to it, and therefore to be dispensed by Gospel-Ministers, that are in commission to preach the Gospel. And so Mr. Tombes his quibble is against him. Though (saith he) the title of the Mini­ster of the Gospel be used in the New Testament, yet the title of the Ministers of the Sacrament is a made title, Praecurs. pag. 82. Sa­craments are comprized in the Gospel, and Ministers of the Gos­pel comprizes Ministers of the Sacraments. 7. All ages of the Church give in their vote with it, no Church regularly giving this power to any other;Whether Mi­nisterial dis­pensation be of the essence of Sacraments? Yet I would have this understood with this caution, that I do not so make it of the essence of Sacraments in general, that no Sacrament can have any being, but in the hand of a publick Minister, seeing, for ought we can read, neither Cir­cumcision, nor the Paschal Lamb were committed to the hands of men in Ministerial function. Circumcision was given in charge to the parent, and whether his own hand, or any others should be employed in it, it is not mentioned. They might (for ought we read) make use of those that were most dextrous in it. And for the Paschal Lamb, Rivet among the Calvinists, and Gerard among the Lutherans deny, that it was to be brought to the Prist to offer; and though both were Sacraments, (as may be [Page 278] objected) instituted before the Priesthood was settled, and while the first born were authorized for publick Ministerial acts, yet we do not then find it charged on the first born, not yet afterwards vested in the Priesthood;The negavit judged proba­ble. neither do I yet judge it to be so of the in­tegrality of the Sacraments of the New Testament, that it should be no manner of Sacrament, if it be not carried on by the hand of a Mi­nister, The matter and form being first instituted, the Sacrament, is after put into a Ministers hand to dispense it. And I see not a flat nullity of a Sacrament,Gospel order transgressed, when Sacra­ments are othewise dispenced. but a foul breach of Gospel-order, when that way is neglected. As David felt to his grief, and was brought to confesse a foul mis-prision, in the order of Gods worship, when the Ark was carried on a Cart, and not on the Levites shoulders, 1 Chron. 15.13. so it is when the Sacraments are delivered by any other hand then a Ministers; yet the Ark (though carried as it ought not) wheresoever it was, it was yet the Ark of God; so these ordinances (though administred as they ought not) are yet still Sacraments, they are still divine instituted ordinances, where the man is such that hath his interest, by a free Covenant grant; and the Ordinance is the seal appointed for ratification of this Covenant, though conveyed by an unmeet hand, it is (I sup­pose) no meer nullity, though a transgression. That of Mr. Hooker, Ecclesiastical Policy, lib. 5. Sect. 62. is worth our obser­vation: If any thing be herein amisse, the harm which groweth by violation of holy ordinances, must altogether rest where the bond of such ordinances holds. And having shewed how it is otherwise in jurisdiction, he addes, Factum alterius alii nocere non debet. Baptisme on the other hand being a favour which it pleaseth God to bestow, a benefit of the soul for us to receive it, and a Grace which they that deliver, are but as meer vessels, either appointed by others, or offered on their own accord to this service; of which two if they be, the one it is but their own honour, their own offence to be the other, can it possibly stand with equity and right that the faultinesse of their presumption in giving Baptisme, should be able to prejudice us, who by taking Baptisme have no way offended? We justly abominate the opinion of Papists on the one hand, that make the intention of the Minister to be of the essence of the Sacrament, so that if that be wanting, there is no Sacrament, as also the opinion of Donatists of old, and Anabaptists of later times on the other hand, that make the quality of the Minister likewise essential; so that where he is defective in holinesse and fidelity, there the Sa­crament [Page 279] must of necessity be wanting in its power; and efficacy. And these opinions we reject as upon other accounts, so upon this that it brings Christians into inextricable straits, how shall they reach the Ministers intention, at the time that he is about this businesse; None knowes (but he that searcheth the heart) this thoughts at that time, and so no other knowes whether any more then common water hath been applyed, or commpn bread received. How shall they know the Ministers goodnesse? how shall they know his graces? Hypocrisie is spunne with a thred so fine, that anothers eye cannot discern. And in case the Ministers goodnesse were but seeming goodnesse, then that which we re­ceived were but seeming Sacraments. This opinion of the very essence of Sacraments, depending on the lawfulnesse of the call of Ministers, puts them to little lesse trouble. If a man will know whether he were ever baptized, he must be put to it, to make enquiry whether his Baptist were lawfully ordained, be­ing happily dead before he is able to put this to the question. And this being the Sacrament of his initiation, he may well questi­on whether he stand actually and orderly enrighted in any Church? priviledg, or be in any orderly way any Church-member, in case this fail? Many things being done, are of force, and stand firm, though he that did them deserves no praise. Though they do not nullify a Sacrament, yet they break a Gospel rule, Fa­ctum valet, faciendum none est, is an old maxime. And the more neer men come to the place of the Ministerial function, the more unquestionable is the validity of such administratrions, when any assumes other parts of the Ministeriall function, to officiate in publick in that way that the peoples esteeme of him, is as of a Mini­ster called to this work; those that otherwise seem much to scru­ple, yet then conclude, that as a Gospel promise is a promise, though from his mouth whom God hath not sent to preach the Gospel, so a Gospel Sacrament from his hand, is a Sacrament. The call and the work, are not so inviolably joyned, but that the work is done, though unduly, by him that is not called to it; yet though the validity of the work be asserted, the disorder must be opposed. Entring upon Aarons work, and never called of God, as Aaron was; with Vzziah officiating in that work, that appertains not to him; leaving scruples in the thoughts of those to whom in this disorder they have administred these ordinances. This the Church hath never suffered, save onely tha Papists and Luthe­rans [Page 280] dispense with Baptisme in case of necessity (putting so much weight upon it, and placing such efficacy in it) which the Church of England also suffered after the reformation till King James his dayes, and then (as appears in the conference at Hampton-Court) it was reformed. Dr. Abbot in his Lectures read, while it stood in power, appeared publickly against it, and as I remem­ber (for the book is not in my hands) affirmed, that zealous Mi­nisters then generally did distaste, and decry it. The Midwife was usually employed in the work as nearest at hand, to cast water upon the infant ready to dye in her armes, though in no capacity of that function by reason of her sex; and though the sex might have born it, she was never called to it. But they must first make that good, that all perish without Baptisme, or that the act of Baptisme assures us of salvation, before they can justifie this practice, (Protestant Writers with irrefragable arguments op­posing it) produce as a dispensation from God for the breach of an order by him set up; otherwise we shall conclude that from the time of the said conference, it hath justly been put in­to the hands of the lawful Minister; and notwithstanding Mr. Tombes his quibble, it was upon just grounds concluded by the late Assembly in their confession of faith, Chapter 27. Sect. 4.

SECT. XVIII. A further Corollary from the former doctrine.

All that are interested in Sacraments must come up to the termes of the Cove­nant.IT further followes, that all those that interest themselves in Sacraments, expecting benefit by Baptisme, and comfort at the Lords Table; must come up to the tearms of the Cove­nant. They receive them as signes and badges of a people in Co­venant with God; They receive them as seals of the Covenant, God puts to his seal, to be a God in Covenant: In their accep­tion they engage as by seal to be his people in Covenant. The obligation now is mutual, in case man fail on his part, God is disobliged: If any tye be upon him, it is to inflict the just me­rit of breach of Govenant upon them. I have spoken to the necessity that lyes upon the Ministers of Christ, to bring their [Page 281] people up to the termes and Propositions of it, Treatise of the Covenant, chap. 20, 21. Here I speak to it onely as the interest in the Sacraments tyes to it: And this obligation hath all force and strength in it. When God entred Covenant with man in his integrity, upon condition of perfect and compleat obedience, and gave him (as we have heard) Sacraments for the ratification and confirmation of it; when man failing in obedience, and fal­ling short of the duty of the Covenant, those Sacraments were of no avail; notwithstanding the tree of life man dyed, and not­withstanding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man be­came brutish in his own knowledge. It fares no better with those that are under a Covenant of grace, and live and persist in breach of Covenant; we see the heavy curse that God pronounceth against them, Jer. 11.3, 4. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this Covenant, which I commanded your Fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt, from the iron Furnace, saying, Obey my voyce, and do them, according to all which I Command; so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God. And to this Jeremy adds his Amen or So be it, O Lord; which assent of his, though it may be re­ferred to the Prophets duty in obedience of Gods Command, when he had said to him, ver. 2, 3. Speak to the men of Judah, and in­habitants of Jerusalem, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be every man that obeyeth not, &c. The Prophet in these words says, What thou hast enjoyn'd me I will do it; and so Junius and Treme­lius understand it; or to the Prpphets earnest desire to have the promise fulfilled, which the Lord utters in the close of his speech, ver. 5. That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a Land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. To which the Prophet answers, So, Lord, let it be, that this people being careful to keep Covenant with thee, may still enjoy that land which thou didst by oath bind thy self to settle them in, as the last larger Annotations understand it, or to Jere­mies answer in the name of the people binding themselves to obedience, as Diodati understands it; yet doubtlesse it also com­prizeth the Prophets acknowledgement of the equity that the curse should fall on those that obey not the words of the Cove­nant. The Amen is of that latitude, that it comprizeth the whole that goes before of the Prophets duty, his desire, the peoples obligation, and the equity of the curse that lyes upon [Page 282] disobedience. As the Sacraments in Paradise could be no pro­tection to man in sin, so the Sacraments under the present Cove­nant (whether in the old dispensation of it in the dayes of the Fa­thers, or new dispensation of it in Gospel-times) can be no pro­tection of those that lye in unbelief and impenitence. Let not an unbeliever, let not an impenitent person think to find shel­ter here, as the Jewes did think to find in the Temple, and say, They are delivered to do these abominations. Priviledge of Sacra­ments can help Christians no more, then birth-priviledge could the Jewes, who are checkt by John Baptist for making it a plea to this purpose, and called to bring forth fruits worthy of repen­tance, and amendment of life, Matth. 3. I do not say that unlesse you are assured, that you do believe to justification, and repent in sincerity and unfeignednesse, that you must not come to the Lords Table. I have declared my self to the contrary, but I say you must make it your businesse to believe; your work to repent in truth and sincerity, or else you shall never find here acceptation. The Covenant of works was for mans preservation in life, and Adam could have help towards immortality in the tree of life no longer then he made it his businesse to keep up to that which the Covenant required. The Covenant of grace is for mans restitution to life, none under this Covenant can find any help to­wards life in any Sacraments annext to it, otherwise then in keeping up faith and repentance, which are the termes and condi­tions of it. Which way doest thou expect life in the Sacra­ment, either of thy initiation, or confirmation, either in Bap­tisme, or the Lords Supper? is it in the Sacrament it self? or is it in Christ that thou shouldest seek and look after in the Sacra­ment? If thou lookest for it from Sacraments, thou Idolizest them and deceivest thy own soul. Bread and Wine never were, nor ever can be saviours: Our Fathers ate Manna in the Wildernesse, and are dead, Joh. 6. We may eat bread at the Lords Table, and eternally dye. All Israel in the wildernesse did eat of Manna, and drank of the Rock which the Apostle calls Spiritual meat, Spiritual drink, being Sacramentally such, yet with many of them God was not well pleased, but they were overthrown in the Wildernesse, 1 Cor. 10.5. If thou sayest thou lookest for life in Christ, I desire to know where thou findest that men in unbelief have life in Christ. The Apostle saith, I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and presently adds, The life that I live in [Page 283] the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, Gal. 2.20. And the same we may say of repentance, Christ with his own mouth denoun­ceth death and destruction to the impenitent, I tell you, Nay, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, Luk. 13. Where he gives life he gives repentaace to life, Act. 11.18. I have said that the Sa­crament may be improved with the help of the Word towards conversion; But if there be no such change already wrought in thy soul, nor any such thing in thy endeavour, then this great Or­inance is sadly prophaned; thou pretendest to Christ, when indeed thou treadest under foot the blood of Christ; seemingly wouldst have thy interest in his blood, and dost become guilty of his blood. Here Christs death is set out, his sufferings for sin, called to remembrance. Art not thou now affected with delight in his death when thou art affected with delight in thy sin? when thou seest a man murthered and sportest with the murtherers, with those whom thou knowest to have had the alone hand in the murther, how then dost not thou be come an accessory? This is the case of the man that comes to the Sacrament, and will keep his sin. He looks not upon Christ Sacramentally broke to the breaking of his heart, but he looks upon him to his hearts rejoy­cing. Look upon all that hath been said of the danger of un­worthy receiving, by all that have written practically upon this subject; all is thy danger that art in sin, and resolvest not to re­linquish: thou art admitted into the Church by Baptisme, and upon that account art of that number, and reckonest thy self among those that are called Christians, and here perhaps thou hast hopes, highly prizest this priviledge; as sometimes the Jews did circumcision in order to the favour of God, and assurance of eternal life: And doubtlesse rightly understood it is to be prized, otherwise God would not have given it, it is an honora­rium, or token of love to his people. Nor would the Apostle Peter have said that Baptisme saves, 1 Pet. 3.21. But our build­ing of hopes upon Scripture-words without Scripture-Com­ment doth undo us. When the Jewes took themselves to be secure against all the judgements that the Prophets could de­nounce by reason of sin, upon the priviledge of circumcision; Jeremy undervalues not circumcision at all, but helps them to a right understanding of it; will have them to have it full and compleat, reckoning up many Nations by name, he saith, They are uncircumcised, they were wholly destitute of it: and mentio­ning [Page 284] the house of Israel, saith, that they are uncircumcised in heart, Jer. 9.26. They want the best and choisest part of it, and so are in the same condition with uncircumcised ones; and the Apostle after him beating down the vain confidence of the Jewes in their outward title called Jewes, and circumcision, which was a badge of their relation to God as a people in Cove­nant, tells them, that he is not a Jew that is one outwardly, that was not enough to give a full and true denomination; but he is a Jew that is one inwardly, who is for God in soul, as well as in name, and circumcision is that of the heart, Rom. 2.28. and he beats down the carnal opinion of the Jewes in circumcision, by a definition given of the circumcised, We are of the circumcision, that worship God in Spirit and in truth, Phil. 3.3. And baptisme of the flesh can neither be, nor do more, then circumcision in the flesh: The Apostle therefore telling us that Baptisme saves, is as willing to undeceive us, as the Prophet was to undeceive the Jewes, and tells us that he doth not mean the outward put­ting away of the filth of the flesh (the application of water is but the outside of Baptisme) but the answer of a good conscience towards God; when conscience answers to that which this wash­ing signifies, and to which it engages, then Baptisme saves, not of it self, but seales Salvation through the Resurrection of Christ; when conscience fails in its duty, Baptisme fails in its efficacy, then it brings not Salvation, but is an aggravation of condem­nation, as after may appear. Thou art admitted to the Supper of the Lord, upon that account, that through knowledge gained, and profession made, thou art in a capacity for improvement of it for eternity; But if thou stay here, and thy remembrance of Christ broken for sin, do not work thee to brokennesse of heart under sin; canst drink of this Cup, and gulf in wickednesse, here is no pardon sealed, but condemnation heightened. I know on the other hand, to discourage men from endeavour, some say, that there is no acting for life, but from life; what can be gained by sin? and all actions done in unregeneration, are no other but sin. I marvel then, what that Counsel of our Saviour means, Joh. 6.27. To labour for the meat that endures to everlasting life, The context acquaints us with the unregeneration of those, to whom this Counsel is given; As also, what that complaint of our Saviour means, Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life. These works in unregenerate men are acts of obedience, and not [Page 285] (as is objected) sins, onely by accidental pollution they are sin­ful; such subtleties are above the Logick that we read in Scrip­tures, which gives duties in charge, in reference to their respective ends, without consideration of the state of the subject under com­mand, whether in nature, or grace. Actions we know work to habits, and in case that rule hold, that. Habitus infusi infundun­tur more acquisitorum, which Dr. Wilkin sayes, is a golden rule in Divinity, Treatise of the gift of prayer, pag. 8. this is above controversie. I yeeld to that of Austin, that as a wheel is not made round by turning, but turnes because it is round; so a man is not made good by doing good, but is good through grace, and then does good; as the tree is first good, and then brings forth good fruit. But it is not Gods way to infuse grace into the soul unfitted for it, no more then it is to infuse life into the body un­organized. A new being is put of God into the soul, when reason appears to it, of closing with it. The Word, Prayer, Sacraments, may all have a hand in it. And all are in vain to the soul, Word, Prayer, and Sacraments, with all other Ordi­nances, and endeavours, unlesse they lead the soul to it; make it thy businesse to come up to the Covenant, or else it is without fruit, that thou comest to the Sacrament.

SECT. I. Of the necessity of Sacraments.

THe next Observation that the words offer, is,Sacraments are not arbitrary but necessary. That Sacra­ments are not arbitrary, but necessary; the Covenant-people of God, not onely may, but must partake of them. As God appointed, so Abraham received this sign of circumcision: And as he received it, so all in confederation with him received it like­wise, Gen. 17.23. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abrahams house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, as God had said unto him. And the stated time for circumcision of those children who were born of parents in Covenant, being the eighth day, the text tells us, That Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being [Page 286] eight dayes old, as God Commanded him, Gen. 21.4. And when Moses had a son born in his exile, and had neglected this duty; The Lord met him in his way from Midian to Egypt, and sought to kill him, Exrd. 4.24. he appeared in some formidable way of death to him, in that way (as many do conjecture) that he ap­peared to Balaam on his way, Numb. 22.23. Not that God really intended his death whom he now employed in that great work to deliver his people out of Egypt, but he appeared in this po­sture, to let him know what his sin deserved, and by these ter­rors to bring him and his wife to take the course after mentio­ned, for prevention of it. And though there have been some that have gone about to assign other causes of Gods anger against hith, and this apparition in such terror, yet no other in the text appearing, and God departing from him, upon the childs circumcision; the neglect of that Command was un­doubtedly the cause of it. Whatsoever reason moved Moses to this neglect, whether the fear of displeasing his father in law, or his wife, (which Rivet judges to be most probable) certain it is from the Lords displeasure against him, that it was his sin. This was after given in charge by Moses to the people of God, Levit. 12.3. speaking of the birth of a man-child, he saith, The eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. This the Israelites (except the intermission of it in the wildernesse) exactly follow­ed; when the eighth day happened on the Sabbath, that work was yet observed, as Christ notes, Joh. 7.23. On the Sabbath day they received circumcision, that the Law of Moses might not be broken; John Baptist therefore on the eighth day was circumcised, Luk. 1.59. and Christ himself on that day was circumcised, Luk. 2.21. as also Paul, Philip. 3.5. That of the Passeover was ap­pointed 400. years at the least, after circumcision. It had its first institution in Egypt, Exod. 12.3, 4. &c. to be observed as a feast to the Lord, throughout their generations, to be kept as an Ordi­nance for ever, ver. 14. It was again commanded by Moses, and inserted into the body of the Law, Levit. 23.4. Numb. 28.16. This was carefully observed by the Israelites in their generations, though at some times when Idolatry prevailed, sinfully neglected. We read of many famous Passeovers observed; viz. In Joshua's time, in Hezekiah's, in Josiah's dayes, also by Ezra upon the return of Gods people out of the captivity of Babylon, Ezra 6.19. It is observed of the Lord Christ, that he [Page 287] kept four Passeovers after the time that he publickly appeared as the Messiah. The last was the evening before his death, concern­ing which he said, With a desire have I desired to eat this Passe­over with you before I dye, Luk. 22.15. With extreme earnest affection he was carried towards it, and then he put a period to it, and did institute his Supper in the place and room of it. That heavy menace, so frequently threatened in the Law, of being cut off from among their people, is given out against the neglect of both of these Sacraments, Gen 17.14. The uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant, Num. 9.13. The man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passeover; even the same soul shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed sea­son, that man shall bear his sin; which commination however we do interpret it, whether of the more immediate hand of God, as dying childlesse: The case of Jeconiah, Jer. 22.30. or being cut off by untimely death: The case of Er and Onan, Gen. 38.1.9. and of Nadab and Abihu, Levit. 10.2. or perishing everlastingly: The case of all presumtuous and inpenitent siners, 1 Cor. 6.9. or whether the execution be committed to man, and that either the temporal Magistrate, which was the case of Achan, Josh. 7. and of Shelomiths son, Levit. 24.14. or by Ecclesiastical censure, which was the case of the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5.13. As there be that appear for each of these, which way soever it is understood, it sufficiently proves a necessity of these Ordinances. For the Sacraments of the New Testament when John baptised, and the Pharisees did refuse to submit to his Baptisme, the text saith, They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves, Luk. 7.30. and the Commission given to the Apostles, to disciple all Nations, baptizing them, Matth. 28.19. implyes a necessity of all discipled ones, to submit to Baptisme, Mar. 16.16. He that be­lieveth and is baptized shall be saved. Faith is of absolute neces­sity in all that hear the tender of the Gospel, and therefore it fol­lowes, He that believeth not shall be damned; and Baptisme is the ordinary way set up of God, that leads to it. Peter counsels his converts, when he had them in an hopeful way, Repent and be Baptized, Act. 2.28. And Ananias counsels Paul, Arise, why tar­riest thou? and be baptized, Act. 22.16. For the Lord Supper we find it under a precept, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. Luk. 22.19. Do this in [Page 288] remembrance of me, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, implies as a preparation for it; so also a necessity, that we eat and drink of it; so that every Sacrament hath its injunction upon it.

First, The institution of it is a sufficient proof of the necessity. God did never institute it to have it neglected; There is strength in that argument from the gift to the use,Arguments evincing the necessity of Sacraments. from the fruition of any thing from the hand of God (as the servant the talent from his Master) to the improvement of it. These are instituted of God for his people, and therefore for the use of his people. That which the Apostle speaks respective to Gospel ordinances in general, may be applyed to any one in particular; We beseech you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6.1.

Secondly, Frequent explicite commands are added (as we have seen in the Scripture proofs) respective to either of the Sa­craments; and though no other reason could be rendred, yet the Soveraignty of heaven must be obeyed. When the young Prophet that came from Judah, 1 Kings 13. did eat bread upon his return, expressely contrary to the command of God, we know the judge­ment that followed, when the like command is broke in refusal to eat, there is the like danger; God hath power in positives, as well as negatives, in commanding of eating, as he hath in forbid­ding.

Thirdly, As it is a duty, so also a priviledg; we obey a com­mand when we receive a Sacrament, and also take a gift. And the sleighting of Gods favours, equals the evil of disobedience to his commands. What sin suffers more then theirs, that upon call, refuse to come to the wedding supper? The gift is annex­ed to the duty. Take eat, this is my body; they that do not eat, have not the promise.

Fourthly, Our necessity calls us to it, we have proved the Sup­per to be an heart-breaking ordinance, and there is none that de­ny it to be a soule strengthening ordinance. Hunger will make haste to run to meat, guilt to pardon, and pain to ease, and sorrow to comfort; were we as sensible of our hunger, or guilt, we should make equal haste to Christ in each ordinance, in this ordi­nance. Those that are agreed about the necessity of Sacraments, are yet at difference about the degree, or kind of their necessity. That distinction of necessity by precept, or command of God, and necessity as a means whereby salvation is gained, is well [Page 289] knownAdversarii fa­tentur Sacra­menta esse ne­cessaria quia praecepta, et etiam necessa­ira ut media utilia: non ta­men agnoscunt ullum Sacra­mentum ne­cessarium, sim­pliciter ut me­dium. Bellarmine saies, we yield to them the former, that there is the necessity of a divine command upon them, And they also yield to us that no other Sacraments of theirs are any other­wise necessary, except Baptisme and repentance. And we fur­ther yield that repentance is of necessity in the most absolute sense; being understood of the change of the heart or conversion to God. But not under any notion of a Sacrament. As to their Sacramental repentance, standing in confession in the eares of a Priest, taking pennance, and receiving absolution from him, we do not so much as acknowledg any command of God concer­ning them; All the dispute then is about Baptisme, In which also we cannot grant, that there is a command given of God con­cerning it, but we must yield that it is necessary as a means where­by God in his ordinary way, carries us on by his grace to salvati­on; onely we deny such an absolute necessity of it, as that no sal­vation can be obtained without it. They yet yield that desire of Baptisme doth supply the want of it, and we yield that those of years, that neither have it nor desire it, cannot be excluded from contempt of it. This growing out of error, as in Socinians, The kind or degree of ne­cessity in Sa­craments. and others, we say it is dangerous, but do not presently conclude it damnable. But the want of it, where there can be no desire of it, as in infants, they make damnable; in which we wholly are dis­senters, and cannot yield a necessity of that height in it. We have our reasons.

First, Salvation was not tied to Sacraments in the Old Testa­ment; not to circumcision, in room of which we have baptisme, and is by the Apostle called by the name of Baptisme, Col. 2.11. This is clear by the delay of it, according to Gods command, to the eighth day. If those perished that died in the mean space, which was the case of Davids child, their parents obedience of Gods command brought them to perdition. And salvation be­ing not tied to Sacraments, but attainable without them, in the daies of the Old Testament, there is no cause to believe, that in the New Testament, there should be restraint. The promul­gation of the Gospel did not streighten grace, or make the way lesse passeable to life and glory.

Secondly, They that are in Covenant with God, are upon that account in capacity of Salvation. This is plain; what advan­tage is gained by Covenant, if salvation be denyed? But such are in Covenant, many such that never were baptized. This is [Page 290] as clear. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed; assoone as Abraham had a child, he had a child in Covenant, which howso­ever Jesuits, and after them Anabaptists would understand of the spiritual seed, yet God (as we see through the Old Testament) ownes them as his in a greater latitude. Those to whom he gave the land of Canaan, are his seed there mentioned: But he gave not the Land of Canaan to the spiritual seed onely: There­fore they onely are not the seed there mentioned. The New Testament holds it out, in as great latitude, as I have abun­dantly shewed.

Thirdly, As Abraham the Father of the faithful came into a state of justification, and salvation, so others may attain to it in like sort; This is evident of it self: But Abraham was in a state of justification, without application of any Sacrament in his state of uncircumcision, and not of Circumcision, as the Apo­stle argues, by computing the time, when it was said of him, that he believed the Lord, and it was accounted unto him for righteous­nesse, Rom. 4.9, 10.

Fourthly, If Baptisme be of this absolute necessity, that rege­neration is affixt to it, and none can be saved without it, then it is in mans power to save; and destroy, as is said of Nebuchad­nezzar, whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, Dan. 5.19. which was the highest pitch of prerogative in regard of the outward man; so it may be said of man respective to eterni­ty of blisse, or misery; according to them the meanest midwife may Baptize them ready to give up the Ghost, and save them, neglect them, and damne them. The Infant set out in type, Ezek. 16. And Moses in the flags, lay sadly at mans mercy for this fading life; but thousands of infants, are alike at mercy, accor­ding to this tenent, for eternity.

Joh. 3.5. vindicated.The great objection which is made on the contrary, and that onely which is worthy of consideration, is drawn from Christs words in conference with Nicodemus, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of 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 Ch [...]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 [Page 292] 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 [Page 293] 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.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 5^th. Book against Donatists these words:Etiam atque etiam conside­rans in venio, non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi, id quod ex Baptismo decrat, posse supplere, sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi, in angusti­is temporum sufficere non potest. Neque enim latro ille pro nomine Christi crucifixus est, sed pro meritis facinorum suorum; nec quia credidit passus est, sed dum patitur credit: quan­tum it aque valeat etiam sine visibili Sacramento baptismi quod ait Apostolus. Rom. 10.10 Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem, in illo latrone declaratum est: sed tunc impletur invisibiliter cum mysterium baptismi, non contemptus Religionis, sed articulus necessitatis excludit. Again, and again, con­sidering I find, that not onely suffering for the Name of Christ, may supply what is wanting in Baptisme, but also faith, and conversion of the heart, if peradventure streights of time will not permit the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptisme. But to hold the Reader no longer in this controversy; in avoiding the Popish necessity of Sacraments, for a more distinct understanding of this necessity of Sacraments, I shall lay down some rules.

SECT. II. Rules for a right understanding of the necessity of Sacraments.

Rules for a right under­standing of the necessity of Sa­craments. 1. Sacraments are standing Ordinances.FIrst, that Sacraments both of the Old, and New Testament, are standing Ordinances, to be observed of the people of God, not barely in the generation in which they were set up, but in all successive generations; so that there is an abiding and lasting necessity in them. This is in that punctuall way set down in Scriptures respective to each Sacrament, as though the Spirit of God would let us know, that he did foresee a generation ready to arise, to throw them off, and live above them, or else to vilifie them, as unnece­ssary, indifferent and arbitrary. For circumcision, see Gen. 17.12, 13. He that is eight dayes old, shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations: he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed, he that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised, and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant. God layes there a necessity upon it, a lasting necessity in all succeeding generations of that people to be observed; and when Moses several generations afterwards did as we have heard omit it; upon what reason we have nothing but conjecture. We see, Exod. 4.24. how much God was dis­pleased at it. And for the Passeover, Exod. 12.13. we find a like lasting injunction, This day shall be unto you for a memoriall, and you shall keep it a feast unto the Lord, thorowout your genera­tions: you shall keep it a feast by an Ordinance for ever: repea­ted again, ver. 17. It was an Ordinance that no Jew in any ge­neration might antiquate, or put a period unto. It must last as long as they remained a distinct generation unto God, even till Christ (in whose hands are times and seasons, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek) should be the end of it. As to New Testament-Sacraments the Scripture is as clear; when Christ gave commission for discipling Nations, and baptizing them, for their encouragement in the work, he promises his presence unto the end of the world: The work is to continue as long as Christs presence in the work continues: But Christs presence [Page 295] according to promise, is to continue with them in discipling of Nations, and baptizing them, being discipled, unto the end of the world. I am not ignorant of the Critical observation that is made of the phrase, [...], saeculi, by reason of the va­rious acceptation of it in Scriptures, endeavouring to have it to be understood of the end of that age, in which those lived to whom Christ spake. But neither the parallel use of the word by Matthew, nor the context will bear that evasion. For the parallel use of the phrase by Matthew four places may be in­stanced in, three in one Chapter, Matth. 13.39. The harvest is the end of the world, vers. 40. As therefore the tares are ga­thered and burnt in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world, vers. 49. So shall it be at the end of the world, the Angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, Matth. 24.3. Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of the coming, and of the end of the world? In all places the phrase is the same, and the words can be understood in none of them with that limitation: And that the context will not bear it, enough may be gathered from that which I have said, Trea­tise of the Covenant, pag. 117. For a more clear discovery of the words, we know that there is a double period of ages, or generations in Scripture: One at Christs first, coming, when an end was put to Circumcision, and the Passeover; of this the Apo­stle speaks, Heb. 9.26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself: at the end of that world Christ dyed. The other is at his second coming, and this is the end of the world here mentioned; and upon this account Dr. Reynolds in this Sermons upon Hos. 14. interprets that of Christ concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, that it shall never be forgiven in this life, nor in the life to come, Matth. 12.32. of the age in which Christ lived, and now near to an end, and the age that should follow from his death till his second coming; neither under the Old, nor New Testament, or Cove­nant, can that sin find remission. Till Christs second return, a Ministery, and Baptisme must still remain. For the Lords Sup­per, Scripture-testimony is as clear, 1 Cor. 11.26. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lords death till he come. If we can believe a coming of Christ for a temporal Reign, before the time of his, coming to the general Judgment, I shall believe that may be called the consummation, [Page 296] end or finishing of this generation; and then a period may be put to these and other Ordinances. But howsoever that will answer, or fail mens expectations, certain it is, that it is the mind of Christ that they shall stand, till the time that he doth come; and then his mind will be further known. The practice of the Church hath hitherto answered these testimonies. All ages of the Church (as we know) held up Circumcision till Christs time, and in Christs time it was in use, as Christ testifies, Joh. 7.22. and he submits to it in his own person, Luk. 2. and so we may say of the Passeover notwithstanding some disuse, the godly ever knew it to be in force, or else, as piety broke forth, they had not still reassumed it. And Christ dying (as we have heard) at the end of that world, the day that he was to dye, he held a passe­over. In New Testament-times not onely through the Apostles times, but to this time, Baptisme and the Lords Supper have continued. Reasons may also enforce this as to Sacraments in general, so to Baptisme and the Lords Supper in particular. 1. The Covenant is to be kept for ever, there is no dispensation at any time for the breach of it; The seals then which by Divine in­stitution are appointed as appendants to it, must be continued. As reason it self may speak enough for the validity of this conse­quence, so the Text of Scripture likewise confirms it, Gen. 17.7, 13. compared, I will establish my Covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations for an everlasting Covenant; to be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circum­cised; and my Covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting Co­venant. 2. We have as much need as ever, this generation as any other generation, to have our weaknesses supported, our faith strengthened; there is not any benefit ever gained by a Sacrament, but as primitive times did, so we may reap spiritual advantage by it. For reasons for the perpetuity of Baptisme, Mr. Baxter, pag. 341, 342. of his Treatise of Infants Church-membership and Baptisme, hath furnished the Reader with plenty; of ten that he urges, I judg nine at least to be unquestionable; to which I shall adde onely one, and that is such a one, that with weaknesse enough hath been brought by some for warranty of the disuse of it. If the gift of the Spirit be lasting, and continuing in the Church, then the use of Baptisme is lasting and continuing likewise: But the gift of the Spirit is lasting and continuing: Ergo. The assumption, that the [Page 297] Spirit is a lasting gift, I suppose none will question. The major Proposition is grounded on the Apostles words, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? When others do reason from the having of the Spirit, to the needlenesse of Baptisme, the Apostle disputes in the direct opposite manner, where the Spirit is, there Baptisme is not to be denyed. For the Sacra­ment of the Lords Supper, we may likewise evince the constant standing necessity of it: 1. The death of Christ is to be shewed forth constantly, and every way preached: This is a shewing forth of the death of Christ, a means of declaring of him cru­cified, 1 Cor. 11.26. 2. The memorial of Christ is to be pre­served, and endeared; This is for his memorial, done in remem­brance of him, Matth 26. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. If the deli­verance from Egypt must be kept as a memorial for ever in that Ordinance of the Passeover, then much more the remembrance of Christ in his Supper. 3. Every way of Communion with Christ is to be preserved, and upheld; This is a way of Commu­nion with Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. 4. Union with the Members of Christ is to be studied; This is the way of our union with the Members of Christ, and therefore this is to be continued. I shall not enlarge much for refutation of Objections of those that in our times are contrarily minded, seeing I have read little of any thing that they have to say; a noise is abroad of such (with whom I have had small converse) that cry down rebaptisme, by the denyal of Baptisme; as Lucian made it his businesse to con­fute Polytheisme, by bringing in of Atheisme; made himself merry with the Pagans rabble of gods, by believing no God; Opposition of errour ordinarily leads men into opposite errors; but a better way may be found for the overthrow of a double Baptisme, then by the nullifying of all baptisme. One God asserted by the Apostle will overthrow Atheisme and Poly­theisme, and one Baptisme asserted by him in the same place will overthrow Anabaptisme. But these are not the first founders of this opinion: Austin speaking of the Manichees, Heres. 46. saith,Baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam per­hibent salutis adferre, nec quenquam eo­rum, bapti­zandum pu­tant. That they hold, that Baptism with water not at all use­full for salvation, neither do they think it meet to baptize any that they deceive: and speaking of other Hereticks, Heres. 49. Se­leuciani, and Hermiani, he saith,Baptismum in aquâ non acci­piunt. They do not hold any baptisme with water. And Philastrius (who as Bellarmine witnesses de [Page 298] Scriptor. Ecclesiasticis, pag. 93. wrote be­fore Austin of Heresies, and is quoted by Austin) saith,Seleucus & Hermius haeretici ani­mas hominum de igne & Spiritu esse existimantes, isti baptismo non utun­tur, propter verbum hoc quod dixit Johannes Baptista: ipse vos baptiza­bit in Spiritu & igne. Seleucus, and Hermius the hereticks hold, that the soul consists of fire, and the Spirit. These use not Baptisme, by reason of John Baptists words, He shall bap­tize you with the Spirit, and fire. Socinus in this last age hath revived this opinion, and saith,Baptismum aquae habere prae­ceptum Christi, aut saltem non perpe­tuum & universale. That Baptisme with water hath no command from Christ, or at least no per­petual, and universal command. The Rea­der if he please may see the Scriptures by him wrested, and Rea­sons by him brought,Refert Vossius. vindicated, and answered by Vossius de ne­cessitate Baptismi, pag 381. to pag. 388.

Rule. 2 Secondly, There appears a greater degree of necessity of the ini­tiatory leading Sacrament, Initiatory Sacraments are of greater ne­cessity then those that fol­low. which serves for our first admission (whether in the dayes of the Old, or New Testament) into the Church of God, then of the other that succeeds for our further strength and growth. Both of them are necessary, neither of them are arbitrary; but in case we may enter comparison, the greater weight lyes on the former, as may several wayes appear unto us:

Arguments evincing this necessity.First, There was a leading Sacrament for initiation many years in the Church, before any was ordained to follow after it. Cir­cumcision was given in charge 400 years before the Passeover; that of Circumcision was not long after Abrahams call, and the promise of the land of Canaan being before Isaac's birth, which was onely 25 years distant from his first removal out of Haran for Canaan, as appears, Gen. 12.4. & 21.5. compared. The Passeover was given in charge upon Israels departure out of Egypt, Exod. 12. one year before the Law was given, which was 430 yeares after the promise to Abraham, Gal. 3.17. All this time the seed of Abraham entred into the Church by Cir­cumcision, and enjoyed no other Sacrament properly so cal­led.

Secondly, Gods displeasure never shewed it self so high, up­on the neglect of the Passeover, as upon the neglect of Cir­cumcision, though the penalty threatned is the same in both, Gen. 17.14. Numb. 9.13. God never appeared, that we read, for the death of any, upon that account, as he did for the death [Page 299] of Moses, upon the neglect of Circumcision. Reverend Mr. Cotton makes the like danger to be in the neglect of Infant-Bap­tisme, as we may see in the Preface to his Book on that sub­ject.

Thirdly, To be utterly out of the Church, must needs be of greater danger, then to want some one Ordinance in the Church.Extra Eccle­siam nulla Sa­lus. Out of the Church there is no salvation, is an old Rule, which Acts 2.47. Ephes. 2.12. Jer. 10.25. abundantly confirm, that is, without it, and all right of relation to it, and to be without right, and to live in the neglect and despisal of it, (being con­vinced of the necessity of it) are alike dangerous.

Fourthly, No such brand can lye on the want of the one, as the other; none equal to that of uncircumcision, can be fastened upon the want of any other priviledge: But lest excusing à tan­to, I should be though to excuse à toto, in comparing the dan­ger, I should be though to deny any danger in the want of this later, I shall cease.

Thirdly, As the Passeover in Israel, both in the wildernesse, The Lords Supper may occasionally be delayed. and Rule. 3 the Land of Canaan, was sometimes discontinued, and not in the time prescribed observed, by reason of the Churches disorder, and present unpreparednesse of the people; so likewise it may haply some­times fall out on like occasion, to be thought needfull for a time to delay the Lords Supper. For the disuse of the Passeover by the children of Israel in the Wildernesse more happily may be said, then for the time when they were settled in Canaan, seeing Cir­cumcision at that time was also discontinued, whether by special command from God, or upon inevitable necessity by reason of their often removals, for which the knife of Circumcision would have disabled, or their sinful neglect, I will not deter­mine; and yet more is said for ommission of it in that time, then perhaps can fairly be defended. A Reverend Divine saith, He wonders why omission of the Passeover in the wildernesses is alledged; for after the first celebration thereof, all future celebrations were by expresse and plain command to be onely in the Land of Canaan; quoting Exod. 13.4, 5. with an &c. Deut. 16. from ver. 1. us (que) ad 8. and confirming it at large with the authority of Rivet, inserting his words. But with due reverence to men of their eminencey, I may suggest also my wondrings, how it can be said, that by expresse and plain command all future celebrations of the Passe, after the first, were onely to be in the Land of [Page 300] Canaan, seeing, Numb. 9.1. a famous Passeover was observed in the wildernesse of Sinai, in the first moneth of the second year after they were come out of the Land of Egypt. If it be said, that this Passeouer in the Wildernesse was by especial com­mand from God, and otherwise should not have been observed till they came into the Land of Canaan, as Ainsworth on Numb. 9.1. in favour of this opinion doth indeed say, The cause why God commanded them to keep the Passeover in the Wildernesse was, (saith he) for that by the first institution they were bound to keep it when they came into the Land of Canaan, and therefore without speciall warranty could not have kept it in the desert. I answer, That Circumcision when it was first taken up again in the Wil­dernesse, was by especial command from God, Josh. 5.2. and in all probability the Passeover that then was observed with it, ver. 10. was by like command; which doth not argue, but that by vertue of the primitive institution they might have kept it; nei­ther is there any Text urged evincing any such limit to the Land of Canaan: for the place quoted, Deut. 16.2, 5, 6. verses, one­ly looks that way,Deut. 16.2, 5, 6. vindica­ted. and the words are these, Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passeover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd in the place in which the Lord shall choose to place his Name there; thou mayest not sacrifice the Passeover within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee; But at the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his Name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover at even, at the going down of the Sun, at the season that thou camest forth out [...]f Egypt: and there the place prohibited is not all places out of Canaan, but their own gates, though in Canaan. And the place prescribed is not Canaan, but the place wheresoever God should fix his Tabernacle; upon the same account no sacrifice could have been with warranty offered in the Wildernesse, but onely in Canaan, there is the like reason, and like Law for both, Deut. 12.5, 6, 7. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his Name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come, and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sa­crifices, and your tythes, and heave-offerings of your hand, and your vowes, and your free-will offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks, and there ye shall eat before the Lord your God. Yet we find sacrifice offered in the Wildernesse, and there they did eat before the Lord, as is plain, Levit. 10.1. ver. 16, [Page 301] to the end. As for Exod. 12.25. & 13.45. where the com­mand for celebration of the Passeover is given in charge to be observed, when they came into the Land of Canaan, They be­ing to have Canaan by the gift of God for their habitation, men­tion is made of that place, where it was in all their generations to be observed (and no notice taken of any such halt, that they were to make in the way, which their sin did afterwards occa­sion): But it is no prohibition of it in the way thither, or war­ranty for omission, when the time was thus protracted for their arrival there; having the Tabernacle with them, they had their liberty for observation of it: which is clear to me, from Deut. 12.10, 11. When ye go over Jordan and dwell in the Land, which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety, then there shall be a place, which the Lord your God shall choose, to cause his Name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you. But before they passed Jordan, while Moses was with them, as you have heard, they had their offerings, which is fur­ther plain, Numb. 16.17, 18, 46.47. and so might have had their Passeover likewise. As the Passeover was discontinued in the Wildernesse; so it was also oftentimes in the Land of Canaan, we read of no more Passeovers then one, that was kept by Jo­shuah. Josiah in the eighth year of his Reign, began to seek af­ter the God of his Fathers; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah, and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved Images, and the molten Images, 2 Chron. 34.3, 4. But it was in the eighteenth year of his Reign that he could reach to keep a Passeover, Chap. 35.19. Hezekiah, as appears, hasted to keep a Passeover, yet durst not be over-hasty, he could not keep it on the day which originally in the Law was appoin­ted. But upon advice put it off to the second moneth, because the Priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, 2 Chro. 30.3. Ezra kept a Passeover upon the return out of the Captivity, Ezra 6.19. and the reason is given, vers. 20, 21. For the Priests and Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and kil­led the Passeover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the Priests, and for themselves; and the children of Israel, which were come again out of Captivity, and all such as had sepa­rated themselves unto them, from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the Land to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat. Had not the [Page 302] Priests and Levites been thus purified, and the people thus sepa­rated, the Passeover it appeares had been longer delayed. As these saw necessitating occasion for omission of this Ordi­nance, which yet is not charged as their sin; so may also the Ministers of Christ see like occasion for delay of administra­tion of the Lords Supper. And there is advantage on their part, seeing there was a prescript time in the Law for the observation of the one, but no limited time in the Gospel for the admini­stration of the other. Sometimes a Minister by providence is cast upon such a people, that scarce three are able to discern what they have in hand, when they are about this duty, and therefore he sees no more reason to call them to it, then Christ saw to call his disciples newly chosen unto private fastings, or the Apostle to give meat to babes; edification is their great businesse, their whole businesse; they may stay the time that they may admini­ster it to edification; sometimes it evidently appeares that the rent is in a way to be made so great by their administration, through the observance of some working errour upon the judg­ment in others, that are so principled, that none but high Saints are for this Ordinance, that they see danger in proceeding in it. And though I do not doubt, but that it is often forborn out of sinful neglect, and by truly consciencious Ministers, sometimes out of over-much indulgence of their brethrens weaknesse, and their own over-rigid principles: yet as I do believe that all con­sciencious Pastours, who for some space of time forbear, do judge that there is cause for such forbearance, so I do believe that upon some occasions pro hic & nunc, it may justly be for­born. And whatsoever exception is taken against Arguments drawn from Analogy, as not concluding, of which I need to say no more then I have already spoken, yet I shall conclude, that this which is drawn from the Passeover (which is rather from example, then analogy) is cogent. If that of the London-Di­vines in their Divine Right of Church-Government, pag. 20, 21. (quoted and approved by Reverend Mr. Jeanes, pag. 21. of his Treatise) be of weight, That whatsoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture, upon such grounds as are of morall, perpetual, and common concernment to one person as well as to ano­ther, to one Church as well as to another, these actions are obliga­tory to all, and a rule to after-generations, then this Argument; grounded on the example of such actions, is not to be charged [Page 303] as not concluding; yea, though we had no such Example to lead us, (as perhaps they had none, to be a precedent to them) yet those reasons which led them, or those that are equi­valent, may lead us likewise.

Fourthly,4. Rule. There is no prescript for the time, or frequency of the observa­tion of the Lords Supper. There is no definitive time in the Gospel for observa­tion, nor any precise determinate prescript for the frequency of the Lords Supper. But when and how often Christian prudence must order, yet being an holy exercise, the day which we are to keep holy calls for it, being the Lords Supper, what time so meet as the Lords day? The whole community of the faithful being interested in it, it is to be observed at the time of their publick meetings, which occasionally may be at other times, but must be at that time. And in case breaking of bread, Act. 20.7. be meant of the Lords Supper, (as most affirm, and I will not op­pose) it is out of question. But yet I cannot think that every holy duty is alwaies to be the work of every holy meeting, so the word should never be preached, nor prayer publickly made without a Sacrament; I believe there is somewhat extraordina­ry in a Sacrament, comparative to other duties, as there is in a Fast. And though the Law for the Passeover, and day of Atone­ment, tye not us to annual observations onely of Sacraments, and Fasts, as it tyed the Jewes; yet me thinks it speaks some­what more then ordinary in them, and that Fasts and Sacra­ments are not to be done in that frequency, as daily addresses to God in prayer, and our hearing from God in his Word. And though I subscribe to Mr. Pemble and others, that the Apostles words, [As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup] implyes that it should be often. A Christian should not seldome in his life partake of this Ordinance, yet I suppose it doth allow, if not imply longer intermission then is to be in other duties. The primitive times, perhaps in some places at least, made this Ordi­nance over-common, celebrating it (as is said) every day, in other places every Lords day. Mr. Pemble who religiously pleads for the frequent celebration of it, sayes, It is true, that as in other, so in this Divine institution, Satan hath done much by his mali­cious policy to corrupt mens hearts in the observation of it. When the Sacrament was administred often, he brought it into contempt by the commonnesse of it: Now that it is administred seldome, through ignorance it is thought unnecessary. How truly his obser­vation is verified, we see in two extreams into which different [Page 304] parties are run at this present time: One part breaking bread almost at all their meetings, and make no more of it then com­mon bread, looking after no Minister set apart for that work, not so much as of their own making, any one whom they will call a gifted disciple (and such with them is every dipt disciple) is set up for it; They act it while some walk, some talk in their presence, with lesse reverence then befits grave persons at common meals. I fear there was never more rudenesse in Corinth, then may be seen here in Sacramental observations. On the other hand, the Sacrament is almost forgotten, and looked upon as a Ce­remony antiquated, and obsolete; Christian prudence should interpose, and discern a mean between both. To quicken and put us on against this last, of which the most had need, instead of a Book of Canons,Directions for our guidance about it. or compulsory Lawes. Let us, 1. Affect our soules with an ardent love of Christ, and then we shall not be so slack in celebration of this memorial of him: We will keep up the memory of an endeared friend, this way Christ hath commended to endear his memory to us. If love be such as it ought, we shall not desire that it be seldome, if it may be pos­sibly often. Peter had it three times in charge from Christ, to feed his Lambs, to feed his sheep; how often he must preach Christ he is not told, that is left to his love; If thou lovest me, feed my sheep. Love would not let him be slothfull. 2. Let us take into consideration our own necessities, of which here we may have supplyes, first our want of humiliation, and heart­breaking, how slight and overly is all our feeling, and sense of sin? if let alone are we not in danger to grow past feeling? which was the case of the Heathen, when they had arrived at the greatest height of wickednesse, Ephes. 4.19. Here is an hammer for that purpose, when once the Law hath discovered, by the light that is given, that we have sinned. No way to this for the aggravation of it. Here we see Gods detestation of sin, that would not spare it in his onely Son, as he spared not the Angels that sinned, but having no Mediatour to bear it for them, they bore the punishment of it in their own persons; so he spared not his own Son, when he had taken upon him our sin. Here we see the desert of sin in all those torments which Christ bore for us. If we would know sin, and be sensible of wrath, study the Sacrament, the dead soul may be here awakened. Second­ly, our spiritual weaknesses and wants, which I shall set out in [Page 305] Mr. Pembles words, Let them look inward, and see how great need they have of many and often confirmations of their faith, renova­tions of their repentance, of stirring up the graces of God in their soules, to adde an edge, an eagernesse to all spiritual affections after holinesse, to get unto themselves the most powerfull provocations unto obedience. Every one that hath grace knowes how frequently the power thereof is impaired by temptations, weakened by wordly distractions, even of our lawful employment, and over-mastered by the force of sinful lusts, so that they must needs discover a great deal of ignorance in their spiritual estate, that feel not in their own soules a pronenesse to astonishment, as well in their soules, as in their bodies, at least they bewray intolerable carelesnesse, that finding the emptinesse and leannesse of their soules, yet neglect to repair often to this holy Table, whereon is set forth the bread of life, where­of when they have eaten, their spirit may come again, 1 Sam. 31.12 their hearts may be strengthened, their soules may be reple­nished, as with marrow and fatnesse. These considerations may quicken our appetites after this spiritual food. And such a meal extraordinary, with the help of our ordinary refreshments, in hearing, prayer, and meditation, may carry us on more then 40 dayes, towards our heavenly Mansion. That we hasten not too fast on the other hand, Let us take into consideration our inabilities for a suitable preparation, and fitnesse for addresse to this Ordinance; we have fasted so long in course, that we have scarce known what humiliation of our soules in fasting is; yea; some would be every day at [...]t, as we can rise in our spirits to the extraordinary weight of it, and fit our soules with suit­able preparations for it. These that I have named are the best gages, that I know, to regulate us in it, that in over-eager haste in duties extraordinary, we do not run our selves out of breath; nor in over-much sloth, give our selves over to faintnesse, and leannesse.

SECT. III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine.

Men called to the Sacrament may not othe­wise then upon weighty rea­sons absent themselves from it.THen it will follow by way of necessary inference from this consideration of the necessity of Sacraments; that, When Sacraments are dispensed, Christians should see weighty reasons, such in which they may have confidence, that they will bear them out at the day of Judgment, for their omission of them. This duty is in the number of affirmative precepts, which alwayes bind, A man is never from under the obligation of that Precept, Do this in remembrance of me; though it doth not bind to all times, A man is not to be ever in the doing of it, and he is never to be found in the neglect of it; Loco & tempore debitis, in due time, and place they must be done. A journey would have dispensed with a man for absence from the Passeover, so it will (when ne­cessity of a mans calling makes it necessary) from the Lords Supper; so also will sicknesses, imprisonments, or like providen­ces. But when the servant comes, and calls, and sayes, All things are made ready, then take thou heed how thou makest excuses. They that were called to the wedding Feast might have pleaded, that other businesses lay upon them, that they could not alwayes attend weddings: But when the King sends, and sayes, All is ready, come, there is no time for other occasions td be lookt af­ter. It were an endlesse work, to find out the reasons that men frame for absenting themselves.Excuses for ab­sence from the Lords Table removed. Some see that it is a duty above them, neither their knowledge, nor their life doth answer to that which is required in a Communicant; and so despair of coming up to it, and therefore keep off, lest they should (as they fear) encrease their judgment: In case these speak out of a serious consideration of the work, with a sad reflexion on themselves, upon a diligent scrutiny into their hearts, and wayes; and so take a day over for it, and in the mean time digge for knowledge, as for hid treasures, and do strengthen their resolu­tions to withstand all temptations to sin, they are by all meanes to be encouraged, and holpen; every Christian of strength should commiserate these weak soules. But in case they clearly see all to be so, as we have said, and resolve to let all alone, as a man that sees himself near to a bankrupt, regards not whether [Page 307] end goes forward. This is then a sad and saddening reason; It lyes upon these to take their state and condition into further consideration, that by the good hand of God it may be better with them. To provoke these to further care of their eternal state, I shall put to them these questions:

First, What is it that thou dost respective to other duties,The excuse of unfitnesse exa­mined. the duty of Prayer? dost thou pray ever, or never? resolving to keep back from the Sacrament, dost thou resolve wholly to forbear to call on the Name of the Lord? If thou resolvest in this way, and perishest, thou hast upon thee the brand of the wicked, Psal. 14.4. They call not on the Name of the Lord; and the sentence of the wrath of God, Jer. 10.25. If thou canst pray with hopes to be heard, thou mayest then have hopes to receive the Sacrament, to be accepted; and if so qualified, as to be out of hopes in the one, then thou art altogether void of hopes in both. Paul speaks much of the danger of an unwor­thy Communicant, which should awaken all that intend to re­ceive. And multitude of Scripture-Texts speak the same of men that pray in such a condition: What can be worse then for the Lord to say, when they pray, he will not hear, he will hide his eyes? Isa. 1.15. to reproach their praying, by the name of howling? Hos. 7.14. to account it an abomination? Prov. 28.9.

Secondly, If it be above thy hopes to sit down with accep­tance at the Lords Table, Is it not then as much above thy hopes to sit down in heavenly places with Christ Jesus? If thy state of ignorance, unbelief, and wickednesse keep thee from partici­pation with visible Church-members in this Ordinance in the way, how wilt thou be fit to joyn with the Church Triumphant in glory? Thou must be made meet for heaven, Col. 1.12. if thou come to heaven: and thou art meet to partake of this Sup­per, when thou art meet for heaven; unfit for this, unfit for salvation.

Thirdly, If the danger be great to come unworthily, is it any lesse not to come at all? It is hard to determine of the sins of despising, and prophaning the worship of the Lord, whether is greater, or lesser; Judge whether are in better case, those men­tioned, Matth. 22.7. or him that is mentioned, ver. 12, 13. and then thou wilt see that there remains nothing, but to endeavour to be such a one that may come, otherwise [Page 308] thou perishest in coming, and perishest in absenting.

Others professe their willingnesse, and readinesse to come, in case they could have things to their minds when they come: But things being as they are, they are compelled to forbear. Now these keep off out of several principles, which in case they be well laid, they may justifie their practice; but in case they are found erroneous, their way must needs be faulty. These are in two extreams.

Want of a wonted Lei­turgy may not excuse.Some would come in case the ancient Liturgy were held, and the Book of Common Prayer anciently in use in England might be observed; in the mean time till that be, they do forbear▪ To this I say, It is wonder how so much stresse is laid on this as to invite to the worship of God in case they may enjoy it, and to perswade a total neglect, if they want it. Give me leave to desire of these (there being so many that harp upon this string) a few things for satisfaction, that so we may either prevail with them, to hold Communion with us, or else that we may for­bear with them.

First, Is not this an honour far above all, that is due to any labour, or composure of man, to turn the scale in this manner, whether an instituted worship of God must stand or fall? An humane work it is, this cannot be denyed; we are to receive no­thing as Divinely inspired, upon pain of adding to the Word of God, but that which is contained in the words of the Scripture. For this, so to steer my course, that when my liberty of use of it is granted, I will worship; and when denyed, I will forbear; This I say is too high an honour, a work of man is thus made of the very essence and being of an Ordinancie of God. Hezekiah indeed put that honour upon the Altar at Hierusalem, that he would admit no sacrifice elsewhere, (as Rabshakeh could observe to his reproach, Isa. 37.7.) But he had a Word of God for it, Deut. 12.5, 6. To give the like honour to this book without a word from God, is to idolize it; These opinions of it, were that which outed it.

Secondly, Is it for the excellency of the work it self, that thou thus prizest it? or from the Sanction, that from higher powers hath been put upon it, the Law that did establish it? It must needs be one of these, that moves thee to put such an honour upon it. That no such incomparable transcendent excelleny, to cause so high a price to be put upon it, can be found in the work [Page 309] it self, may seem several waies to appear, if we consider, 1. The time of composure, immediately upon the first dawning of the Gospel light, and beginning of the knowledg of God in the midst of us. 2. The persons for whose use it was composed, such that for the generality had scarce stept one foot out of Po­pish blindnesse. 3. The end at which the compilers aimed, to frame such a piece that might draw on a people wholly held in Masse Idolatry, to be content to accept somewhat in their own tongue, where prayers are directed to God in Christ, and not (as before they had been trayned) to Saints, and Angells; So that they made not that use of their own gifts for such a work, as by the light received from God they might have framed, but such a one that they judged most meet for the Churches present infant condition, and so contented themselves, in a great part, with that which they found in the Breviaries, and Portuises of Rome. In so much that B. Davenant one of the gravest and most learned of Prelates, saith, Deter. 37.Quidam ex­ipsis Pontifici­bus Romanis, formulam il­lam sacrorum officiorum qua not utimur, probare volue­rit, modo nos ab ejus autori­tate hac in rependere volu­issemus. that some of the Bishops of Rome have offered to approve our form of prayers, provided that we would accept it by their authority. This is sufficient, if no more should be said, to make it appear that it did never come up to that ex­cellency, that one might reach, that were composed in greater light, and for their use that were of further growth. But letting it passe without exception, and yielding (as must be granted) that thousands are in heaven that received the Sacraments no otherwise then according to the directory in it, yet doubtlesse, as must also be granted, that many more thousands are in heaven, that never knew it, Christ and his Apostles never used it. It was not in use in the primitive times; How many Liturgies may be read, as we may see if we go no further then Cassander? and this of ours is none of them. None of the reformed Churches in the world except England hath made use of it. Had it been of such a glory that men would deny themselves the benefit of the Sa­crament, rather then want it, all should at the greatest cost have procured it. As our forefathers in England sent over into Ger­many for Bibles, at least New Testaments with hazard of their lives, so should they out of Germany have sent for ourt Liturgy Whereas some ignorantly say, that that was the Protestant Reli­gion, Protestanisme lives and dies with it; This is damnably in­jurious to all Protestants in all the world, but our selves; The want of this Liturgy strikes them out of our Communion; It on [Page 310] the other hand as much gratifies the Church of Rome, whose emis­saries whisper this into ignorant eares; they use to charge us, that Henry the eighth brought in our Religion, but according to these we are not so old, Edward the sixth must be the father of it. It is not then from the excellency of the work that men can warrantably refuse this ordinance of God, upon the want of it the Sacrament may stand in its glory without it. But it is from the sanction that is put upon it, the law that hath established it, to which the people of England, though not others, must be subject. This many learned in the lawes much questioned; while it was most in use with us upon grounds not easily answered; the act that imposed it under so strict penalties, referres to the book authorized by Parliament in the fifth, and sixth years of Edward the sixth, with two onely alterations; now the alterati­ons from time have been many more, and therefore the book is not the same. And whereas we should have recourse to the standard, the original draught among Parliament-records, that for many yeares hath not been found. 2. When we have suffered so great a change, as we see in our lawes, divine provi­dence so ordering, and yet keep silence, and in submission to di­vine will, conform to that which is in present; How is it that this should be as the lawes of the Medes and Persians, which changeth not? When it is taken from us, we must not leave an or­dinance of God, to keep hold of it.

Others would receive it, in case they might keep up their won­ted gesture when they come to it.Variation from a gesture or posture may not excuse. But seeing that that in ma­ny places is not born, therefore they keep from it. Answ. When some heretofore did forbear the Sacrament upon the account of kneeling, being so prejudiced against it (as no Scripture-posture) that they durst not use it, what clamours and invectives were raised against them, that they left (as was wont to be objected) a necessa­ry duty for that which was arbitrary and indifferent, and upon so smal an account made a breach of that unity, which ought to be among the people of God? Was it not an usual language in re­proach of these, to say that they would receive it lying along; if it were possible standing on their heads, rather then want it? and when these made it their complaint, that they were accoun­ted schismatique Puritans, and worse then Idolaters, for not kneeling at the Sacrament, Abridg. pag. 39. Bradsh. arg. 11. He that took most paines, and wrote most largely in defence of [Page 311] kneeling, answers, As for the imputations of Puritanes and Schismatiques, so far forth as the same be cast upon you for refu­sing to kneel, it is because you refuse and oppose the Church in a mat­ter indifferent. For to strive against a National Church, and break the peace of it unjustly (as to breake it about such mutable gestures in Gods worship, as are truely indifferent both in nature and use, is to break them unjustly) was ever held for a Schismatical course. Paybody of kneeling, part 3. pag. 226. That which was then so blame-worthy, that men upon it were scarce judged fit to live in the Nation, is it now so innocent, and praise-worthy? will this be a good plea at the day of judgement, to speak to God in this language? Thou hast commanded the celebration of thy Supper, enjoyning us to take, eat, and to drink of it. Thou didst annex a promise of the body and blood of Christ for the pardon of sin; now there is a gesture which I would take in, which thou commandest not; in case I may not have my will in the one, why shouldst thou have thy will in the other? Let thy great promise go, rather then I will take and eat it, in any other posture then that which I have used. When so many and great troubles were in the Church about this gesture, which are not yet forgotten, many pious men yielded to it, though they saw inconvenience in it (seeing they durst not make a schisme in the Church, or be at the losse of a Sacrament) but were farre from believing any ne­cessity of it, or in it. The party that urged it had never more to say then the command of authority, to put an obediential, not an inherent necessity upon it, (as Dr. Sanderson distinguishes) and the indifferency of it in its own nature to warrant it; If a gesture (which some have judged sinful, and all have confest to be unnecessary) now be waved, none should be so much offended.

Others yet would break through all of this,A call by Church-offi­cers for an ac­count of know­ledg and pro­fession of faith is no warranty for absence. to come to this ordinance, neither want of Liturgy, nor change of gesture should keep them back. But there is a further barre in their way, that which Peter requires of every man, to be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh them, a reason of the hope that is in them, 1 Pet. 3.15. is now called for, in case they will communicate. Here is their grievance, and therefore they will absent themselves, and here is a double exception. 1. The thing it self. 2. The manner of proceeding. As to the thing it self; It is objected, that the Apostle saies, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of his bread, and drink of this Cup, &c. [Page 312] Every man then is to be left to his own private examination, and not to subject himself to the examination of another. For an­swer to this grievance, I say,

First, In case that this examination, or account taken, did shoulder out that of self examination, the objection were then to purpose; if these can be proved opposite, and not subordinate, one of them must then be waved.

Secondly, Let us then agree in this, that self examination is necessary: and that it is to be done in order to the worthy receiving the Lords Supper; and all that would communicate, to be ready to engage themselves for this self-exami­nrtion, and then I shall onely demand these questi­ons.

First, Whether they will examine themselves, or engage for examination, that cannot examine? Whether they will make a search, that have not eies to see? Whether they will prove themselves, whether they be in the faith, that know not faith? Whether they will examine their humiliation under sin, and return from sin, that know not sin? If a Minister of Christ should call upon his people to examine, before they eat of this bread, or drink of this cup, he must upon that account take care that they be so farre knowing as to do it. If he must ad­minister it for edification, he should see (so farre as he is able to discern) whether they be in a capacity to be edified by it. If this knowledg be wanting, then by their own confession they are unmeet, in case they be of knowledg, it is easily signified, and made known, especially fundamental necessary principles be­ing alone demanded.

Secondly, Among other graces, wilt not thou in this self-exa­mination look for that grace of humility? that of hungring af­ter Christ Jesus evidenced in the love of his Ordinances? If thou art wholly wanting in the grace of humility, thou standest unfit for this Table, God resists the proud, The soul that is lift up is not right. If once this be obtained, then thou wilt, as to thy guidance in heaven-way, not be too high to obey those that are over thee in the Lord. Those speeches that we have heard of scorn and comparisons entred, never came from an humble heart. If thou wantest an hungring fervent affection after Christ Jesus, thou then art not meet for this Table, as being without a spiritual appetite; If thou hast attained to it, no such [Page 313] barres will be pleaded, or spoken of to hold thee from it. Hun­ger will break stone-walls, iron-bars: This is a hard weapon that will break through all obstacles.

For the manner, some say,The associati­on of Elders in the work, no warranty for absence. If this were done by the Minister alone, they could easily bear, but others associated they do not like. Ruling Lay-Elders they suppose are not of Gods institu­tion. To this I say,

First, What do they say to all the Reformed Churches almost in the World, that have that way of Discipline; if thou wert a member of the Church there, wouldest thou upon this account separate and leave Church-Communion?

Secondly, What sayest thou of our Government in this Church, when Bishops were in power; who acted then in Go­vernment but Chancellors, and Officials, who were for the most part lay-persons? If such could rule over a whole County, per­haps three or four Counties; three or four may then with the Minister have inspection into one Parish. The 26 Canon re­quired Ministers to keep back notorious offenders from the Sa­crament; and Canon 27. provided that he should give his reason upon complaint to the Ordinary, and obey his direction. This Ordinary was for the most part a Lay-person, and he was set over both the Ministers and Communicants of many Congrega­tions.

Thirdly, In case any judge that according to Gospel-order, no others should joyn with the Minister, but that he should act alone in admission; what prejudice is this to the Sacrament, when he that is confessedly called to the work, acts alone in the administration of it? And in case a Minister see it expedient to crave assistance in so weighty a businesse, especially where he is cast upon a large Congregation, for his further information, and advice; where then is the evill? When Ministers this way go alone, then it is auricular confession, shrift, and whatsoever pro­phanenesse can devise; then partiality is objected, that out of spleen they put men from this Ordinance; when to avoid these even by consent help is chosen, that on the other hand it is such a grievance,The mixture of such that are supposed un­worthy, no warrantly for absence. that it is thought a sufficient reason of mens ab­sence.

These that we have hitherto seen are extreams on the one hand. There are those of an opposite party, that have their Objections likewise, and would come, as they say, to this Table, [Page 314] in case they could meet with suitable guests there, and those onely that become such a Feast; such that are holy, and no other; but looking for others there whom God never called, they resolve upon that account to keep absent. I answer, 1. Let these take heed lest they take too much upon them, in passing sentence upon all that come to joyn in this duty, and think bet­ter upon it, whether that, or somewhat else, ought not to be there their businesse? 2. Whether they go not higher then the Word of God will bear them out in the principles that they lay for the qualification of such a one that is admittible to this Sup­per? and take heed that their great ambition be not to find out a Church in that purity and glory, that Christ hath altogether denyed to be enjoyed on earth. 3. Where it is that they can have hopes to go to joyn, where all give evidences of regene­ration, and no other are received? These betake themselves all their dayes to the Society of Seekers. As those under the famine of the Word threatened by the Prophet, shall wander from Sea to Sea, and from the North, even to the East, and shall run to and fro, seeking the Word of the Lord: So may these, seek­ing a Church of their own fancying, but shall find none. But for more full satisfaction, let these take these following Argu­ments into consideration.

Arguments evincing the lawfulnesse of communica­ting in mixt Congregati­ons.First, There is never an approved example in all the Scripture, of any one man that did separate, or withdraw himself from an Ordinance, which God hath enjoyned upon the account of the impurity or defilement, either of him that did administer, or of those that were to joyn in it. It is true that it is said, 1 Sam. 2.17. as the aggravation of the sin of Hophni and Phinehas the sons of Eli, that men then (and as appears for their sakes) abhorred the offering of the Lord, and therefore in all probability absen­ted themselves from it; but Elkanah and Hannah did not so, as ap­pears, Chap. 1.3, 7. and Mr. Hildersam. Lect. 29 on John, pag. 129. observes from Chap. 2.24. that it was their sin that made any such separation.

Secondly, There are many approved Examples of the people of God to the contrary; how much do we read in the Prophets of the peoples wickednesse, and corruptions in the State Civill, and Ecclesiastical? yet which of them for that cause did make separation? We see what company did resort to the house of God in Jeremy's time. Jer. 7.9, 10. and yet we see Jeremy rea­dy, [Page 315] when he had liberty, to resort to it, Jer. 36.5. Much was out of frame, and little in due order in Christs time; yet as he acknowledged, that even then salvation was of the Jewes, Joh. 4.22. they had then saving Ordinances among them, so he held Communion with them, as he religiously observed other Feasts, so some have observed (as we have heard) that he kept four Passeovers, after he appeared in publick, for the work of mans Redemption.

Thirdly, One mans sin must not keep another from a necessa­ry enjoyned duty; if one man will make himself by his prophane addresses guilty of Christs death, another must not therefore forbear to shew forth his death. This is such a duty, and the sin of another will by no means excuse neglect of it: this were to sin, because another sins; to despise an Ordinance, because an­other prophanes it: when one came without a wedding gar­ment, no invited guest for his sake did keep from the wed­ding.

Fourthly, No one Communicant is bound to examine what all are, that are his fellow-Communicants; there is neither ex­presse command for it, nor yet reason to evince it; each man is bound to see himself arrayed, as he ought, and not to find fault in others addresses, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat; though he be to admonish as his brothers visible sin gives him occasion.

Fifthly, The penalty of him that comes unworthily, reaches his own self, that comes in his unworthinesse, and extends no further. Legal uncleannesse defiled the man, that was personally unclean, and not his neighbour: so it is here, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, &c.

Sixthly, If one mans sin this way do defile another, the sin of one Communicant doth defile all other Communicants; then it must be either from the nature of sin, thus to defile all in so near Communion, or from the nature of the Ordinance thus to be defiled to all, when one in defilement comes to it; or from some positive precept forbidding all to come, when any that is un­clean is there. I doubt not but this is a sufficient enumeration. But, 1. It is not of the nature of sin, thus to defile all, in such communion, then it would every where thus defile, whereso­ever any have society, or do accompany together. Then the [Page 316] chief Priests had done well, to keep out of the Judgment-Hall, that they might be clean, to keep the Passeover, John 18.28. and the Pharisees to wash, when they came from Market. 2. It is not of the nature of the Ordinance to be thus defiled to all. It is not so in other Ordinances: Cain's offering defiled not Abels, nor did Hophni and Phinehas in their offerings defile Elkanah and Hannah when they offered. 3. Nor yet is there any posi­tive precept, forbidding a cleansed soul, upon the account of the uncleannesse of another, to come to this Table.

Seventhly, If one mans presence in this way defile another, then it is either his simple presence, such a ones being there in his infection, or else a willing and witting presence with such a one. If simple presence do defile, then there is no man that can be se­cure. The closest hypocrite that creeps in unawares would be the undoing of all; when Christ said, Ye are clean, but not all, Joh 13.10. according to this opinion it had been a contradicti­on, the uncleannesse of one had been the defilement of all. Nei­ther is it willing, or witting presence, that can in this way defile, then it must be in every single mans power to determine him to be such, and exclude him thence, or else of necessity exclude himself. When the Eldership hath judged and received accord­ing to the general way of Reformed Churches, or the plurality of votes of believers, as it is with men of the Congregational way, he must make an after-search, a further scrutiny; he that one judges fit, that most judge fit, some will judge unworthy, and upon that account must shut themselves out of Communion. Men of such principles must everlastingly avoid all Church-fellowship, or act against their principles; and we need not to speak it, it is too plainly visible what manner of persons men of such high pretences have in their Congregations. There are multitudes of Arguments heaped to nourish this scruple, but I shall not further trouble the Reader; there is nothing, I think, can be said, but that which here hath been spoke, will afford a sufficient answer.

SECT. I. Sacraments are seales.

HEre followes a second use and office of Sacraments; which being added to the former, makes up the whole for which they serve. As they are signes, so they are seales; from whence a double Observation followes.

Sacraments are seales.

All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal.

First, Sacraments are seales.

Sacraments are seales.Before this can be proved, by reason of the ambiguity of the word, it is to be distinguished; Seal is sometimes taken proper­ly, and that is yet twofold: 1. A seal sealing, or making an impression, and so the instrument used for that purpose is called a seal, or signet; so, Gen. 38.18. Judah delivered to Tamar his signet, Several accep­tations of the word. or seal; so, Dan. 6.17. 2. A seal sealed, or recei­ving an impression; so the Letters that we send have their seales upon them, when we yet keep our signet, or sealing seal, to make thousands of impressions: so in the vision, Revel. 5.1. there is a book with seven seales. Sometimes the word is used Meta­phorically. And that is also twofold; 1. By way of allusion to the signet, or instrument sealing; and so those things that are of great esteem, and highly prized, are called by the name of seales, or signets, Jerem. 22.24. As I live, saith the Lord, Though Co­niah the son of Jehojakim the King of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence. So, Hag. 2.23. 2. By way of allusion to the use and office of a signet, or seal, as making impression on things sealed, that is, as doing the office of such seales: Here it is taken metaphorically, not in a proper [Page 327] sense, but in allusion to the use of seales, not the signet it self.Several uses of a seal. Now the use of seales is various.

First, For secrecy,For Secrecy. to keep things close, so that while the seal is upon them none may look into them. To that end we use to put seales on our Letters, that they may not be read by any but those whom they concern; so the chief Priests sealed the stone, of Christs Sepulcher, Matth. 27.66. To this use of a seal the Prophet alludes, Isai. 8.16. Bind up the testimony, seal the Law among the disciples; and John also in that vision, Revel. 5.1. I saw in the right hand of him that sate on the Throne a book written within, and on the back side sealed with seuen seales.

Secondly, For warrantyFor Warran­ty. and authority in the discharge of any businesse. Haman had Ahasuerus his seal for the slaughter of the Jewes, Esth. 3.12. And Jezabel had the seal of Ahab to bring Naboth into question, 1 King. 21.8. and to this use of a seal the Lord Christ alludes, where he vouches the authority of the Son of man to give life to the world, Him hath God the Fa­ther sealed, Joh. 6.27.

Thirdly, For distinction,For Distincti­on. or separation, to mark out things that are to be known, and distinguished from others. Commo­dities allowed to passe, have the publick Officers stamp; and the Merchant puts his mark on the wares that he buyes, as the Gra­zier on his beasts, the Shepherd on his flock, to distinguish them from those that belong to others. To this the Apostle alludes, 2 Tim. 2.19. Having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.

Fourthly, For security,For Security. to keep things inviolable, and free from harm. To that end Daniels prison-door was sealed, Dan. 6.17. To this use of seales Solomon alludes, Cant. 4.12. A gar­den enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Water was precious in those parts, therefore they shut up their Wells, and sealed them, that none might draw out wa­ter from them. The like allusion we see in that vision, Revel. 7.2, 3. And I saw another Angel ascending from the East, having the seal of the living God, and he cryed with a loud voice to the four Angels, to whom it was given, to hurt the earth, and the Sea, say­ing, Hurt not the earth, neither the Sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in the foreheads.

Fifthly, For ratification,For ratifica­tion. and confirmation; for further, and more firm assurance. In the grants and conveyances of men [Page 328] the seal is to make the title unquestionable, Jer. 32.10. I sub­scribed the evidence, and sealed it. The Corinthians conversion to Christ, did evidence the Apostles Call to work of an Apo­stle; and therefore he sayes, The seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. 9.2. We find a seal, and earnest given, Ephes. 1.13, 14. 2 Cor. 1.22. to be one and the same; and the use of earnests we know is for confirmation, to ratifie a Cove­nant, or bargain: what the Apostle saith of an oath for confir­mation, that among men it for end of all strife, Heb. 6.16. the same we may say of a seal, that puts an end to differences, and contentions. And what an oath is to a promise, a seal is likewise; and Gods oath added to his promise, is of the same use as his seal, that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lye, we should have strong consolations, Heb, 6.18. yea, Abra­ham the leading man in Covenant had from God both oath and seal added for confirmation of his promise; The Apostle makes observation of his oath out of Scripture-history, Heb. 6.13, 14. When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will blesse thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And here he makes like observation of his seal, God having entred Covenant with Abraham, and his seed, addes this for ratification, Genes. 17.10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, Every manchild among you shall be circumcised; which the Apostle here interprets to be both a sign, and a seal. He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousnesse, &c. And in this respect Sacraments are called seales, to ratifie and confirm all that the Covenant doth hold out, and promise. That which doth the office of a seal, or earnest between man and man, that is fitly called a seal between God and his people: But Sacraments do the same Offices between God and his people, as seales and earnests do between man and man; seales and earnests ratifie mans Covenant, Sacraments ratifie and confirm the Co­venant of God; and therefore Sacraments are fitly called seales.

But exceptions are here taken by those that do deny that Sa­craments have any such office as to be for seales.

Objections against of Sa­craments.First, This is the alone place where any Sacrament is called in Scripture by the name of seal; This Sacrament is onely once, and no other Sacrament any where ever so called: And there­fore [Page 329] it will not hence follow that Sacraments are seals. Sol.

Answ. 1. This will conclude them to be no signes, as well as it will conclude that they are no seales; Circumcision is here called a sign, and no other Sacrament is in any Scripture-Text called a sign; yet all confesse that they are all signs. They may therefore notwithstanding this objection be seales as well as signes. 2. The calling of it a seal, doth not make it one, but onely declare it to be such: Before ever the Apostle had given it these names, it was both a sign and seal, as well as after: other Sacraments are likewise seals, where there are like Sacramental expressions, notwithstanding they have no such name in Scrip­ture. And as the Apostle infers from the institution of Circum­cision, and Abrahams acceptation of it, that Circumcision was a seal, so may we infer in like manner, that other Sacraments are signs and seals. Compare that which the Apostle here deduceth from Gen. 17. concerning Abrahams Circumcision, with that which may be deduced from Acts 8.34, 35. concerning the Eunuchs Baptisme; Abraham believed, and was justified upon be­lieving, and then received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousnesse of faith, which he had being uncircumcised. And the Eunuch did believe on Philips preaching, and afterwards received Baptisme. May we not well then say, He received the sign of Baptisme, a seal of the righteousnesse that he had being yet un­baptized? so we may say of Pauls Baptisme, and the Jaylours, upon their miraculous conversion to the faith they received the sign of Baptisme for the same reason.

Secondly, It is demanded, whether the Covenant of grace, and promises of salvation be compleat, valid, and firm in themselves, Object. without these things annexed to them? or whether they be meerly void, and null in Law, as Kings, and mens Deeds, and Charters, without a seal to confirm them? If incompleat, infirm, and invalid, this is extreamly derogatory to the Covenant, and therefore they are not properly seals.

Answ. 1. Sol. If there be some dissimilitude between civill seals used by men in Charters, and conveyances, and seals of God put to his Covenant, will it then follow that upon that account they are no seals? There are dissimilitudes between the Ambassadors of Princes, and the Ministers of Christ respective to their functi­ons, are Ministers then no Ambassadors? There is difference be­tween servants of men, and servants of God, are Christians then [Page 330] no servants? Sacraments are seals by way of metaphor, because they do the office that seals do among men, and if they do not per omnia quadrare, as no metaphors do, yet in case they agree in the main for which that serves from whence the metaphor is borrowed, it is sufficient. Ministers are fitly called Ambassadors; being sent of God to treat from him with a people, as Ambassa­dors are sent of Princes, notwithstanding that those to whom Ambassadours come, may treat, or not treat at pleasure; may give in Propositions, as well as receive them; when they to whom Gods Ministers are sent, must give audience, must take the Pro­positions delivered, and not stand to Capitulate. If Sacraments ratifie to us the promises of the Covenant; That is enough to denominate them seales, though wit could devise twenty differen­ces. And yet I read some differences assigned, which I con­fesse) I do not understand to be any differences at all. 2. I know not that it is absolutely true in Law, that mens grants are void altogether, without a seal; I have heard of Leases: parol, and Wills nuncupative, which I am sure have no seal. And seales sometimes by the injury of time are utterly broke, and lost; and in this case I suppose the Covenant may yet stand. 3. What is objected against this office of Sacraments, as seales, may also be objected against the oath of God made to Abraham for con­firmation of his Word. That will admit the dilemma; Either his Word of Promise was true, and firm without it, or else (which I am loath to speak) subject to change. The appli­cation is easie. The same thing was revealed to Pharaoh in a dream for seven years plenty, and seven years famine, by a dou­ble sign; If there was truth in one, we may argue the second needs not; if untrue, neither have cause to be heeded, or regar­ded. If we will undertake such kind of reasonings, we should make no end. 4. The Covenant is compleat, full, firm, and valid, in case we should never more then once hear it, or never have any seal put to it, nor any oath for confirmation; yet our unbelief, and distrust is such, that we need ingeminations, incul­cations, oaths, seals, and all from God to uphold us.

Object. Thirdly, It is yet demanded, whether these seales are insepara­bly annexed to the Covenant, and promises of grace in the Old, or New Testament, as parts, or parcels of them, as seales are annexed To the Charter? If yea, then shew us to what Covenants, and Promises, and in, and by what Texts they are thus inseparably an­nexed, [Page 331] and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant, and promises of grace, who do not actually receive these seales of grace? when as your selves with all Orthodox Di­vines must grant, that many who were never baptized, and infinite who never received the Lords Supper, are and may be saved, and are made partakers of the Covenant, and promises of grace, with­out receiving, or enjoying these seales of grace. If no, then how can these be termed seales of the Covenant, and promises of grace, which are not inseparably affixed to them, as seales are to Char­ters since many receive the Covenant, and promises of grace, with­out these seales; and other receive these seales, without the Cove­nant, or promises, the benefit whereof they never enjoy.

Answ. They are inseparably joyned respectu praecepti, Sol. as being enjoyned of God (and here all the Texts brought to prove the Sacraments not arbitrary, but necessary; may be brought in to witnesse) though not so respectu medii, The Co­venant may have its effect without them, The Covenant is in­tire in it self without them. They are not inseparable quoad esse, yet they have their necessity (though not simple, and absolute) quoad operari, for the Covenant to have its due work on our hearts. God saw them necessary, helpful, and useful, and therefore gave them in charge, as many Scriptures witnesse, and we of necessity must submit to them, in order to obtain the end to which they serve; and for which they are designed, and ap­pointed.

SECT. II. Rules for a right understanding of Sacramental Seales.

FIrst, These are outward, visible seales;Explicatory Propositions touching the sealing of Sa­craments. and priviledges of visible Churches, and Church-membership, committed to the Stewards of God in his house to dispense, and apply to their people. And so different from that other seal of God fre­quently mentioned, the seal of the Spirit which is internal, in­visible, proper onely to the elect, regenerate, reserved in the [Page 332] hand of God, according to prerogative to give. That these are external, and visible, needs no more then our eyes; and that they are the priviledg of visible Churches, and Church-members, sufficient hath been spoken. And therefore they both agree in the general nature of a seal, both are for ratification, and confirma­tion of the truth of Gods promises, yet in a different way, and different latitude; They have the former, that never reacht the latter; and the former is serviceable to attain to the lat­ter.

Secondly, They are seales not to confirm any truth of God in it self, or to work in us any assent to general Scripture-Pro­positions, But as general truths are brought home by particular application, so they seal mens particular interest in the Cove­nant. He that hath the Son hath life; He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. These are Scripture-Pro­positions, and he that is to seek here hath no cure in the Sacra­ments; They can give no direct remedy. These signs and seals take this for granted, and cannot make proof of it. But when this is assented to in the general, He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that feeds upon him, shall live for ever; Here soules are confirmed in their particular interests, that the Son is theirs, and that they feed upon him for life eternal.

Thirdly, we must distinguish the outward sign in the Sacrament together with that which is done about them, or any of them, and the Communicants act in the bare beholding of them, from our act of receiving of them. In the former sense they are no more then signes. The Lords Supper thus considered is no more then a remembrance, memorial, or representation of Christs death and passion. In the latter it is a seal, pledge or earnest. And therefore to say that Christ ordained it to be a remembrance, memorial, and representation of his death is a truth. But to say that there­fore he did not ordain it to be a seal, is a manifest error. If Christ had taken bread, and broken it; taken the cup, and poured out wine, and had said, This is my body, this is my blood, here had been a sign, a memorial, a representation, and no more: But when he saies, Take, eat, this is my body; This is my blood in the New Testament, drink ye all of this; it is, as Circumcision was, both a sign and seal: As a sign, remembrance or representation; the beholding is sufficient, as the Israelites did the brazen Serpent, and as Papists look on their Images, for which if they had an institu­tion, [Page 333] as they have a prohibition, they might be defended; and if we were to do no more, it would be no more then a sign, memorial, and representation; But being to receive it, It is a seal, and pledge of that which it represents, and brings to our minds.

Fourthly, They are not absolute seals, but conditional; They do not make it good to all, that Christ is theirs; but upon Gods terms, which is exprest by St. Peter to be the answer of a good conscience towards God; Of this I spake largely, Trea­tise of the Covenant, pag. 34, 35, &c. which by Mr. Baxter in his Apology hath been examined, Sect. 60, to Sect. 82. which here must briefly be taken into considera­tion.

SECT. II. Corollaries from the former doctrine.

LEt us here see the goodnesse of God, the singular tender care of Christ, thus to condescend to our weaknesse, Christs tender care evidenced in his conde­scension to our weaknesse. as to vouchsafe these visible, sensible pledges, and confirmations of our faith in the promi­ses. All that can be thought upon to ratifie, and make good whatsoever, from any hand we have in expectation, Christ hath been pleased in his condescension to vouchsafe unto us. In such a case we desire, 1. A promise, that he from whom we expect it, would engage himself by his word for it. This Christ hath done in the Gospel-promises, we have his promise frequently repeated, still inculcated, Gen. 32.12. And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the Sea, which cannot be numbred for multitude, 1 Tim. 4.8. Godlinesse is profi­table unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, Joh. 11.25. I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet he shall live. 2. When we have a word, we yet desire an oath, that the person [Page 350] by that sacred tye, may be obliged not to recede, or go back from that which he hath spoke; This God hath vouchsafed. when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge, to lay hold upon the hope set be­fore us. 3. When we have both word, and oath, yet we desire his hand, that it may be subscribed, that we may have somewhat to produce and shew for that which we expect; This God hath vouchsafed, Joh. 20.31. These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Sonne of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name, Rom. 15.4. Whatsoever things were written afore-time, were written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope. 4. Yet we desire earnest, a pledge in hand, to make good what is in Covenant, and promise past, and by oath under hand confir­med; This God is pleased to vouchsafe, Ephes. 1.13. In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of pro­mise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, untill the redemption of the purchased possession, 2 Cor. 1.21, 22. Now he which esta­blisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 5. We yet desire a seal, As Jeremy had the evidences of his purchase, Jer. 32.10. This God hath also vouchsafed, and this is of two sorts. 1. Inward by his own immediate hand, the stamp of his Spirit, the impresse of his grace. This is the charac­ter, or mark that we are his, these God sets apart for himself, Ephes. 1.13. Ephes. 4.30. 1 Cor. 2.21, 22. 2. Outward put into the hands of his Ministers, and these are Sacraments, these outward visible assurances. The former needs no conditions but it self, all sanctified are saved, and sanctification is the seal, there are all Gospel-conditions. The latter requires all the graci­ous qualifications of a people in Covenants. All that are thus qualified, according to the Gospel, have here full confirmation, and assurance of interest in all promises; so willing is God eve­ry way to condescend to our weaknesse, to answer what infirmity can expect, or feeblenesse crave. We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God, to ask a double sign for the strength­ening of his faith in the promise of God, to save Israel by his hand; yet we see God is pleased to gratify him, Judg 6.39, 40. [Page 351] yet God deales more abundantly with us, not onely in a double, but a multiplied confirmation, to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest. And as he teacheth us by simili­tudes drawn from earthly things, as we see in the Prophets, and parables from our Saviours mouth, so also to speak to our eyes, in these signes and seales ratifying, and confirming heavenly things unto us. Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way, that every eye doth behold and see. That water which we employ for our common use, and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us, serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ, taking away both guilt and filth of sin. The bread which we have at our table, the wine which we drink for our food and repast, that sets out both the attonement, and divine nou­rishment, which our soules find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us. There is abundant weaknesse and tottering in our faith, that needs in this manner to be strengthen­ed. Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us.

Secondly, If Christ thus condescends to our weaknesse,Christs com­passion to­wards us should move us to compassionate our selves. in making provision of these helps, let us learn to have compassion of our selves, and not neglect, or despise so great favours. If Christ had judged us to have been of strength, he had never tendred us this crutch; and when he sees that we need it, and therefore hath provided it, let us see that we do not reject, or despise it. Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy, who when he could not be­lieve the promise that God would deliver him, and his people from the combined power of Israel, and Syria, that were then be­fore Jerusalem, and having a sign tendred him of God, either in the depth beneath or the height above, for his assurance in the thing, he answers, he will not desire a sign, Isa. 7.11, 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief, and perish. As that sign was to that promise, so all Sacraments are to Gods great promise. He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief, and we may well fear, that he shall dwell in it to destruction.

SECT. I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal.

THe next observation followes.

The whole of­fice and use of Sacraments.All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers, is by way of sign and seal. They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or priviledges, but as our understanding is exercised by them, as Indicative signes, and our faith, as ratifications and seales of the promi­ses.

The text that we have under our hand is abundantly full to his purpose; Scarce any text holds out a truth (I may say) more clear and full, then this text doth; that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it,The Context opened. to which the copulative [And] leads. The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith, goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham, and his argument rendred in syllo­gistical form appears to be this: As Abraham the father of the faithful was justified, so must all the faithful. This is taken for granted, as needing no proof: But Abraham the father of the faithful was justified, not by works, but by faith. The Assump­tion consists of two parts, and the Apostle proves both. 1. The negative that he was not justified by works, this he proves by two arguments. 1. If he were justified by works, then he hath whereof to glory, ver. 2. But he hath not whereof to glory before God; Ergo he was not justified by works. 2. If he were justified by works, the reward were reckoned not of grace, but of debt, ver. 4. But the reward is not of debt, but of grace: Ergo. Which he further confirmes by the testimony of David; describing the blessednesse of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works, saying, Blessed are they whose ini­quities are forgiven, and whose sinnes are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, ver. 7, 8. As David de­scribes blessednesse, that way man is blessed; But David de­scribes it to be by imputation of righteousnesse, and not by works: Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith, he [Page 353] proves by a full testimony of Scripture, Gen. 15.6. He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to for him for righteousnesse. Now it might be objected, that this justification of Abraham, and blessednesse that David speaks of, was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised, but to the Jewes in the state of Circumcision, and so Circumcisi­on may yet have an hand in justitification. This the Apostle denies, ver. 10. and proves the contrary by the time of Abra­hams justification, which was in uncircumcision, not in Cir­cumcision. If Abraham were justified in uncircumcision, then Circumcision, hath no hand in justification; But Abraham was justified in uncircumcision. Ergo: But then the greatest question is, to what end or purpose he was circumci­sed, having already that righteousnesse which doth justify, what needs more? Circumcision then might have been let alone. The Apostle answers that he was circumcised on a twofold ac­count, for a double reason. The first is in reference to his own estate in faith, which equally concerns all in his state of believing. He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised. The second in reference to the whole Church, that he might be the Father of all that believe, in Circumcision or in uncircumcision; so that we have both the Apo­stles authority and his argumentative discourse for confirmation of our point, That the work and efficacy of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal. We shall find Peter giving his vote with Paul in this thing (where he enters a dispute about Baptisme, as Paul here doth about Circumcision, as you may find, 1 Pet. 3.20, 21.) having mentioned Gods long suffering towards disobe­dient ones, in the daies of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, he saies; Few, that is, eight soules were saved by water. That ele­ment which (as an executioner of divine vengeance) destroyed the world of the ungodly, as an instrument in the hand of God, preserved Noah and his family. It destroyed the world by over­whelming of them, as after it did Pharaoh and his host. It saved Noah and his household by keeping the Ark above trees, rocks, mountaines, buildings, or whatsoever might have been their ru­ine. Then he parallells Baptisme with it; The like figure where­unto even Baptisme doth also now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards. God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; which according to Interpreters, implyes no more then a resemblance, or, as Calvin speaks, a [Page 354] 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 [Page 355] 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 Quod quosdam theologos ait hic hae­rere, & baptismi effectum hunc ad electos restringere. Imo non qu [...]dam dunxtaxat, sed multo, maxima nostro­rum pars, non tam hic haerent, quam ex adverso se diserte opponunt; quod ex testimoniis sup [...]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 farre as I could learn, that it did succeed, and spread as little, as almost any error that ever I knew spring up in the Church. Plain Scripture proof of Infants, &c. pag. 294. so incon­siderable was the party that stood for it. And Vorstius speaking in the name of Protestant Divines in gene­ral, saith,Id potissimum quaeritur, an Sacra­menta sint signa tantum & sigilla foe­deris gratiae; sive externa symbola, & signacula, foederi gratiae appensa, & divinitus ad hoc institura, ut grati­am Dei salutarem in foedere promissam nobis significent; atque ita fidem no­stram suo modo confirment, & simul publice testaram reddant: quae qui­dem communis est Evangelicorum sen­tentia; an vero preaterea sint causae effi­cientes hujus salutaris & justificantis gratiae, sive an sint effectiva gratiae ejusdem organa, nempe ad hoc divi­nitus institura, ut gratiam istam realiter instar vasorum in se contineant, & omnibus illa percipientibus candem vi sua imprimant, & reipsa conferant, quae Bellarmini, & Pon­tificiorum omnium opinio est. It is disputed whether Sacra­ments are onely signes and seales of the Cove­nant of grace, or outward signes annext the Covenant and appointed for this of God, that they should signify saving grace of God promi­sed in the Covenant, and signifying seal, and after their manner confirm our faith, and give publick testimony of it, which (saith he) is the common opinion of Protestants, or whe­ther they be further efficient causes of this [Page 357] saving and justifying grace, or whether they be effective instruments of this grace appointed of God for this thing, that they should indeed containe it in them, and convey it, which is the opinion of all Papists. Vorstius, Anti. Bellar. ad Contro. 1 Gen. And our men further judge that opinion of the opus operatum, or of the outward Sa­cramental action (as though without the faith, and pious motion of those that use it, it could justifie any) to be evidently false and pernicious: And they teach, that all Sacraments by the ordination of God himself have onely a power to signifie and seal, and not to conferre the grace of the Gospel it self. And whereas several passages in the Liturgy of this Church did seem to favour the opposite opinion, affixing adoption, member­ship of Christ, and inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven, and regeneration to Baptisme: we know how great offence it gave to many eminently Learned and pious, putting them upon omis­sion of those passages: And also what Interpretation, as with a grain of salt, others put upon them, that they were onely Sa­cramentally such. And doubtlesse these either hit upon the meaning of the Church (which was held to these phrases, in imi­tation of many hyperbolical speeches in the Fathers) or else the Church had mist the meaning of Scriptures; so loth were the sons of the Church to be quarrelling with their mother, and yet more loth with her to run into errors.

The Observation it self, if heeded, hath a caution or limit in it; Affirming that Sacraments work no otherwise then as signs and seals; and that they conferre no inward graces or priviledges further then they work upon the understanding, and faith of those that receive them: it implyes, that they do conferre what an outward symbole, or sign is apt to, and of powder to convey; and that outward priviledges in Sacraments, are either conferred, of infallibly evidenced. This is clear, the Apostle having so far undervalued Circumcision in the flesh, as to make it Parallell with uncircumcision, so that a circumcised Jew, and an uncircum­cised Gentile differed nothing as to their Spiritual state and con­dition; inferres by way of objection, What advantage then hath the Jew, and what profit is there of circumcision? And answers, not that outward circumcision is altogether unprofitable, but that it hath much profit, and instances in one eminent one, To them are committed the Oracles of God. This is the inheritance of the Congregation of Jacob, Deut. 33.4. as Moses speaks; and car­rying [Page 358] with it this great priviledge, it conveyes with it all other in­feriour Church-priviledges; right to the Passeover upon this ac­count was theirs, Exod. 12.48. and not otherwise: So it is with Baptisme, men are taken into the Church at this door, accor­ding to the Commission given to the Apostles, Disciple all Nati­ons, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, &c. Whatso­ever they were, and whomsoever they professedly served before, they are this way taken in as the consecrate servants of the whole Trinity, and added to the Church, Act 2.47. When they had by the Covenant a precedent title, in Baptisme they have a solemn inauguration, By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. It is the Spirits work to shape the heart of unbelieving Corinthians, to enter into one visible Church-body, as that work of Gods power, whereby he did perswade Japhet to dwell in the tents of Shem, Gen. 9.27. And therefore whenDurandus do­cet characte­rem esse ens rationis, id est, respectum ad­venientem ex deputatione ad certum offi­cium, qualis est relatio in Do­ctoribus, Prae­toribus, &c. Quae sententia vix distingui­tur ab haeresi hujus tempo­ris. Durand denyed, that the Character which the Church of Rome speaks of, was any quality in the soul, but meerly a relation comming as by way of deputation to an office or duty, exem­plifying it by the relation that is seen in Doctors, Praetors, &c, Bellar. lib. 2. de Sacramen. effectu, cap. 14. saith, That this opinion can scarcely be distinguished from the Heresie of this time. Haeretici non negant neque negare possunt quin sit aliqua relatio rati­onis in Mini­stris, quae non est in aliis, qui non sunt de­putati ad mi­nistrandum. And further saith, That Heretiques do not deny, nor can deny, but that there is some relation in Ministers, which is not in others, who are not deputed to the Ministery. We do confesse indeed that there is that relation in Christians to Christ by the work done in the Sacrament of Baptisme, which is not in Heathens. And though we deny Orders to be any Sacrament, yet we confesse there is that relation in Ministers to Christ by vertue of their Ordinati­on, that is not in those that are not called to the work of the Ministery. There are those indeed that do deny it; But those that Bellarmine had to deal with, and that he charges for Here­tiques, as Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Chemnitius willingly yeeld it. And in case this were all the character that they talke of to be imprinted in Baptisme; yea, in Ordination, we should never contend about it. And as these priviledges are conferred as to actual interest in the initiatory Sa­cacraments, both of Baptisme, and Circumcision; so the same priviledges in the following Sacraments are infallibly evidenced, as appears in that text, 1 Cor. 10.17. The Apostle there ma­king it his businesse to take off Christians from their resort to the [Page 359] 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 [Page 360] 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 [Page 361] 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 Psalmist also shewes the effica­cy which nature gives to bread, and wine, Psal 104. But for either water, bread, or wine to pardon sin, infuse habits, or new qualities into the soule; or add to the strength of those that are already wrought, is an unheard of secret. Others yet say that they are hyperphysical, or supernatural instruments in the conveyance of grace, which might easily enough be understood, in case it could be believed. A power they mean put into them, or exercised by them, above that which in their naturall work­ings they have any possible activity to reach, as in the water of the Poole of Bethesda, upon the moving of the Angell to heal him that first stept into it, and in the water of Jordan to cleanse Naaman of his Leprosie by seven times dipping in it. Had it [Page 362] had, that naturall power of cure Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damascus, would never have been esteemed equall with it. But that these elements should be standing instruments of the work of miracles of this nature, we had need of full and clear texts of Scripture to make good to us. I shall assoon believe a transubstan­tiation in the bread from hoc est corpus meum, as such a transmu­tation, or renovation of the soul, or any such priviledges of glory: as Scripture makes the peculiar inheritance of those in whom this change is wrought, upon the bare application of these Elements. Most say they are morall instruments in what they do; but then there is so much work to understand what a morall in­strument means, that I dare neither without further expression of my self affirm or deny it. Some make them such instruments by which God works according to pleasure, sometimes working that which they signifie, and sometimes working not at all by them, as sometimes he works by the Word: but sometimes it re­mains a dead letter. Others make it an instrument of convey­ance, as a staffe of an Abbotship, a pall df a Bishoprick, a Book of a Canons place, and this doubtlesse is according to the meaning of Scriptures; as men vouchsafing gifts appoint at pleasure Ceremonies, and Solemnities evidencing such donations, so God hath appointed these elements as signs of that nature. Having a precedent right, the initiating Sacrament is a means of solemn inauguration, and the following Sacrament an evidence of continued possession. Baptisme takes into the body, 1 Cor. 12.13. and Bread and Wine evidence that we are of the body, 1 Cor. 10.17. And as a twig, and turfe vests a man in his pur­chase of lands, a rod vests a customary tenant in his Coppy­hold, a Crown vests a King in his Kingdom; so these elements (having this office assigned them of God) vest a man in Cove­nant in visible Church-membership, and give him actual interest in all visible Church-priviledges. But yet this difference, The Staffe, the Pall, the Book, the Twig, and Turfe, the Rod, the Crown, lead no further then to that which they immediately con­ferre, which is the present dignities, and possessing whereof they are solemnities, and these dignities are also terminated in them­selves, and lead men into no expectation of any higher honour. But Sacraments vesting us in Church-priviledges, and these pri­viledges leading us to higher and greater things as they vest us in present in these, so by way of sign and seal, they lead, and raise [Page 363] us unto all that Church-priviledges serve, and are appointed to advance us unto. So that God works as a Moral agent, in ap­pointing according to pleasure these elements as solemnities of his grant, and they work according to the nature of the office assigned them, that is, by way of sign and seal, for the help of our understandings, the refreshing of our memories, and strength of our faith in promises of greater things.

SECT. II. Propositions tending to clear the doctrine.

IN order to the discovery of some further light concerning the operation of Sacraments, and for detection of erroneous opi­nions about them, I shall lay down several Positions.Explicatory Propositions. 1. Mans first original is in sin.

First, This must be held as an uncontroverted truth between parties in this dispute, that Mans first original is in sin, his first estate (not by Creation, but by birth, not as he came out of the hands of God, but as he comes into the world) is in full opposition against heaven, The imagination of mans heart, is evil from his youth, Gen. 8.21. The word (as Ainsworth, and Rivet on the place, with Mr. Hildersam on Psal. 51.5. observe) signifies infancy, the same title which is given to Moses when he was new-born, Exod. 2.6. Compare with this Psal. 58.3. The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lyes. The sin of all begins then, the sin of bad men still remains, no change is wrought in them, nor amendment seen, but a progresse in evil, Psal. 51.5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me; The cavils of old Anabaptists to take off the force of this text are vain, That by iniquity here is not meant sin, but sorrow, which for sin came upon women in child-bearing, and that by sin in the later part of the verse is meant the height of lust in Davids parents. Let any man look into the context, and see whether it will bear any such glosse. David is there upon a serious humiliation of his soul for sin, and aggrava­ting it in the circumstances of it, and how his mothers sharpe throwes in travel, or either of his parents height of lust, can add any thing at all to aggravate his guilt, or increase his sorrow, [Page 364] none can understand, he presently prayes that this may be cleansed, and taken away, which can be understood of neither of those particulars which are in the objection. This pollution by birth sin abundantly appears in reason.

Arguments evincing it. 1. By the necessity of regeneration, or new-birth in all those that enter into the Kingdom of heaven. As the Apostle saith of Covenants, If the first had been faultlesse, there had been no need of a second, Heb. 8.7. so we may say of births; there is a necessity of a second, therefore there was a fault in the first; take away this birth-sin, or original pollution, and then you destroy rege­neration. If all be as it should be in our former birth, then there needs not any other.

2. By the Lord Christs Incarnation, in order to the work of Redemption; taking mans nature, he began as man begins in sin, even with infancy; he dyed in our nature for all, of all sorts, con­ditions, and ages: infants partake of the fruit of his death, and were upon that account admitted, as his by Circumcision, and are in Baptisme, and are therefore under the defilement of sin.

3. By the stroke or judgement unto which infants are subject, being lyable to sicknesse, taken away by death, subject to mi­series of all kinds; sin goes before as the cause, where these follow as effects, Rom. 5.12. As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: so death passed upon all men; for that all have sinned, or in whom all have sinned.

4. The readinesse and pronenesse of little ones to run upon sin is an evidence of it. The thornes, bryars, and weeds, that the earth casts out, when precious flowers, and choise plants are more hardly nourished, is an argument that the earth is under a curse, and is not now, as once it was. The sins that even in childhood appear, and together with age grow forwards, when graces are difficultly planted, and that which is good very hardly produced, is as great an evidence of a mans innate degeneration. This even Heathens could see, though they knew not whence it was.Homines na­tura sua esse malos & indu­ci non posse ut justitiam co­lant. Plato observed that men by nature are wicked, and that they cannot be brought to learne righteousnesse; andHominem à natura nover­ca in lucem edi corpore nudo, fragili at (que) in­firmo, animo ad molestias anxio, ad ti­mores humili, in quo divi­nus ignis sit obrutus. Referunt Theol. Lyden­ses, Disp. 15. Thes. 6. Tully lamented, that man is brought into the world by his stepdame na­ture, with a body naked, frail, and weak, a mind anxious in trou­bles, low under fears, weak for labour, prone to lust, in whom every Divine spark is overywhelmed. If any man demand how it comes to passe that we are thus, we must look as far as Adam, to see the [Page 365] inlet of it, By one mans disobedience many were made sinners, Rom. 5.19. His was peccatum originans, giving the rise to all evils in us, thence issued peccatum originatum our original condition as be­fore decribed. Sin seizing upon the Angels, made them unclean, and they have through that defilement the denomination of unclean spirits; sin seizing upon man hath rendered him unclane; It de­filed not onely the person of man, but the nature of man; had man stood, all mankind had stood; man falling, all mankind be­came filthy, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Job. 14.4. Adam begat a son in his own likenesse, Gen. 5.3. like himself, when he had lost the image of God; what sin made man, that an infant is, so far as of capacity to be, not to act sin; he that can do nothing, cannot do evil, but in them there are those principles, that shew themselves in action so far as there is power to act. A young Serpent doth sting none, poysons none, but there is in them a poysonous and destroying na ure, which growes, as nature growes.

5. By the duty incumbent upon Christians to put off the old man, Ephes. 4.22. which is not so called in opposition to that which is young, (as though man grew up to it by degrees, many years being gone over his head before he had gotten that name) but in opposition to that which is new, as we see, ver. 23. The old hath the precedency of the new, and is before it as the old gar­ments are worne, and put off before the new put on; why must all of necessity be new if the old would serve the turn? 2

Secondly, This sin which is mans hereditary estate, This Original state of man is not onely a want of Prim [...] ­tive integrity, but is attended with universal defilement. hath in it not onely a want of that Priwitive purity, which God stamped upon man, according to his own likenesse, but also an universal defile­ment and pollution: Therefore the Apostle setting out this estate under the name of the old man, gives it this character, corrupt according to deceitfull lusts, Ephes. 4.22. All the pollution in the world is from lust, 2 Pet. 1 4. that is the sink; and source, from whence all proceeds, and the old man is wholly made up of these corrupt, filthy, and defiling principles. They promise bet­ter when they draw aside, but that is their work; and therefore as they are corrupt, so they are branded as deceitful likewise. Upon this account it is, that man is dead in trespasses and sins, able to rise no higher in nature then that which is sin; and this renders his conversation to be according to the course of this world, after the prince of the power of the air; the former is his pattern [Page 366] and the later is his Soveraign; the one is followed, the other served.And conse­quently with guilt or ordi­nation to pu­nishment. In fulfilling the desires, or wills, of the flesh and mind, Ephes. 2.23. serving divers lusts and pleasures, Tit. 3.3. as wholly enslaved by this defiling principle. And as this is of the being, so guilt or ordination to punishment is a necessary adjunct, or consequent of it; Death is in as great a latitude as sin, Rom. 5.12. the proper wages of that work, Rom. 6.23. Therefore all that have a nature thus defiled, are by nature the children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. Men may descant as they will upon the word, and tell us of another use of it in prophane Authors; but all their wit will not work men from under this guilt, or gain him any thing more in his birth-state, but wrath for his portion.

3 Thirdly, To restore man to his Primitive happiness, his nature must be healed, Nature must be healed and guilt removed, for restitution of man to his Primitive glo­ry. and his guilt removed; there must be a change, wrought in his principles, and a pardon vouchsafed of his sin. If either the stain continue, or the guilt hold, man will be wretched; till he be again like God, and reconciled to God, his case is for­lorne: This needs no proof, man was without stain or guilt when God made him upright, his stain must be washed, and guilt removed, or else his happinesse is not repaired. And this was the converted Corinthians glory; they were under the de­filement of Adultery, Idolatry, Fornication, Drunkennesse, &c. and upon this account, under the sad doome of exclusion out of the Kingdom of heaven; but being washed, sanctified, justified, the doome is reversed. However you Interpret these several phrases, we have their deliverance from the stain and guilt of sin in them.

4 Fourthly, Either of both of these is the work of Christ, and the hap­py priviledge of all of Gospel-interest. Either of both of these is the work of Christ by his blood and Spirit. He takes off the stain in the work of Regeneration, and Sanctification by the power of his Spirit; as by our fall we were dead in sin, so by this new work on our hearts, we are dead to sin; we were free from righteousnesse, now we are alive to righteousnesse, Rom. 8.11. If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. When we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us together with Christ, Ephes. 2.5. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might Sanctifie, and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle [Page 367] or any such thing, but that it should be holy, & without blemish, Ephe. 5.25, 26, 27. As the spot is taken off by his Spirit in working new principles in us, and working us up to new obedience: so the guilt is removed by his sufferings; He blots out their transgressions for his Names sake, He remembers them no more, He hides his face from them, He casts them into the bottom of the sea, removes them as far as the East is from the West; He doth not one of these, to leave the other undone; He vouchsafes purifying, and he vouch­safes pacifying grace. He delivers from the wrath to come, and he makes meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light; He conferres habitual graces, and he honours with rela­tive priviledges.

Fifthly, These may be distinguished, Blood and Spirit may be distinguished, but must not be divided. but they must by no means 5 be divided; Christ doth not impart his merit, where he doth deny his Spirit. We account it a great presumption in men of years, to talke of justification, and want sanctification; and we can say to such, If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. God writes his Law in the heart, and puts it into the inward parts, where he remembers sin no more, Jer. 31.33. They are quickened together with Christ, that have their trespasses for­given them, Col. 2.13. And it is an unwarrantable conceit to ima­gine that relative priviledges of adoption, and pardon of sin, are conferred on infants in Baptisme, or otherwise, when their natures remain still the same and unchanged; who can think that God fits all of age for glory, that he takes into glory? and yet takes infants into glory, their impurity and birth-defilement continuing. Seeing that we have instances, as of Gods love of infants, Rom. 9.13. of Christs blessing of them, Matth. 19.16. so also of the gift of his Spirit, Jer. 1.5. Luk. 1.15. In case the former may be avoided, yet certainly the later is above excep­tion. The reason given by Christ of that sentence of his, hold­ing forth an absolute necessity of regeneration, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God; is the pollution of the first birth, as appears by his own words, ver. 6. inferred immediately upon the repetition of the former, That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and this is of equal concernment to in­fants, and men of years; uncleannesse of birth, as well as unclean­nesse of life, stands as a barre to our entrance into heaven; and no unclean person must enter there.

Sixthly, The Sacraments, especially those of initiation (whe­ther 6 [Page 368] in the old or new Covenant) about which concerning this in question there is most dispute, The Sacra­ments especi­ally those of initiation have respe [...]t to both of these. havo respect to this whole work, both of the change of our nature, and the removal of our guilt: As the have respect to the one, so also to the other; and that the whole of their work, and the way how it is wrought may be better un­derstood, we are to consider that; First, Somewhat is hinted, and implyed in those respective signs of Circumcision and Bap­tisme, and that is our uncleannesse in nature, and guilt contracted upon it. Why should either infant, or man of years have the foreskin of his flesh in that way by Divine appointment cut off; but to let us understand the propagation of corruption, and de­rivation of it from man to posterity? Why should water be ap­plyed, which is of an abstersive, cleansing faculty, but to let us know that there is uncleannesse to be removed? Cleansing for that which is clean is vain, and needlesse. As Sacrifices for atonement did imply wrath, so this cleansing implyes filth, and consequently guilt, filth and guilt being inseparable.

Secondly, Somewhat is signified and taught us in them; somewhat the bare signs themselves are apt to signifie, viz. That the taking off of the staine, and the removal of our guilt, is to be done by anothers power. Why is this applyed by another hand, but to let us know that it is above our strength? Some­what, not the signes of themselves, but the Word of the Cove­nant that is annext teaches, and that is, That the blood of Christ removes this guilt, and that the Spirit of Christ takes away this stain. This the signes of themselves could never shew, but the words of the Covenant abundantly do demonstrate, that re­mission of guilt, is the work of the blood of Christ, and Rege­neration or Sanctification, the work of the Spirit. That the water in Baptisme holds out the Spirit unto us for Sanctification, and change of our wayes, is (that I know) denyed by none, and in the Scripture it is plain, I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, Deut. 30.6. Circumcision is that of the heart, Rom. 2.29. which by the Apostle, Col. 2.11. is interpreted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh: Baptisme is the same as to the signification, as we see in the same place, from the Apo­stle, Col. 2.11, 12, 13. In whom ye are also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Bap­tisme, wherein ye are also risen with him through the faith of the [Page 369] operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead, and you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quick­ned together with him, having forgiven all your trespasses. And this death to sin, and life in grace are both from the Spirit, Rom. 8.11, 12, 13. and both of these Baptisme holds out to us, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptisme into his death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father: even so we also should walk in newnesse of life. But whether the blood of Christ be at all signified by this element of water some have questioned. Sticking so rigidly to that phrase of the Apostle, Tit. 3.5. that they will not alone have it understood of Baptisme, but they will have nothing else looked after in Baptisme, but the work of regeneration: But this doubtlesse is a clear mistake. The blood that was shed in circumcision, gave the circumcised to understand, that the guilt propagated, could not without blood be remitted. And if any think that this is too dark, and obscure a proof of a Mystery of this weight, let them compare with it the text under hand, and the Apostles scope and aime in it, which (as we have heard) is to shew, that Abrahams circumcision was not his justification; seeing he was justified by faith in his state of uncircumcision, and that he received circumcision as a sign and seal of it; justification is by blood, Rom. 3.25. Circumci­sion is a sign, and seal of justification. Righteousnesse of faith is not Sanctification, Sanctification is inherent, the righteousnesse of faith is imputed; but circumcision is a sign, and seal of the righteousnesse of faith. And that Baptisme signifies, and seals the same thing we find expressely in Peters words, Ast. 2.38. Be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. Remission of sins is by blood, Heb. 9.22. With­out shedding of blood there is no remission. Baptisme is for remis­sion of sins; and therefore the water in Baptisme holds out the blood of Christ. And I doubt not, but Ananias had respect to this in his speech to Paul, Act. 22.16. Rise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. Somewhat it is, to which these signs en­gage, and that is all, unto which a Christian in duty, as duty, stands engaged, whether for his change in heart or life, or in order to the pardon of his sin. Baptisme engages to the first work of regene­ration, and to the first work of making all new within: To this circumcision did tye; as it signified it, so it engaged to it, Deut. 10.16. Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts, and be no more [Page 370] stiffenecked. If by vertue of their circumcision in the flesh, God did not require it, why is the want of it charged on Judah as their sin? or how could it lay them open with other Nations to punishment? Jer. 9.25, 26. Behold, the dayes come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them that are circumcised, with the un­circumcised, Egypt, and Judah and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the uttermost corners, that dwell in the wildernesse: for all these Nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncicumcised in the heart. And that the first work is required, as well as a further degree and pro­gresse, both in circumcision and baptisme is clear: In baptisme we are explicitly dedicated (as the Jewes were implicitly in cir­cumcision) to Father, Son, and holy Ghost; and therefore en­gaged to be sincerely his in Covenant. But this cannot be, till a change be wrought, and we be born again from above. To this therefore we are engaged. We are engaged, to love the Lord with all our heart, with all our strength; but this cannot be, while our hearts are in an unchanged condition, and therefore the circum­cision of the heart, Deut. 30.6. is mentioned in order to this of the love of the Lord: The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; what is it but the first work that is called for in that of the Prophet? Make ye a new heart, and a new spirit, Ezek. 10.31. And in those texts of the Apostle, Awake thou that sleepest and stand up from the dead, Ephes. 5.14. Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds, Rom. 12.2. That ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old man—And be renewed in the spirit of your minds, Ephes. 4.22, 23. Howsoever some of these Scriptures may be conceived to be directed to men in a state of Regeneration, and therefore that they call not for the first work, but for a further progresse in grace, yet all of them cannot be so Interpreted. And there is not any of them but implyes, that where the first work is not done, it must be done; where the old man is not put off, it must be put off; and where the new man is not put on, it must be put on; where the spirit is not renewed, it must be renewed. Neither is it of force against this, to say, that the first work is out of our power, and that in it we are wholly passive, and therefore we do not in baptisme engage to it, but God rather engages for it. To which I answer, Though it be out of our power, yet it is [Page 371] within the command of God, and is matter of our duty. Gods command is no rule of our strength, neither is it brought down to answer our weaknesse; so a carnall man should be under no spiritual command, but it is a rule of our duty; what we once were, and still ought to be, it commands us for to be. And though we be passive in the first work, yet we are alwaies con­cerned to be active, and assoon as we do receive power, we are to act. Dead Lazarus was commanded to rise, and having pow­er communicated from God, he did actually rise and come out of the grave. There is not any promise of God for inherent Grace, nor any work of Grace, but it comes within our duty, and a command lies on us; as instance might be given, and con­sequently there is an obligation and engagement to it. Gods command and his promises stand not in opposition, but in subor­dination; and to say that God is engaged, and not man, is dan­gerous; then all that are baptized must be regenerate, or else God fails in his engagement. Somewhat it is, that these signs seal, and in sealing ratify, and confirm, and that is (as the text shewes) the righteousnesse of Faith, and consequently all other priviledges whatsoever of like nature, that are annexed to it; Re­mission, Justification, Adoption, Glorification. Sacraments, as seals, have not (as I conceive) at least immediately, and directly reference to graces, or inherent habits; but priviledges. They are (as Mr. Baxter hath well observed) seales of the conditional Covenant, and so they must seal, whatsoever they do seal, on Gods terms and conditions: they ratifie mercies promised, on those termes that the Covenant doth promise; now graces are the conditions, and termes of the Covenant, and mercies are promised upon those termes: and therefore the Covenant re­quires them, but the Sacraments do not ratifie and seal them. The Sacraments as signs shew us our wants of, or wants in grace by the help of the Word, and light received from it: they point us out where supply may be found, they engage us to this change, to the whole of duty required from the people of God: and upon answer of our conscience in this work, they seal, and confirm all promised priviledges to us. The nature, efficacy, and operation of Sacraments would be better understood, if that which is proper to each part, or the particular office in each relation, were better known. The seal in a Lease, as from the Lessor, doth not ratifie the homage, that is to be done by the [Page 372] Lessee, or the service from him due; but the inheritance, or bene­fit whatsoever, which upon condition of such homage, or service is conveyed. Graces are the homage, and priviledges are the be­nefit, or the inheritance; the priviledges then, and not the graces, are directly in Sacraments sealed to us. It is not sealed up to us; either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper, that we do be­lieve or repent; but that believing, and repenting, we have for­givenesse of sin, and salvation. But some say, that the Sacra­ments seal all that the Covenant promises; but the Covenant promises Grace, and therefore the Sacraments seal, and confirm in this, that we have grace. Answ. Not to dispute the absolute Covenant in this place, as many call it; The Covenant to which Sacraments are annext as seales, properly promises priviledges upon condition of graces, and requires the graces though God in his elect ever graciously works; what it is respective to grace that Sacraments do, we have now heard, that is, to shew us our want of it, and point us out the fountain of it, engaging us to it, and upon our making good our engagements through Grace, they ratify these promised priviledges to us.

7. Scriptures of two sorts are brought by those that would advance Sacraments above that which they work as signs and seales.Seventhly, The texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments above all that they do, as signes, and seales; and to evince that they have an absolute work on the soul, without respect had, either to the understanding, or faith of the re­ceivers, are of two sorts. The first are such, where no Sacrament at all is mentioned, neither can it by any good argument be proved, that Sacraments in those texts, are directly intended. Others are such wherein Baptisme indeed is mentioned; but faith is evidently required to the attainment of the effect there specified; when these two are proved, a full answer is given to all the Scriptures which by the Adversaries in this behalf are objected. Scriptures of the first rank are,1. Such where­in no Sacra­ment is menti­oned, nor can be proved that any is intend­ed. Titus 3.5. According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of Regeneration, Ephes. 5.25, 26. Christ lo­ved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word, 1. Cor. 6.12. Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sancti­fied, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Though the thing signified in Baptisme is here evidently spoken to, and some allusion may be conceived to be here made to Baptisme; yet I suppose that it can by no good argument be proved, that the Sacrament of Baptisme in any of these Scriptures is intended. [Page 373] First,Arguments evincing that Baptisme is not intended in the Sacramen­tal work of it. The Lords Supper may be as fairely evidenced out of Christ words, John 6.53, 54, 55. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, as Baptisme may be evinced out of any of those texts alleadged: when yet Protestant Writers unanimous­ly conclude, and severall learned Papists yield, that no Sacra­mentall eating is there intended. To clear this they say, there is a meer Sacramentall eating, and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, when the outward signs are received, and no more; a meer spirituall eating and drinking, when Christ is applyed by faith without any Sacramentall sign; and an eating, and drinking both Sacramental and Spirituall, when the Sacrament is received by sincere believers; and the text in John is understood (as they conclude) of bare spiritual eating, and drinking. The same we may apply to washing, and conclude, that it is meerly spiritual washing, that in these texts alleadged is understood. Secondly, There are the same phrases, or those that are parallell with them, in Old Testament-Scriptures, when no Sacrament of this kind was instituted, and therefore could not be intended, Psal. 51.7. Purge me with Hyssope, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter then Snow, Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinckle cleane water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthinesse. And it must needs be that meer Spiritual, and not Sacramentall washing, for the reason alleadged, must in these texts be un­derstood. Thirdly, If outward Baptisme were there intended, why should not the word Baptisme be there, as in other places used? when we see it is yet omitted, when other words are in the stead of it industriously chosen; when common washing is intended, we know that the word Baptisme is frequently used, as Mar. 7.8. Luk. 11.38. and so also, when legall cleansing is spoken to; as, Heb. 9.20. And in case Baptisme it self were here purposely intended, it is marvel that other words should by the Spirit of God be chose, and this laid aside. Fourthly, This Interpreters of eminent note have seen. Mr. Gataker, disceptatio de Baptis. Infant. vi & efficacia, pag 51. saith, It Dubitari po­test non imme­rito, baptismine Sacramentum, an interna ablutio, hoc nomine eo loci designetur. may justly be doubted, whether the Sacrament of Baptisme, or inward washing in that [Page 374] place of Titus 3.5. be understood; & then adds,Atque ego certe, etiamsi ad baptis­mi ritum externum respectum aliquem haberi nullus negaverim, de interna tamen ab lutione, diserte dictum ex­istimo, quae externa illa lotione cor­poris designatur, ut ex clausula mox sequente verba illa exponantur, per la­vacrum regenerationis non videtur apostolus significare baptismum, sed ipsam regenerationem quam lavacro comparat. Though, I am not he that will deny that some respect is had in those words to the outward rite of Baptisme, yet I believe that they are ex­pressely spoken of the inward washing, and that the words may be interpreted by the clause immediately following, the renewing by the Holy Ghost; quoting Piscator for his opinion, Thes. theol. vol. 1. loc. 25. Sect. 20. who saith, By the laver of regeneration the Apostle seems not to intend baptisme, but regeneration it self, which he com­pares to a laver: and also Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25. affirming, That it is doubtful, whether in Titus 3.5. there be any speech of the Sacrament, or onely of the blood of Christ, and of the Spirit; and in his words (as the Reader that pleases to consult him may see) he takes in Ephes. 5.26. likewise Vorstius speaks most fully of all to these Texts, mentioning the Argument drawn from Ephes. 5. Titus 3. for the opus operatum in Sacraments, he sayes, Our Divines answer,Aliena testimonia citari, viz. quae res quidem in Sacramentis significa­tas metaphorice declarant, attamen de Sacramentis proprie dictis non agunt. That impertinent testi­monies are urged, which hold forth the thing signified in Sacraments, by way of metaphor, but do not speak of Sacraments properly so called, Antibel. Tom. 3. Contro. 1. Thes. 1. & 2. And whereas Calvin is produced by some, as interpreting Titus 3.5. of outward baptisme, his au­thority will but little help them.Non dubito quin saltem ad baptismum al­ludat, imo fa­cile patior de baptismo lo­cum exponi. I do not doubt (saith he) but that the Apostle doth at least allude to baptisme; and further saith, I can easily bear, that this place should be interpreted of baptisme; on which words of his, Mr. Gataker, pag. 123. very well comments.Quasi aliam potius quorun­dam expositio­nem probatu­rus, ni aliorum importunitas aliò impelle­ret. Verba sunt enim alii concedentis aliquid, potius quam animi sui sensum enuntiantis. As though he would rather (saith he) allow another interpretation, if the importunity of others did not lead him that way. They are words of one granting, or rather yielding some­what to another man, then speaking his own mind, as he further observes. And Mr. Burges, Spiritual Refining, Part 1. pag. 214. speaking of Baptisme, saith, it is called the laver of regeneration, Titus 3.5. as some expound it, giving us to understand, that it is no exposition universally agreed upon, and sufficiently hint­ing, that it is the more inconsiderable part that do interpret it this way. Fifthly, Though we should yield that these places were to be understood of the Sacrament of Baptisme, as Calvin [Page 375] saith he could be content to do, yet all this while nothing is gai­ned, seeing it still rests to be proved, that this is meant any other­wise then by way of sign and seal, they conclude no abolute work, but onely as they have their influence upon the understanding, and faith of the receivers. And therefore Calvin, when he was prevailed withall to yield so farre, as we have heard, presently addes,Non quod in externo aquae symbolo inclusa sit sa­lus, sed quia partam à Christo salu­tem Baptismus nobis obsig­nat. Not that salvation is included in the outward sym­bole of water, but because Baptisme seales it to us, when Christ hath obtained it for us. And Danaeus speaking to that Argument of Bellarmine, that the Scripture witnesseth, that the words of the Sacrament are active instruments of our justification, and not seales of the promise, giving instance in these, and the like Scrip­tures for this purpose, answers:Instrumenta & signa etiam mere obsignantia & testantia dicuntur, per tropum & metonymiam id facere quod obsignant, nam & annulus spon­salium qui solus est signum eorum, di­citur conjun gere & obligare sponsos, contractus instrumentum quod solum consensus signum obstringere contra­hentes, Doctoratus sigillum & literae creasse & effecisse n. Docto [...]em; quae­enim nos juvant efficere ea ipsa dicun­tur, propter finem in quem spectant, in quibus ab eis juvamur. Verum vitan­da est verborum hujusmodi, quae ut causis vel signis vel instrumentis acti­onem tribuunt homonymia: ne prop­terea censcamus ea signa vel instru­menta esse causas ist [...]us actionis, vel effecti, vel fructus efficientes; efficiunt enim aut efficere di cuntur illa effecta, suo tantum modo, nempe per modum duntaxat signi, quatenus obsignant & certificant eam actionem vel effecti­onem, aut per modum instrumenti, quo­niam ad effectionem ad hibentur: mul­tum enim signa, & vera instrumenta inter se proprie differunt; signa vero ni­hil plane ad effectio nem conferunt, qualia sunt Sacramenta, sed affectio­nem Sp. S. & opus illius in nobis duntaxat v [...]rissime & certissime testan­tur & consignant. Instru­ments, and signs meerly testifying, and sea­ling are said by a trope, and metonymy to do that which they seal; for even a ring used in espousals, which onely is a sign, is said to joyn and bind the espoused; an instrument of contract, which is onely a token of agreement, is said to bind the contractors; and the letters and seal of a Doctor to create a Doctor: for those things that are helpful to us, are said to effect those things, as to such an end, in which they are helpful. But the homonymy of words of this nature is to be shunned, which attributes actions to signes, or instruments, as to causes, lest upon that account, we may think that such signes or instruments are cau­ses of such actions, or efficients of such fruits, and effects. For they effect or are said to do such a work alone after their manner, that is, onely by way of sign, as they seal or certify such an act, or work, or by way of instru­ment, because they are used in the work. For signes and instruments properly so called do very much differ; For signes contribute no­thing to the work, of which sort are Sacra­ments, but onely truely and certainly testifie, and seal the work of the Spirit of God wrought. Danaeus Contra Bellarmi. Tom. Contro. 2. [Page 376] Cap. 14. ad Arg. 2. Abundance more might be added, to clear these Texts, and take them out of their hands, that urge them for this purpose, though they were meant of the Sacra­ments, which is not to be granted. And what we have said of these Texts, may be affirmed of that also, Deut. 30.6. I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed: Circumcision which was a Sacrament, is indeed there named, but the speech is onely borrowed by way of metaphor, from the circumcision of the flesh, and applyed to the heart, as is clear, Deut. 10.16. where that work is given in command to the Jewes, and they were not commanded to circumcise themselves, but were already in Circumsion.

A second sort of Scriptures are such in which baptisme is mentioned, but faith evi­dently requi­red to the at­tainment of the effects of it.A second sort of Scriptures are such where Baptisme is indeed mentioned, and the Sacrament of Baptisme intended, but faith is evidently required for the attainment of the effect specified. These especially are, Acts 2.38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, Acts 22.16. Rise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord. I shall referre the Reader for a full vindi­cation of these Scriptures to Mr. Gatakers disceptation, pag. 9, 10, &c. pag. 56, 57. and shall onely adde, that that phrase, in the Name of the Lord, utterly destroies all that they would build on these words, seeing it implies faith in his Name, as, Acts 3.16. may be seen; And howsoever Infants that are in Covenant up­on their parents profession of faith, are baptized into this Name, yet those of yeares (as these were, to whom this speech is di­rected) are in their own persons, not onely to make profession of faith, but in sincerity to believe, in order to attainment to the pardon of their sins, or any other spiritual priviledge of the Covenant whatsoever. Yea, that which these men would draw from these Texts stands not with their principles that urge them. The Sacraments work grace, say they, as instruments; I shall then desire to know whether positive infidelity be not such a barre that will hinder? If it be a barre in men of yeares, then the Sacrament works not without actual faith in the baptized: It is the priviledge of faith to obtain forgivenesse of sin, Act. 13.39. Rom. 3.25. It is the work then of faith in the baptized to obtain it, and baptisme to them (as Circumcision to Abraham) is onely a sign and seal of it, and doth not otherwise effect it. The like I may say of impenitence, that according to them, it is a [Page 377] barre to the working of Sacraments. Sacraments onely work in penitent persons, repentance then is a qualification in them that obtain a pardon, and Sacraments by way of seal assure penitent one [...] of it.

Eighthly,8. The most eminent of the adverse opi­nion produce Scriptures clearly oppo­site to their assertions. The most eminent that ever have appeared for this power in Sacraments to confer grace on the receivers, either utterly deny, or at least very doubtfully affirm, that Baptisme works in In­fants any real change, but onely that which is relative, that it con­ferres any habits, or any thing more then priviledges on Infants baptized, when yet the Scriptures that they bring for proof of this baptismal work, almost all speak to such a change, that is reall, not relative; of habits, and not of priviledges. When this is made good, it will appear to any impartial eye, that the Scripture-Texts alledged come far short of proof of any such baptismal power to confer grace on all baptized Infants. This as it seems Reverend Dr. Ward suspected, asserting the certainty of salva­tion of all baptized Infants, dying in infancy, he saith. ThatQuae est no­strae Ecclesiae & totius antiqui­tatis indubita­ta sententia; &, ut ego reor, ipsius Scriptu­rae. it is the undoubted opinion of all antiquity of our Church, and as he thinks of the Scripture it self. For the former part of this asser­tion, that the most eminent, that have appeared on this party, have held, as before, let Reverend B. Davenant in his Epistle, speak; Asserting by Arguments that which he sayes he had of­ten affirmed, that the argument borrowed from Infants, which Arminians, Papists, and some of our own use to maintain the apostasie of Saints, or believers, is not onely invalid, but altoge­ther impertinent, as to that controversie. His third Proposi­tion, to make good this, assertion, is,Pontificii non agnoscunt pro fidei dog­mate, habitus fidei aut chari­tatis, infundi parvulis in baptismo, ne­que tanquam de fide docent, effici u [...]los ju­stos formaliter, inhaesione ha­bitualis justi­tiae aut Sancti­tatis That Papists do not receive it for a point of faith, that the habits of faith, or charity are infused into Infants in Baptisme, neither do they deliver it, as of faith, that are thereby made formally just, by any inherent habituall righ­teousnesse or holinesse. To make this good, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Gerson among the more ancient Schoolmen are brought in, and of the more modern Writers Soto, affirming, that habits infused into Infants are not so known, as is the Catholique faith, and that Estius doth ingenuously acknowledge, that this infusion of inherent righteousnesse is problematically disputed, the Master of the sentences inclining to the negative. And whereas some later Papists affirm, that this opinion of infused habits in Infants, is now otherwise ratified then heretofore by the authority of the Trent Councel, he first answers, that that Councel hath no [Page 378] such authority as to make that an article of faith, which for so many hundred years hath not been such, and afterwards per­emptorily denyes, that that Councel did ever so determine, concluding, that it is resolved upon by Papists, that all baptized Infants are some way rendred acceptable to God; but that this is done by any such infused habits, or by any inherent quality created of God, is (as he sayes) as yet doubted among them. His fourth Proposition is, thatProtestantes non concedunt fidem justificantem aut charitatem Deo uni­entem, aut gratiam regeneratricem, quae reparat omnes animae fa [...]tates in ipso Baptismi momento infundi in­santibus. Protestants do not yield, that justifying faith, or charity, that unites us to God: or regenerating grace, that repaires all the faculties of the soul, is infused into Infants in the very moment of Baptisme; quoting Calvin, Beza, and Peter Martyr, speaking fully to it.Nec quenquam scio nostris Theo­logis qui regenerationem illam quae sita est in spiritualium qualitatum creatione (quam nos sanctificationem, Pontificii formalem justificationem in digitant) in ipso momento Baptismi productam definiant. Cumigitur nec Arminiani nec Pontificii nec Prote­stantes agnoscant parvulos in ipsa Baptismi susceptione fieri participes illorum habitualium donorum aut Spiritualium qualitatum quae propriè dicuntur constituere hominem justum et inhaerenter sanctum, nemo eorum potest amissionem fidei aut justitiae aut sanctorum Apostasiam argumento ab infantibus sumpto demonstrare. Ad­ding, that he does not know, that any of our Divines determine, that that regeneration which consists in the creation of spirituall qualities (which we call Sanctification, and Papists, formal Justification) is infused in the instant of Baptisme. And he brings in also Mountague in his appeal vouching it out of these Belgick and French Confessions, and then concludes, when neither Armi­nians, Papists, nor Protestants acknowledge that Infants in their participation of Bap­tisme, are made partakers of those habitual gifts and spiritual qualities, which proper­ly make a man just, and inherently holy, none of them can demonstrate the losse of Faith or righteousnesse, or Apostasie of the Saints, by an argument drawn from Infants. His fifth Proposition is, ThatPatres nec actualem nec habitualem fidem aut charitatem parvulis in bap­tismo donatam agnoscunt: conver­sionem etiam sive novi cordis creatio­nem, quae propriè regeneratio dicenda est, non nisi cum ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerint, in iis produci do­cent. the Fathers do not acknowledge, that either actual or ha­bituall Faith, or charity is given to Infants in Baptisme; and that they teach, that conversion or creation of a new heart, which is properly regeneration, is not wrought in them but onely when they come to yeares, and are capable of rea­son. For this Austin is quoted, and frequent places out of him are produced; and with him Hierome, Nazianzen, Justin [Page 379] Martyr, and Bernard, making all up with the testimony of Whitaker, Patres ne somniasse quidem de habi­tuali Papistarum fide, quam illi volunt in Baptismo ex opere operato infusam esse parvulis. that the Fathers did not so much as dream of the habitual faith which Papists say is infused, by the work done in Baptisme, inferring this as the result of all that in five several propositions he had delivered; thatHinc quivis perspiciat quam invalida sit haec concludeni ratio, Multi ex in­fantibus baptizatis postea pereunt in infidelitate et impoenitentia; Ergo fi­des, charitas, reli quae (que) Spirituales qua­litates in renatis Spiritus virtute produ­ctae aliquando amittuntur. (from thence any man may see) how invalid this argument is, Many bap­tized Infants afterwards perish through un­belief, and impenitence; Therefore faith, charity and other Spiritual qualities, wrought by the Spirit in the regenerate, are sometimes lost. And having delivered himself thus in the negative, that Baptisme works not these graces or habits in infants; His first proposition, in the affirmative, tending to shew what Baptisme does work, is,Omnes in­fantes baptiza­ti ab Originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur. That all baptized infants are acquitted from the guilt of original sin; for which opinion, many Fathers, and School­men are quoted by him, as they were for the former. So that I think the first part of my position is fully made good, that the most eminent that ever have appeared for this power of Sacra­ments to conferre grace on the receivers, either utterly deny, or else doubtfully hold that Baptisme works any real change in in­fants, but onely that which is relative, and that it con­ferres, not habits, but onely priviledges on Infants bapti­zed.

For the other part of the position, that the Scriptures which these bring for proof of this power of Baptisme, almost all speak of such a change, that is real, not relative; of habits, and not of priviledges. The proof is easy. What those Scriptures are which by them are produced in this Controversy, may be seen in the former position, and that almost all of them speak of a real change, not barely that which is relative, is evident. The alone Old Testament text that I can find, is, Deut. 30.6. with Jer. 9.25. where circumcision of the heart is mentioned; which texts as they can hardly be interpreted to speak at all of the Sacrament of Cir­cumcision, in the outward rite, so it is certain, that a real change is spoken to by Moses in Deuteronomy, and by the Prophet also complained of to be wanting. Reverend Dr. Ward yields that Spiritual Circumcision of the heart is there meant; but he saith, that by this Spiritual Circumcision, the re­mission [Page 380] of original guilt, is understood. To whichCordis cir­cumcisione peccatorum re­missionem de­notari ut cre­dam, nihil ad­huc quod sua­deat video, quod cogat multo minus. Certe si quis verba illa, Deut. 10.16. Circumcidite ergo praeputi­um cordis ve­stri] aut ill [...]d etiam, Jer. 44. Circumcidimi­ni sive circum­cidite vos Jeho­vae] exposuerit, Remittite vo­bis peccata ve­stra; [...] (pute) [...]. Mr. Gata­ker replies, that he sees nothing that can perswade, much lesse force him to believe any such thing, Adding; that, If any should expound, Deut. 10.16. Circumcise the forskin of your heart, or, Jer. 44. Circumcise your selves to the Lord, to be as much as forgive your own sins, it would be thought strange. Disceptatio, pag. 147. yea, he makes the contrary plainly to appear. As for those texts, Titus 3.5. 1 Corinthians 6.11. Ephesians 5.25, 26. they speak all to the same thing; In every one of them a real, habitual change is mentioned, Acts 2.38. Remission of sinnes is indeed mentioned, and very probably, Acts. 22.16. But in what sense to be understood, I have shewed in the last place; so that I think there is so much yiel­ded, and so little proved by the eminent advocates in this cause, (that according to Scripture, there is any such causality in Baptisme for the pardon of sinne in eve­ry Infant that is presented to that ordinance, and recei­ved) that even upon this account it is justly to be sus­spected. Besides, that the blood of Christ and his Spirit are not onely distinguished by them, but divided; The vertue of his blood, is ascribed to those that have no por­tion in his Spirit, as though that Christ came, both by water and blood unto some: and by blood onely unto others.

SECT. III. Objections against the former doctrine.

Obj. 1 HEre it is objected, Where the blood of Christ on Gods part is of­fered, and applyed for pardon of the guilt of sin, and no impe­diment put on his part that receives it, there the guilt of sin is re­mitted; But in the Baptism of Infants, the blood of Christ on Gods part is offered and applyed, and no impediment put by him that re­ceives it; Ergo in the Baptisme of Infants the guilt of sin is re­mitted.

Answ. 1 Answ. 1. This Argument will hold with equal strength for proof of that which these deny; as for that which they would [Page 381] assert, Where the Spirit of Christ is offered on Gods part, and applyed for regeneration, and true sanctification, and no impe­diment put by him that doth receive it, there regeneration, sanctification, and all other gracious habits are wrought: But in the Baptisme of Infants the Spirit of Christ is thus offered, and applyed, and no impediment is put: Ergo. The Major in this syllogisme can be no more denyed, then in the former. The Spirit of Christ is as efficacious for regeneration, as his blood for pardon; It were over-much boldnesse to put any difference be­tween them. And for the Assumption, none can deny but the Spirit is as well applyed in Baptisme, as blood; either then both must hold, or both must be denyed.

2. I utterly deny, that the blood and Spirit of Christ, that ei­ther Answ. 2 blood or Spirit, are thus applyed in Baptisme; In case of such application, they would produce their effects, above, and a­gainst all resistance, there is no vain application of either of these to any person. If the Spirit of Christ had been in Baptisme ap­plyed to Simon Magus, it would so have seazed upon him, and wrought in him, that Peter would not have addressed himself to him in that language, which he heard from him, and so I may say of the blood of Christ, such an application of it to his soul, would have had that effect, that Peter would have said to him in the words of the Seraphim to Isaiah, when he had applyed the coal from the Altar to his mouth, Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin is purged; and not as he did, that thou art in the gall of bitternesse, and the bond of iniquity. The blood of Christ upon the soul of an Infant, or man of years, must needs be as efficacious as a coal from the Altar on Isaiah's lips. Universal redemption, we know, is asserted by these Authors, though it be with such li­mits, as not to close with Arminians, but to remain their oppo­site. If now there be not onely impetration of the merit of Christ, but also application in that latitude as Baptisme is administred. I know nothing that can stand in the way of salvation, of all those that are baptized. He that would see the consent of mo­dern Writers, of the most eminent note, in the denyal of this proposition, let him consult learned Mr. Gataker, Discep. pap. 6, &c. whereby his industrious pains (after his manner) many are multiplied; Danaeus leads the way, He is deceived (saith he) that thinks that Christ and his benefits, are applyed by the sign of water, which is onely the seal of such application.

[Page 382]3. According to these principles laid by these Authors, no guilt of sin is taken away by Baptisme, either in Infants, or men of years: for either it is pardoned before Baptisme, or else a barre in Baptisme is put against the pardon of it. If they are regenerate before Baptisme, then sin is pardoned before they are baptized. In case they are unregenerate when they are ten­dred to Baptisme, then there is a barre put to it. Original sin in Infants is mortal, otherwise they would be saved without Bap­tisme, as well as in it. And sin in the unregenerate is mortal likewise. There are therefore barres put by both of these, or at least an impediment found, and consequently no mans sin is thus remitted upon account of his Baptisme.

Obj. 2 Secondly, It is objected. Every Infant is conceived and born in sin [ordinarily,] which David confesses of himself, Psal. 51.5. Of unclean seed, Job. 14.4. A child of wrath, Eph. 2.3. and held under Original guilt. But there is a promise of remission of sin made to the Infant, when it is initiated by the Sacrament of Bap­tisme: Repent and be baptized every one of you, for remission of sins—; for the promise is made to you, and your children, Acts 2.38, 39.

Answ. 1 Answ. 1. It was not with good advice, that birth-sin, con­fessed by David, is in the Major proposition branched out in that latitude, as to comprize both uncleannesse and wrath; For it makes way for the Assumption to be as large, namely that in Baptisme the Spirit is promised, and applyed, to take away filth as well as blood, to deliver from wrath, otherwise the remedy doth not answer the malady. And so we have more in the con­clusion then they would have, though no more then is in the premises, viz. that in Infant Baptisme there is both remission of sin, and regeneration. The Infant is thus made, both happy and inherently holy.

Secondly, The fruit of Baptisme, a right carried on, (consci­ence Answ. 2 answering to baptismal engagements) is indeed forgivenesse of sins: But the promise that place mentioned, is not remission of sins (supposedly to follow upon the act of Baptisme), but it is that which did denominate them children of the promise, name­ly the promise made to Abraham, Gen. 17. and continued to them who were his off-spring, which argued them to be yet in Covenant. And the Apostle makes use of it, as a motive to presse them to accept of Baptisme, the present initiating seal [Page 383] of it. See this text further spoken to, Treatise of the Covenant, Chap. 37, 43.

Thirdly, It is objected. That which Baptisme figures, that Obj. 3 it works, otherwise it is a sign that is fallacious: But Baptisme figures out remission of sin, and the taking away the guilt of it.

Answ. 1. Baptisme also figures out a further work, of regenera­tion, Answ. 1 and sanctification, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.11, 12.

2. This Proposition universally understood, without any li­mits, Answ. 2 is denied on all hands. They that assert this Sacramental work, will have it to be with this proviso, that no barre be put by the receivers.

3. Sacraments do effect what they figure, as seales effect what the Covenant conveyes, upon Covenant-terms, all is effect­ed Answ. 3 that in Sacraments is figured. The Apostle tells us with what limits this proposition holds, 1 Pet. 3.21.

4. The great objection is. If Sacraments have no other work Obj. 4 upon the soul, then by way of sign and seal, as they have their influ­ence upon the understanding, and faith of the receivers, then infant baptisme is uselesse, and unprofitable; there is no end why they should be baptized, seeing there is no work wrought, either upon their un­derstanding, or faith in this ordinance, and so their Baptisme is vain and needlesse. And therefore upon this account, complaint is made by some friends of Infant Baptisme, that the doctrine de nudis signis (as it is called) making Sacraments bare and empty signes, is the ground of Anabaptisme. And the greatest sticklers against Infant Baptisme, have publickly professed, that if that tenent of the opus operatum (as we may call it) in Sacraments could be clearly proved, they would no longer oppose that practice.

Answ. 1. If the doctrine de nudis signis were (as is objected) Answ. 1 the ground of Anabaptisme, then I marvel how it comes to passe that that doctrine ceasing, Anabaptisme doth not cease with it. I read Calvin and others (to whom in this I subscribe) opposing it, I know none that now assert it. As soon as Calvin hath done with refutation of one, he presently falls upon refutation of this other, I here oppose; It is hard to say, whether he be more zealous against the doctrin de nubis signis, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 14. Sect. 13. or against this other doctrine of Sacramental efficacy, Sect. 14. And Chamier, lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen. cap. 10. Sect. 11. having mentioned that use of Sacraments as distinguishing signs, saith, [Page 384] Hic tamen nec solus est fi­nis nec praeci­puus Sacra­mentorum; ita­que Anabap­tistas aeque cum Bellarmi­no improba­mus, quos eti­am ante illum Calvinus refu­tavit: quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam signa instituta ad discernen­dum Christia­nos à Judaeis & Paganis, ut Romanis olim toga erat sig­num quo dis­cernebantur a Graecis pallia­tis. This is not yet alone or chief end of them; therefore (saith he) we oppose Anabaptists, as well as Bellarmine; and Calvin also be­fore him had refuted them, in that they make Sacraments nothing more then signes distinguishing Christians from Jewes, and Pagans as a gown sometimes was a sign whereby a Roman was known from a Greek. I remember when in the Divinity Schools, a respondent in his verses (according to custome premised) called the signes in the Sacraments, surda elementa (it may be metri causâ) The Dr. of the chair made a sharp animadversion on it. They that do not raise them so high, as to make them instruments of convey­ance of this nature, yet do not set them so low, as to be naked and empty signs. They are not naked, though such clothes, that every one woul put upon them, do not fit them.

2. It is no marvel that Anabaptists are ready to offer to come in to us, upon these terms, when this doctrine is fully cleared, being well aware, that it never will nor can be proved, and so they have a good ground given them to hold on in their oppo­sition. Our great revilers of the place of our publick meetings, calling them by the name of Steeple-houses, or thinking that too gentle, Jeroboams calve-houses, I doubt not but will promise to forbear that language if it can be clearly proved, that they are of divine institution, and that they have that holy sanction put upon them, as once the Temple had at Jerusalem; but when those that put so high an honour upon them, rise so high in their elogies, and yet fall so low in their proofs, they put an argu­ment into their mouthes, and (as I may say) an axe or hammer into their hands to demolish them, making them to think that this is all that can be said for them. Mr. Fuller in his history of holy warre, lib, 3. cap. 20. quoting out of Reinerius a charge against the Albigenses, that they gave no reverence to holy pla­ces, answers, It is true. And then gives in this for a reason, because most in that age ran riot in adoring of Churches, as if some inherent holinesse was ceiled to their roof, or plaistered to their walls, yea, such as might more ingratiate with God the persons and prayers of people there assembled. Let men take heed that they raise not Sacraments above the honour that Scripture gives them, with like successe as these did places of publick holy assemblies; a good cause hath not a greater adversary then a weak argument taken up in the defence of it. This argument, I confesse, had it ground to stand upon, might be of force for the battery of Ana­baptisme, [Page 385] but having no Scripture-bottome, it presently falls before any adversary, and Anabaptisme gathers strength by the fall of it.

3. As to the argument it self, tending to evince the uselesse­nesse 3 of infant-Baptisme, it may very fitly be parallelled with that Objection, made against Pauls doctrine, Rom. 3.1. when he had made it his great businesse, to set circumcision on its right bot­tom, and declared, that it was not efficacious in the way that they expected, and that it was without use for salvation, unlesse it were answered with the Circumcision of the heart, an ob­jection presently is raised, What profit is there then of Circumci­sion? so these likewise when Sacraments are not raised to that height, as the Schoolmen have advanced them, to be instruments of conveyance of grace by the work done, and as they expect from them, they presently demand, what profit? And affirm (as to infants at least) that they are uselesse.

4. That answer, which Paul gives to his Questionists, that de­manded 4 what profit is there of Circumcision I give to those that demand, what profit is there of infant-Baptisme? Having asser­ted in general, Much every way: he answers more punctually, instancing in one eminent priviledge, that virtually comprized all the external priviledges enjoyned by Israel as Church-members, chiefly that to them were committed the Oracles of God. It was said before that these priviledges in all Sacraments, are either actually conferred or infallibly evidenced. In Baptisme a true title is legally conferred. Upon account of our baptisme we have an orderly and legall right, and title to all succeeding Church-priviledges, as the Jewes had done upon account of their Circumcision, though there be not alwayes an aptitude for actual admission to them, or improvement of them. Upon this ground infants have, 1. Their share and interest in all the prayers made for the Church collectively, even in all that are preferred to God by his people for Zion and Jerusalem. This was the duty of every son of Zion, Psal. 122.6. This was the faithfulls practice, Psal. 51.18. and in these, infants as Church-members had their interest, on this account infants were brought to Christ,Priviledges following up­on infant-bap­tisme. That he might put his hands upon them, and pray, Matth. 19.13. 2. They have their share in the blessings of the Church; we see with what solemnity it was to be done, Num. 6.22. &c. The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons [Page 386] saying, On this wise ye shall blesse the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord blesse thee and keep thee, &c. and they shall put my Name upon the children of Israel, and I will blesse them. Infants had their share here, and upon this account, infants were blessed of Christ, Mar. 10.16. 3. Their relation to God by virtue of Covenant-interest, is hereby evidenced and ratified. How transcendent a priviledge this is to have the Lord for our God; we see, Psal. 144.15. having reckoned up several mercies, the Psalmist concludes, Happy is the people that is in such a case, yea, happy is that people whose God is the Lord This is the priviledge of every infant, that upon Covenant title is baptized; God will not suffer their enemies to passe without vengeance. As it was an acceptable work to dash the infants of Babylon against the stones, Psal. 137.9. being a seed growing up against God; so it is as displeasing, and provoking to harme these, that, are a seed de­dicated unto, and growing up for God. 4. Baptisme teaches them to know as soon as they are of capacity to learn to whom they belong, what Master they are to serve, and in what School they are to be trained. 5. A necessity is seen to get the know­ledge of Christ, and timely to walk in his wayes. 6. A delight is wrought in them, towards those in whose communion they are bred, and that own them as theirs, whereas being debarred in childhood from this society, and denyed this badge, it is the way to bring them to maligne them: each one is apt to love those of his owne fraternity, and on the contrary to study the opposition of others. 7. The aggravation of their sin presently rings in their ears, by reason of the favour they receive from God, the society into which they are incorporated, when their, conversati­on doth not in some measure answer their profession. 8. Parents here see a strong engagement, to bring them up for Christ, whom they have thus dedicated to him, and put into the fellowship of those who are his Saints and members. When they have brought forth children unto God, they see their sin heightned in giving them to Moloch, or any other besides God, and there is no ex­ample of any believing parent in all the Scripture bringing, up a child for Covenant, but in Covenant with the Lord. These alone, though more might be added, might stop the mouthes of all that insultingly move this question.

5. That which in present does not, but hereafter may work upon the understanding, is not vain and uselesse when it is done. [Page 387] That was not vain which Christ did to Peter, Joh. 13.17. when he said unto him, What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.

6. Seals of purchases taken in infants names, are of use to infants; though during infancy they know not how to make actual improvement themselves of them: If Baptisme hath its actual use in behalf of infants, whilest infants, as hath been shew­ed, and remains with them, to be improved by their understand­ing and faith, when they come to maturity, it cannot be thought to be vain and uselesse.

SECT. IV. A Corollary from the former doctrine.

THen it followes by way of necessary Corollary from that which hath been said;Answer to Sacramen­tal engage­ments [...] ncessa­ry to salvation. that unlesse the soul answer to Sacra­mental engagements, Sacraments are not efficacious for salvation to the receivers. This is a clear result from that which hath been said, and is fully delivered by the Apostle, 1 Pet. 3.21. speaking of the Arke of Noah, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by wa­ter: he adds, The like figure whereunto Baptisme doth now save us by the resurrection of Christ. The Arke did save those that en­tered into it; Baptisme doth save those that are received into the Church by it. And whereas an objection is obvious, that Noahs Arke, and New-Testament Baptisme doth much differ, and that in the very thing in which the similitude is brought; few ente­red the Arke, and were saved by it, but myriads of thousands are baptized; This the Apostle answers, in the Parenthesis there inter­posed, that the parallel lies not between the Arke and the out­ward act of Baptisme, as by man administred, and there called the putting away the filth of the flesh, (so there is a vast dispropor­tion, the outward act, as administred by man saves not,) but between the Arke and the inward work, which is The answer of a good conscience towards God. That of Tertullian (which Beza sayes, may serve as a Comment upon these words) is elegant: The soul is established by answering, and not by washing. And fur­ther [Page 388] to clear this text, we must know that the Covenant hath a Proposition in it, to which all in Covenant must give assent. He that believes, and repents, shall be saved. This assent is presuppo­sed in all those that make actual improvement of the Sacra­ments. Faith and Repentance being the terms of the Cove­nant. And this Divines in their Treatises of Conscience call [...]. Now in case we have the benefit of salvation by Sacra­ments, conscience must answer (and a good conscience, onely can answer) But I believe I repent. This Divines call [...]; Then and not otherwise Sacraments save. Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25. hath these words: Here I think the observation is easie, out of the body of the text, that the work done in Sacraments availes not to righteousnesse or salvation except the condition of the Cove­nant be performed by those that partake them; first the condition, then the Antithesis shewes it, if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision, that is all one to thee, as if thou hadst never been circumcised: yea, a gentile wanting the Sa­crament, having obedience, is nearer heaven then thou that hast the Sa­crament and neglectest obedience: and weigh well that the Lord in promising or sealing binds not himself to performance, but conditi­onally, that we perform our restipulation; and whence Sacraments should have their efficacy, but from the promise and grace of God I see not. Circumcision in the flesh engaged the receivers to cir­cumcision in the heart, Deut. 10.16. where these did concurre, there was a man in Covenant, and upright in Covenant: And, Jer. 9.25. wrath is denounced of God against several Nations; and the circumcised, and the uncircumcised, in the threat are put in equipage together, equally and alike to suffer. And to take off all scruple or offence that might be taken, there is a distin­ction brought of Circumcision in the flesh, and Circumcision in heart. Judah had Circumcision in the flesh to plead, but remained uncircumcised in heart, and therefore fares no better then those that were uncircumcised in flesh, Jer. 4.4. The Pro­phet commands, Circumcise your selves to the Lord, and take away the foreskin of your heart, ye men of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. On these terms the fury of the Lord is prevented. Those Israelites that passed out of Egypt, into the wildernesse for Canaan, had the Cloud, and the Sea of the same use as Baptisme: And Manna, [Page 389] and the Rock of the same use as the Lords Supper. The two former are called by the name of Baptisme, and the two latter, Spiritual meat, Spiritual drink. All were baptized in the one, and all did eat and drink of the other; yet (sayes the text) with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wildernesse. If you would know who suffered thus under Gods displeasure, the text tells you, Lusters after evil things, v. 6. Idolaters, v. 7. Fornicators, v. 8. Tempters of Christ, v. 9. Mur­murers, v. 10. And Heb. 3.17. The Apostle demanding, But with whom was God grieued fourty years? answers, Was it not with them which had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? Fur­ther demanding to whom sware he, that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? These wanting the answer of a good conscience, fell short of the Sacramental engage­ments, and also came short of true happinesse.Arguments evincing it. 1. This might be further evinced with arguments.

1. In this case where the soul answers not to Sacramental en­gagements, Sacraments are but as outward shadowes, and bare empty signs, and set out by the Spirit of God in Scripture with all their Rites and Ceremonies, (as other Ordinances of like na­ture) in the most low, despicable and undervaluing words that is possible. Baptisme in the letter, is no better with the Apostle then putting away the filth of the flesh; the cleansing of the hands, the feet, or face from dirt or filth, is the same with it. The Pha­risees washing of hands, yea, their washing of cups, platters, (as low as it is laid by our Saviour) was as efficacious and as accepta­ble. Circumcision also when it led not to, but from Christ, is called by the Apostle by the name of Concision, Phil. 3.2. Any gash made in the flesh, or rent in the garment, as well pleaseth. The Apostle therefore, Rom. 2.25. saith, Circumcision verily profit­eth if thou keep the Law, but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. If you understand the Apo­stle speaking the sense of the carnal Jewes, with whom he had to deal, then you must understand the keeping of the Law in its full perfection; for to this Circumcision, lookt upon, as a leading Law-Ceremony, did engage: He that is circumcised is a debtor to the while Law; if we understand him speaking of it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith, then sincerity is intended. If this be wanting, Circumcision is uncircumcision: where that of the heart is, there Circumcision in Gods account, is; and where it is [Page 390] not, there Circumcision is not, Rom. 2.28, 29. We are the Circum­cision, saith the Apostle, that worship God in Spirit and truth, when the cutting of the foreskin in those false teachers was no better then Concision, the worship of God in Spirit in whomsoever it was, was Circumcision.

Arg. 1 2. Sacraments in this case are onely aggravations of sin, and heightning of judgements. In case of uncircumcision in the time of the Law, and Non-baptisme in these times, sins were no more then transgressions of the Law; but now they are breaches of Covenant: Then they would have been meerly rebellion against Soveraignty, but now they are Apostasie, and treacherie. In Sacraments we close with God, and take his Name upon us as his servants; in sin we depart from him, and refuse to serve him: Thus our bond is broke, and our most solemn engagements with God made void. In Baptisme we undertake a profession of Christ, in wayes of sin we are treacherous towards him and stand up in hostility against him. When those Israelites, Jer. 34. had covenanted with God to put away their servants, which con­trary to the Law they had kept in bondage, and afterwards ser­ved themselves of them; we see what followes upon it, the Lord proclaims liberty to them, to the sword, to famine and pestilence. When we have once covenanted to put away our sins, we have lesse reason to serve our selves of them, or rather again to serve them, then these Israelites had to serve themselves of their bond men and bond-women. The highest reproach is this way cast upon Christ. No man leaves one Master, to betake himself to the service of another, but he prefers in his judgement the latter before the former, especially when he breaks all Bonds, Cove­nants, and Engagements for such an exchange of service. When a penitent person leaves sin to come over to Christ, Christ hath honour. It appears that he is now in dislike with sin, and better pleased with Christ, But when a man leaves Christ, and his wayes to serve sin, there is a reproach cast upon Christ; and of this he is very sensible, Jer. 2.5. What iniquity have your Fa­thers found in me, that they are gone from me, and walked after va­nity, and became vain? An aspersion of iniquity is cast upon a Master, when he is left, and the vainest of men is chosen; and this cast upon Christ in the highest way in a Christians turning to sin, and in this case we see in what manner he expostulates and complaines.

[Page 391]3. In this case where conscience answers not to Sacramen­tal Arg. 3 engagements, those two seals vouchsafed of God for his peo­ples benefit will stand one oppsite to the other, and will not an­swer each other. The seal of the Sacraments, and the seal of the Spirit, will be thus divided. The former may serve to give assu­rance that they are Gods in a visible relation, but the other will be wanting to give an invisible title. This restipulation of con­science being no other then Sanctification, and Sanctification the impression that the Spirit makes by way of seal, when we are not onely not assured of this work of the Spirit, but assuredly want it, then our want of interest in Christ is evident: for if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. The vi­sible seal in the want of this impresse on their spirits is necessari­ly inefficacious.

4. When conscience answers not to Sacramental engagements, Arg. 4 in participation of Sacraments, men subscribe to the equity of their own condemnation, and give assent to the sentence of death pronounced against them. Coming for the seals of the Covenant, they ratifie and establish the terms of the Covenant. Now the Covenant hath penalties as well as promises, punish­ments as well as mercies, conscience answering to Covenant-engagements, they are interested in mercies, conscience witnes­sing the contrary, they necessarily become lyable to judgements, and therefore the Apostle sayes, He that eats and drinks unwor­thily, eats and drinks judgement to himself. That very kind of eating hath an obligation in it to suffering, and the equity of such obligation, by such a communicant is acknowledged. If an idle, unfaithful, purloyning, run-away apprentice, should bear stripes from his Masters hand, and should upon it, produce his Inden­tures to implead his Master for reparations, these Indentures will give full evidence to the justice of his sufferings, or a man that enjoyes a lease with several clauses of forfeiture, and by non-payment of rent, or otherwise makes forfeiture, the produ­cing of his lease for ratification of his title proves a nullifying and destruction of it: This is the case of an unbelieving, impe­nitent, disobedient Christian. All therefore that willl find com­fort in Baptisme, and expect it at the Lords Table, must study to come up to Covenant-engagements, and exercise themselves con­tinually to have a conscience void of offence, both towards God, and toward man.

SECT. V. A case of Conscience upon occasion of the former Corollary answered.

When it is that Consci­ence answers to Sacramen­tal engage­ments.HEre a great question lyes, When it is that conscience thus answers to Sacramental engagements, so that we may con­clude their efficacy for salvation, and when it is that they come short, and so in our claim of them, we subscribe, as hath been said, to the equity of our own condemnati­on?

To this I answer, that every soul must make it his great busi­nesse, all the daies of his life to get abilities, to give satisfaction to this demand, and all the books that have been written in posi­tive Divinity, and Cases of Conscience are little enough for directi­ons for it; yet to speak something for their help, that desire to look into it, in their enquiries into Scriptures, and the labours of the learned in this particular, they must first distinguish be­tween keeping of Covenant, failings in Covenant, and forfeiture of it; between keeping in the way, str [...]yings out of the way, and a total resolved leaving of it. He may fail that makes not a to­tal forfeiture. And for discovery of these which I call failings in Covenant, we must yet distinguish of sins, some are meer infir­mities and unavoidably weaknesses; others are sins above infir­mities, presumptuous acts, or at least acts of inadvertency, or carnal security. As for those that are meer infirmities, and un­avoidable weaknesses, unto which Noah, Lot, Abraham, David, Job, Nathaniel, to whom God gives largest testimonies, (when in their walk they were most exact and circumspect) were subject, I take them not to be so much as failings in Covenant, seeing we never Covenanted with God to be above infirmities, or never to be any more found in any weaknesses; These with sincere hearts keep up to their Covenant engagements. Of such it is testified that they were upright, perfect, without guile. The promise then made to those that keep Covenant, and that remember to keep Gods Commandements, to do them, Psal. 103.18. is theirs. These are no Spirit-grieving sins. Complaint is made of God, of those that grieve the holy Spirit of God, Isa. 63.10. Psal. 95.9. but no complaint is made of these persons, they are men after Gods [Page 393] own heart, 1 Sam. 13.14. his delight, Prov. 11.20. The effects which grief hath with men, is not seen in Gods dealings with them. He departs not from them upon this occasion, nei­ther doth he upon this account afflict them. Whereas some say, that God in Justice may damne for the least sin, and there­fore he may much more afflict; I answer, The Covenant of Grace supposed, this cannot (as I think) stand with Justice, he is otherwise engaged to the believing and penitent, and no in­stance can be given of his punishment of unavoidabie weaknesse. He brings not his sword upon them to avenge the quarrel of his Covenant. Though sin wheresoever it is, is opposite to Gods Spirit, yet God is well pleased in their bearing up, and holding opposition against it. These walk up to their Covenant-vow made in Baptisme, and come every way fitted for the Lords Ta­ble. In application of themselves to the one, and looking back to the other, they find all manner of encouragements, and no cause of fears or terrours. Every promise made to the belie­ving, sincere, upright, perfect, obedient, is theirs. These may sit down at the Lords Table, with all alacrity; having a work upon their spirits to abide for ever. When they are taken hence they shall change their place, but not their company and fellow­ship. Their humbling of their soules under weaknesses, plain­ly speaks their pressing after further strength. Their hatred of sin, speaks their love of Christ. Their resistance of sin, their care to walk with Christ [...]. Of these Christ sayes, Thou art all fair, my beloved, there is no spot in thee, Cant. 4.7. that is, univer­sally fair: they are those that have respect to all Gods Com­mandments. And these, whilest such, and as such, come not within the compasse, either of failing in, or forfeiture of their Covenant.

Others are sins above infirmity and unavoidable weaknesses, and these are either meer breaches in, or violations of our Co­venant with God; or else such breaches that are also forfeitures: and those I call meer breaches or violations of this kind, how foul soever, that are short of forfeitures, such as was Davids un­cleannesse and blood, Solomons Idolatry, Hezekiahs pride, Jonas his flight to Tarshish, Jobs passion, Peters denyal of Christ, and whatsoever other sins that may stand parallell with these, whe­ther of omission, or commission. These are sins above infir­mities, towards presumption at least, much of will and consent [Page 394] of heart is in them; these are outbreaches from God, and vio­lations made upon our Covenant entred with him, notwithstan­ding they be not with full consent of heart, and afterwards bro­ken off by repentance. And concerning these I shall first lay down severall Positions, and then apply all to our present pur­pose.

Positions hold­ing forth the danger of no­table sins in regenerate persons.1. Though these sins thus acted do not take away all title to the Kingdome of heaven, yet they cloud and obscure the evi­dence and assurance of it. I know not how this can be made up to the soul, otherwise then by a practical syllogisme, inqui­ring as before into the answer of the conscience to Covenant-engagements. He that believes and repents shall be saved, is the bottome on which the whole edifice of assurance must stand, and how the soul, under so sad a witnesse, that conscience in this case is ready to give, can return answer, I believe, I repent I yield sincere obedience, I cannot understand. Yea, Conscience in this plight will presently syllogize on the opposite hand. No Whoremonger, Idolater, Murderer, Drunkard, & hath title to the Kingdome of heaven. This is a Gospel-Proposition, and whatsoever other of like nature that conscience can assume, and how far this is from yielding matter of assurance, let any judge. Neither let election here be objected, seeing this is no bottome on which assurance can be built further than we find clear evi­dence of the fruits of it. Those unclean Corinthians reckoned up in that List, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. had no assurance of salvation from Election, in their unconversion. Nor yet can regenera­tion be objected, seeing these are not acts of the regenerate part. Unregeneration then bearing dominion and exercising present power, evidence is clouded. When Hezekiah was left to himself in the matter of the King of Babylon, he was not rai­sed above himself in the beatifical vision. They that will keep up assurance, must keep off from sins.

Position 2 2. Sin of this nature in a regenerate man brings an inapti­tude on the soul in the present state to enter into glory. Hea­ven is a place of greater purity, then for a man to step out of Murder, and Adultery into it. In case a well-ordered discipline will not suffer such without censure in the Congregation, much lesse can we think, him fit in that state for heaven. I wonder how those that pretend at least to keep up Church-Government to that height, that none that is impure may be suffered among [Page 395] them, can yet in their doctrine set open the gates of heaven for to receive them. Is the visible Church on earth in a more nar­row latitude, then the state of blisse? or may we without dan­ger pervert Christs speech, and say, Few are called, but many chosen? If Miriam upon sin was not fit for the Camp for seven dayes, Numb. 12.14. much lesse are these immediately upon the acting of like enormities fit for glory. If any think that the merit of Christ steps in, and keeps from hell, yet doubt­lesse the Spirit of Christ hath not in present made them meet or glory. Some say, What if David had dy'd after his adul­tery, before his recovery? what then had been his case? He was a child of God, and could a child of God have perished? And I demand, What if Paul had dyed in his persecution when he was exceedingly mad against Christianity? He was elected, and could a chosen vessel of God have been damned? He that can reconcile one of these, may be able easily to reconcile them both. An Elect person cannot be damned, and an enemy of Christ cannot be saved. A Child of God cannot dye, and a Murderer and Adulterer cannot live. We find therefore, that Paul did not dye in his Persecution; he that chose him to life, chose him also to the acknowledgment of the truth. David did not dye in his Adultery; He that had adopted him for glory, wrought him to repentance for remission of sins. The salva­tion if both of them was doubtful respective to their estates now mentioned, in case we look onely at the men, being both in a plain road towards perdition; but the damnation of either of them was impossible, if we look at the election and pur­pose of God. Gods Election carries on undoubted and infal­lible effects, through doubtful and con­tingent means.Omnis actus à duobus dependens, quorum unum est necessarium, alte­rum veto contingens; licet habet ne­cessitatem ex parte necessarii, habet tamen contingentiam ex parte con­tingentis. Ordo praedestinationis certus est, et tamen voluntas effectum suum pro­ducit non nisi contingenter. Praede­stinatus potest perire, si consideratur ipsius potentia: non potest, si consi­deratur ordo quem habet ad Deum praedestinantem. Refe [...]t Davenan. epist. ad Dr. Ward. Every action (saith Gandavensis) depending upon two agents, whereof the one is necessary, and the other contingent, though it be necessary respective to the necessary agent, yet it is contingent and doubtfull on the part of the contingent agent. Quodl. 4. q. 18. The order and way of pre­destination, saith Aquinas, is certain, and yet the will of man produces its effects no other­wayes than in a contingent manner. An elect man may perish, if we consider his own [Page 396] power he cannot perish if we look unto the order in which he stands in respect of God that predestinates. See the suffrage of the Divines of great Brittain, art. 5. part. 2. thes. 3, 4, 5, 6. Davenants Epist. prop. ult. Burges on Justification, pag. 240. The Assemblies confession of faith.

Position 3 3. Sins of this nature in an unregenerate man, bring him un­der Gods wrath and present displeasure, though they do not work him into a state of wrath or utter losse of his justified state. They cause him to bear his Fathers frown, though he shall not dye as a Malefactor. He shall not enter into condemnati­on, yet he is not taken out of the hands of discipline; see Isai. 57.17, 18. For the iniquity of his covetousnesse was I wroth, and smote him; I hid me, and was wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart. I have seen his wayes, and will heal him, I will lead him also, and restore comforts to him, and to his mourners; These of whom the Prophet here speaks, were a people of Gods everlasting love, being those whom he heals, and to whom he re­stores comforts. They were yet overmuch carried out to co­vetousnesse, and pursuit of creature contentments; Gods wrath was upon them for this miscarriage of theirs, he was moved here upon to appear in displeasure against them; he smites them in his wrath, and hides his face in displeasure from them, having his eye open to their sin, but his face withdrawn from their consolation. Num. 20.13. we may find Moses and Aarons sin, and the Psalmists observation upon it, Psal. 106.32, 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Mo­ses for their sakes; because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips. Moses suffers from God for his sin, when he suffered the people to provoke him to sin. This Moses seems never to have done with, Deut. 1.37. & 3.26. & 4.21. so that God punishes for sin, and in anger punishes for it. If love and wrath cannot consist, (as some would have it) then Moses was none of Gods beloved. 2 Sam. 11. we find Davids sin set out at length, and how it took with God, we find in the end of the chapter. The thing that David did, displeased the Lord; and that it was no otherwise in New-Testament-times is clear. As the onenesse and samenesse of the Covenant which we and they were under, doth evince it; so also Gods dealings with the Corinthians upon their prophanation of the Lords Sup­per is a proof of it.

[Page 397]4. Sin thus committed is such an obstruction in the way of blisse Position 4 and salvation, that there lyes a necessity on the soul to come in by repentance, and by prayer to make application to the throne of grace, in order to pardon and forgivenesse. This is Gods way to bring his into the wayes of salvation and life, when they have stept aside into the wayes of death. To this end God keeps up Discipline with his own hand, as we may see, 1 Cor. 11.31, 32. The Apostle having there reproved these Corinthians in a tart way for prophanation of the Lords Supper, and disswaded them from it by the deadly nature of the crime, they were here­in guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and the danger they in­curred, eating and drinking judgement to themselves; he farther sets before them present experiments of Gods hand, For this cause many are weak, and sickly among you, and many sleep; In this place he lets them know how they might avoid this judgement, If we would judge our selves, we should not be judged. Our examination and sentence might avert the examination and sentence of hea­ven. And then acquaints them with Gods end in this visit of his, to correct as a Father, and not condemn as a Judge: But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be con­demned with the world. The application here is easie, They are the Elect of God, and of saving Gospel interest, that are kept from condemnation. A way in sin would have brought them, as others in the world, into condemnation: If they might have been sa­ved in sin, when the world was damned for sin, this correction for that end did not need. To avoid condemnation therefore for sin, God by his judgements lashes them out of it: By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit, to take away his sin. So that the tendency of sin, even in a child of God, is to bring to condemnation; and the care of God is by afflictions to take him off from sin, that he might not be condemned. To this end Church-discipline is also set up of God, 1. Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. For I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. How farre that sentence of giving up to Satan did reach, I shall not stand to determine, whether barely to cast him out of the Church, [Page 398] and put him among those over whom Satan reigned, or as con­sequent of it, horrors and terrors from Satan by Gods just per­mission; when the Church leaves him off from their communion, God casts him off from his protection and consolation: which (as is said) ordinarily followed upon this sentence in Primitive times: The end is plain, the destruction of the flesh, that the spi­rit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. If this mans for­mer justification would have brought him on in his sin without step to salvation, all this had not needed, that his spirit might be saved. See further, 2 Cor. 7.9. the Apostles severe dealings with these Corinthians concerning this incestuous member, had cast them down with grief, and this grief raised the Apostles spirit with joy, not that they had grieved, but that their grief had so happy an issue. Now I rejoyce not, (saith he) that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance, adding, ver. 10. For godly sorrow works repentance to salvation not to be repented of. They were stepping therefore out of the salvation-way, repentance brings them back This in reason is plain; If new sins thus committed oc­casion no such obstruction, as to bring a necessity of repentance, (as some would have it) then the free grace of God gives a man full liberty to sin, & opens a gap to all ungodlinesse; this will then follow, which some have prophanely inferred from some Gospel-principles, Live as I list, and shall be saved. What shall hinder, if no way in sin either hath any tendency to condemnation, or is any obstruction in the way of salvation? Some I know to avoid this, speak of that holy, filial, ingenuous disposition in a child of God, that in case he were set free from any such danger, and let loose to all the devils in hell; he would abhor sin, and have in detestation all that is evil, but I do not find God giving in his testimony of any such ingenuity. If all the children of God were thus towardly, all those rods that he uses were needlesse; and if justification might be thus carried on in sin, Christ would not have found reason to have said, Straight is the gate, and nar­row is the way that leadeth to life, Matth. 7.14. It was suffici­ently broad in case sin would lead us in at it. Neither would the Apostle have said, If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 1 Pet 4.18. The righte­ous might thus be saved with ease, and the wicked and sinners salvation would be alike easie.

These in this posture under the present power of lust or temp­tation, [Page 399] are not as they ought mindful of their Covenant,The applicati­on of these rules respective to Sacraments. but are in a high way of violation of it. Their Baptism-Vow is not as it ought kept up, and their adventure to come to the Lords Table for renewing of their Covenant, (the strength of lust still remain­ing) is a further provocation of the Lord. Upon this account the Corinthians, (as we have heard) smarted. God will not bear so high a dishonour of so great an Ordinance. It is an high presumption for a soul, under such present defilements; to dare to approach so nigh his presence, otherwise then in order to humiliation, and more strict renewed engagements against such practices. He that comes in this posture might here see the hatefulnesse of his present way to the height set out, and the ju­stice of the heavyest, smartest stroke, that can be laid. As Joab sometimes abominated a sin that David acted, 1 Chron. 21.6. though David was a man in the general frame of his soul, up­right with God, and Joab (as we may fear) far from it; so some that never had that change on their heart, yet under pre­sent convictions, and resolutions against sin, with the Publican, Luk. 18. and intelligent in the wayes of God with that Scribe that was not far from the Kingdome of heaven, Mark 12.34. may be otherwise accepted at the Lords Table, then these persons notwitstanding their habitual graces.

To distinguish these which are unavoidable weaknesses,Rules to dis­cern the na­ture and qua­lity of sins. and not of that danger to a man upright in Covenant, from such sins that are violations and breaches of it, and of that peril as hath been said, some Rules might be delivered.

1. The more there is of light, the lesse there is of weaknesse, Rule 1 and so the crime more hainous, and violation of Covenant more dangerous. A man of dimme sight, whether through want of abilities to apprehend or helps vouchsafed to understand, is under an unavoidable impossibility to reach that exactnesse which others much above them in light may compasse; so that one Rule will not serve to discover the weaknesse of all, but to whom much is given, of him God will require the more. Graci­ously disposed souls walk up to that which they know, but can­not attain to that which they see not. That may be from weak­nesse in one, which is out of will, and perversenesse in another. Sincerity admits of degrees, differenced according to mens seve­ral abilities.

2. The lesse there is of temptation, the more of sin, and lesse Rule 2 [Page 400] of weaknesse; The bowle may run more evenly towards the mark whilest it meets with no rubs, but a rub necessitates some unevennesse in the running. Temptations of this kind are of two sorts, some from within, from mens natural constitution and temper. It is above possibility for some men to be in that mea­sure free from all appearance and evidence of covetousnesse, am­bition, lightnesse, passion or the like, as some others. He is not farthest from weaknesse, in whom least appears of sailings; but he that is least vigilant, and makes least resistance. There are many of choise principles, that yet by reason of the temper of their natures are men of strong temptations. And the Heathen could see that it isNaturam ex­pellas furca licet, usque re­curret. an hard thing to beat back natures inclinations. I have heard of an eminent man, to whom one that very well knew him said, Thou hast grace enough for ten men, but all is too little for thy self; There was such a crabbed nature for it to deal with. It is hard for these by the help of much grace to ap­pear in their walk equall to those that are in grace farre their inferiours. As there are temptations from within, so there are assaults from without in like manner. Satan hath more free scope, and rope-length given him towards some, then towards others; and at sometimes more towards the same persons, then at other times; in which Job is an eminent example, Commission after Commission is given to Satan against him, the later still exceed­ing the former. The world with more impetuous violence sets upon some, then others, and at some times with greater violence then at others. The proud have had me greatly in derision, yet have I not declined from thy Law, Psal. 119.51. The bands of the wicked have robb'd me, but I have not forgotten thy Law, Psal. 119.61. It is a very hard thing in such a case for a man to stand steady and upright. He that stands on an hill to take view of a fight, may see many divisions from military rules; but in case he were to manage the fight, he might perhaps make more faults then he discovers. A sheep hardly passes without losse of some wool through many briars.

Rule 3 3. The more there is of deliberation and conviction, the lesse there is of weaknesse, and the more of sin. A man sometimes is so surprized, and taken at a disadvantage, that he knowes not how at present to act for the best for the safety of his person, or his wordly advantage, of which yet he uses to be more sensible; much lesse then is he alwayes able to do for the best for his Spi­ritual [Page 401] and everlasting concernment. A dispute is sometimes held between a mans conscience, and his fears, when the danger is so sudden, and thereupon his fears so high, that the voyce of conscience cannot be heard, nor hath it leasure or strength to bring up the argument. But when there is opportunity offer­ed, and much reason from conscience heard, more regard is then had to self, and lesse to God, in case sin be committed. This was Francis Spira's case, when he was put to it either to sub­cribe to Popery, or to run the hazard of all his worldly interests, having so much time to debate, and so much strength of reason against it, yet yeelding after this full debate, he could never find peace in himself afterwards.

4. In omissions; The more opportunity for the duty, the greater the neglect; the lesse the opportunity, through the multitudes of occasions, the more it is towards weaknesse. It is hard to have many Irons in the fire, and to see so well to all that none be burnt: several Kings are so far honoured in Scripture, that their hearts were perfect, and yet imperctions are noted in their government, which must be imputed to that multitude of businesses that lay on their hands, together with the many ob­structions that were in their way for effecting of it.

SECT. VI. Sinnes that are Covenant forfeitures.

AS these are failings in Covenant, and such as may be called violations of it, though God is not pleased to take hold of advantage, to proceed upon it: so there are forfeitures of Cove­nant, which do not onely blurre our evidence for heaven, and bring the soul under Gods present wrath and displeasure, but de­stroy all title to happinesse and glory: or if that phrase will not be born, they are such as give full evidence that we are with­out all title to it. To these we may speak in the Psalmists words, What hast thou to do to delare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant into thy mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction and castest my words behind thee, Psal. 50.16, 17. As it is with those that hold by way of Lease from men, they so fail sometimes by [Page 402] non-payment of rent, waste made, or service neglected, that they may be impleaded and brought under an arrest: Sometimes they so fail that they run upon forfeiture of the whole, and all right and title through carelesenesse is lost. Those already spoken to are justly proceeded against, but these that we are now upon are to be utterly ejected. They may with the sons of Keturah have their portions (and the Psalmist saies, They have their portion in this life, Psal. 17.14,) but they must never inherit with Isaac. Concerning these the Prophet is resolute, Ezek. 18.13. Shall he then live? he shall not live, he hath done all these abominations, he shall surely dye. And if any object against this, as a legal text, we shall find the Apostle as peremptory, that they have not any inheritance in the Kingdome of Christ and of God, Eph. 5.5. that they shall not inherit the Kingdome of God, twice repeated, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. as also, Gal. 5.21. Now these are of sundry kinds. Some in whom there is no appearance of God,Several sor [...]s of sinners that make forfeiture of Covenant. or footsteps of piety and holinesse, but such whose transgression speaks within the heart of all, that there is no feare of God before their eyes: A prophane rabble that scarce make mention of God but when they blaspheme: Others of a more civil, or more restrained course, that with the young man in the Gospel, come up to the outside, and letter at least of most Commandments, and therefore of that generation that is pure in their own eyes, yet not cleansed from their filthi­nesse. Some are such that understand little, or nothing of God or waies of godlinesse, but with the high-way ground heare and understand nothing at all; the Devil stealing away that which was sown in their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. Others are men of parts and abilities, are confident of themselves, with those to whom Paul speaks, Rom. 2.19, 20. That they are guides of the blind, lights to them which are in darknesse, instructers of the foolish, and teachers of babes, which have a form of knowledg and truth in the law; perhaps of abilities to prophesy in the Name of Christ with those mentioned by our Saviour, that claim the Kingdome of heaven upon that account, Matth. 5.22. Some are universalists (as I may say) in sinne, at least, with that pro­phane deboist youth that obeyed not the voice of his teachers, nor enclined his ear to those that instructed him, they are almost in all evil in the midst of the Congregation or assembly, Prov. 5.13, 14. Others are of a more refined stamp, and somewhat reformed way that with Herod have learned to do many things after those that [Page 403] they hear, but yet have their reserved Herodias, some right hand that they will not cut off, some right eye that they will not pluck out; these are in the same condemnation. The Catalogue or sins shutting out of heaven, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. are not reckoned up copulatively, so that all must concurre to cast a man out, but dis­junctively; any one held and continued in will serve for it. Nei­ther fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, &c. I shall inhe­rit the Kingdome of God. Some have their beloved, endeered lusts in a more open, outward way, their filthinesse of flesh to the defilement of the outward man in drunkennesse, gluttony, adultery, senseual pleasures. Others their spirit-filthinesse, distrust of God, inward pride, confidence in the arm of flesh, self-seeking and the like. Some are carried away in their affections onely whether sensitive or rationall, fixing them upon forbidden ob­jects, but in the mean time hold the truth thus imprisoned in un­righteousnesse, Rom. 1.18. Others have a taint in their judge­ments, not holding the head, from which all the body by joynts, and bands having nourishment ministred, and knit together encreaseth with the encrease of God, Col. 2.19. Though in this age these have many advocates, yet their case is the same with others, al­ready mentioned. Heresie is a fruit of the flesh as well as adul­tery, fornication, drunkennesse, lasciviousnesse Idolatry, witch­craft, and together with them shuts out of the Kingdome of heaven, Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. If the Apostle would have been in that way indulgent towards it, as many would have all to be in these dayes, he had never so whetted in all his Epistles his pen against it. Some have their positive sins, as before named, others stand charged chiefly (I think seldome solely) with nega­tives. They call not upon the Lord, Psal. 14.4. She strengthened not the hands of the poor and needy, Ezek. 16.49. She obeyed not the voice, she received not correction, she trusted not in the Lord, she drew not near to God, Zeph. 3.2. Some have their sins of a more deep dye, of a Scarlet-colour, sins of a great magnitude, whose very name might even astonish others, sins are seemingly and appearingly light or small, such as Papists have ac­counted venial, and most think it would over-much rigour in God to proceed against them in eternal judgements, eying the matter of fact, and not the thwarting of the divine command. Some have their hand-sins, sins in action: Others have their thought-sins, their tongue-sins. Some carry their sins more clearly [Page 404] without check or curb, having got a conscience peaceably wicked: others have their girdes and gripes, many times brought into Melancholy dumps about them, with Ahab Sermon-sick; and yet not able to bear it out against their lusts, but again return to their former courses. These and many others that stand up in a paral­lell equipage with these men in Covenant, professedly Christi­an, baptized into the Name of Christ, and having never professedly renounced Christ, are forfeitures of the mercies of the Covenant. No opinion that they hold, party that they take, name that they think they have got, supposed interest that they have in Christ, can acquit them. They may be denominated unsanctified, or unholy men, (having not obtained that which the Apostle sought in prayer, in behalf of the Thessalonians, that they might be san­ctified throughout, in spirit, soul and body) sanctification puri­fies all the unclean, and heales all the diseased parts; And no un­clean person can inherit the Kingdome of God, Eph. 5.5. They are truely styled impenitent ones. Repentance is a return to God, in the same latitude as our departure by sin was from him; In eve­ry sin of all these and of the like kind, we depart from God: In repentance therefore we are to return from every sin to God. The Prophet tells us upon what terms our souls may be freed from ruine by sin, Ezek. 18.30. Repent and turn your selves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruine; and unlesse we repent, we shall all perish, Luk. 13.3, 5. They are justly pro­nounced to be void of grace, there being that contrariety between grace and sin; that they cannot rest in the same subject, or lodge continually in the same heart, without opposiition. Where grace is prevalent, sin falls; and where sin prevails, grace is ex­cluded; and it is the grace of God that brings salvation, Tit. 2.11. They are void of the Spirit of regeneration. As our birth-cor­ruption hath in it the spawn of all sin, so regeneration hath the seed of all grace. And Except we be born again, we cannot see the Kingdome of God, John. 3.3. These are the men which by their claime of Baptisme,The uselesse­nesse of Sacra­ments to these persons. and offer of themselves to the Lords Table, subscribe the equity of their own condemnation, and justifie the sentence of death pronounced against themselves. They accept the Covenant on those terms on which it is tendered in the Gospel; and upon these terms they are under the wrath of God, and lyable to the sentence of eternal death. Yet not remedilessely, helplessely, hopelessely, [Page 405] as it is with those oftentimes, that upon forfeitures of Covenant, fall into the hands of man; the forfeiture being once made, ad­vantages are taken by many to the uttermost. The prodigal is an instance of the Fathers readinesse to receive to mercy those that have gone away from him in wayes of sin; And the Prophet tells us, Ezek. 18.21, 22. If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not dye. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousnesse that he hath done, he shall live. And though it be a wickednesse that reaches to the highest vio­lation of Covenant, yet this shall not hinder, Jer. 3.1. They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another mans, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet returne again to me, saith the Lord. He that hath hitherto come in the highest degree of unworthinesse to the Lords Table, as oft as he hath come to it, yet casting that off, which was his unwor­thinesse, and coming up to Gods terms, he is now received and accepted.

SECT. VII. A further Corollary from the former Doctrine.

THen let all take heed that they look for no more from Sa­craments, then God hath put into them,We are to look for no more from Sacraments then God hath put into them and promised to do by them. and hath promised to work by them, least looking unto them, and waiting for them, as the troops of Tema, and companies of Sheba, for the stream of Brooks which vanish when they wax warm, and are consu­med out of their place, they be confounded, and coming thither be ashamed. And this caveat is no more then needs, seeing men in all times have been wonderfully apt to delude themselves upon account of their fruition of outward Church-priviledges;Mens aptnesse to delude themselves in Sacramental priviledges. and in particular, Sacrament-priviledges. And to this they are induced by divers reasons. 1. Because Sacraments are an ho­nour, which God hath vouchsaf'd to his people, and denyed to others that stand not in that relation, and they cannot think [Page 406] that it is in vain, that such an honour is conferred upon them. 2. There are great promises annext to them, and made to those that make right improvement of them. The bread is the Com­munion of the body, and the wine in the Lords Supper the Com­munion of the blood of Christ, 1 Cor 10.16. It is the New Te­stament in Christs blood shed for many for the remission of sins, Matth. 26.28. Baptisme saves through the resurrection of Christ, 1 Pet. 3.21. As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. Insomuch that we have been taught that in Baptisme we are made children of God, mem­bers of Christ, and inheriters of the Kingdom of heaven; These promises are streight applied; without any eye had to the terms and Propositions annext to them, like unto men that look at dig­nities in offices, and never regard the burthens. 3. Interest in Sacraments is not onely a priviledge, but a duty; not onely an honour, but a work of obedience in them that partake of them. To be baptized with water, and to eat of the Bread, and drink of the Cup in the Lords Supper, is a duty, as it was to be circumci­sed in the flesh of the foreskin, and to eat the Paschal Lambe at the time appointed, and there is danger in neglect of these: This gives some ease, and speaks some peace to the conscience, that they have done the Command of the Lord. 4. They are yet matters of ease, especially New-Testament-Sacraments; Here is no mortification of the members, no crucifying of the flesh, no cutting off the right hand, or plucking out the right eye; and therefore no marvel that men could wish that all Re­ligion were in them, and hope that salvation may be gained by them. Lastly, Those of these conceits, have alwayes met with teachers to sooth them up in them,In all Ages some have over-highly advanced Sa­cramental pri­viledges. and carry on their delusion. How high was Circumcision set up in the Apostles times, as in regard of the necessity of it, Acts 15.1. Certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren and said, Except ye be cir­cumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved: So also in regard of the power and efficacy of it? and therefore the Apostle was put to it to warn men in that way of the delusion, and to give that undervaluing term of concision to it, Phil. 3.2. After-age produced Schoolmen, and Popish Writers to magni­fie them, affixing, and limiting salvation (except in some cases extraordinary) to the water in Baptisme; and how great things they ascribe to the body of Christ received, if no barre be put, [Page 407] (which they understand of the Sacramental bread) is very well known. But as some have observed, where poyson growes, providence takes care that there be antidotes found, so none of these ever appeared in the Church, but some by the good hand of God have stood up in opposition. How mightily did the Prophet Jeremy oppose himself against that over-high opinion that the Jewes in his time had of Circumcision? Jer. 9.25, 26. As also Paul, making use of his authority against the Jewes in his time, and disputing at large against it, Rom. 2. And the Apostle Peter foreseeing (it seems) that Baptisme would be set up as high among Christians as ever Circumcision was among the Jewes, makes it his businesse to prevent it. Having affirmed that Baptisme saves, he is careful to let us know that it is not by its own power, but by the resurrection of Christ, that is, Faith in the Resurrection: and further explains himself, that it is not the outward act alone, but as answered with an inward work that hath that power, as you have heard. And Popish School­men making it their work (as we have heard) to advance Sacra­ments to that height, Protestant Writers in a sull stream have appeared to set them on their right bottome, and to make it appear what it is that Scripture attributes to them, and what in their right use may be expected from them. Calvin's words, lib. 4. instit. cap. 14. Sect. 14. are high and notable, having opposed the doctrine of nuda signa, which makes Sacraments to be bare and naked signs: On the other hand (saith he)Rursum ad­monendi su­mus, ut isti vim Sacramento­rum enervant, usumq prorsus evertunt, ita ab adversâ parte stare alios qui arcanas nescio quas virtures Sacramentis affingunt, quae nus­quam illis à Deo insitae leguntur. Quo errore periculosè falluntur simpliciores et impe­riti, dum et Dei dona quaerere docentur ubi reperiri minime possunt et à Deo sensim ab­strahuntur, ut pro ejus veritate meram amplexentur vanitatem. Magno enim consensu So­phisticae Scholae tradiderunt, Sacramenta novae legis, hoc est, quae in usu nunc sunt Eccle­siae, justificare et conferre gratiam, modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortal [...]s. Quae sententia dici non potest, quàm sit exitialis et pestilens, eo (que) magis, quod multis ante sae­culis magna Ecclesiae jactura in bonâ orbis parte obtinuit. Planè certe diabolica est, nam dum justitiam cirra fidem pollicetur, animas in exitium praecipites agit: deinde quia justitiae causam à Sacramentis ducit, miseras hominum mentés, in terram s [...] apte sponte plus satis in­clinatas, hâc superstitione illigat ut in spectaculo rei corpore ae potius quam in Deo ipso acqui­escant. we are to be advertis'd, that as those weaken the efficacy of Sacraments, and utterly overthrow their use, so there are others on the other hand that assign I know not what vertue to them, such that we never read that God ever put into them: which errour (saith he) dange­rously [Page 408] deceives the simple, and unlearned; Whilest they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot be found, they are by de­grees drawn from God to imbrace meer vanity instead of truth. For the Schooles of Sophisters with great consent have taught that the Sacraments of the new law, (that is, those that are now in use among Christians) do Justifie, and confer grace, provided that we put no barre of mortal sin. Which opinion (saith he) hath been of more deadly danger than can be spoken: and so much the more, because for many Ages, to the great losse of the Church, it hath prevailed. It is certainly (saith he) devillish; for whilest it promiseth Justi­fication without Faith, it casts soules headlong to destruction. And upon that account, because they derive the cause of righteousnesse or Justification from the Sacraments; by this superstition they so ensnare the poor soules of men, (over-much of their own accord in­clined to earth) that they had rather rest in a corporeall element than in God himself. This is his entrance upon the dispute. That which he hath further upon it, in four whole Sections is very well worth the reading. The consent of other Writers of his time, and that have followed after him, as a cloud of witnesses, might be produced: but this (as the Reader hath heard) is al­ready done to my hand. And when some of reverend esteem, and singularly deserving in the Church of God, have gone over­much on this hand, as soon as it was carried abroad in Manu­scripts, a learned Manuscript of Mr. Gatakers met with it, and afterwards appearing in print as a Posthumous work, this, as soon as it came to the Authors cognizance by his zeal to the truth fol­lowed it. And let me here adde to that which hath been said, that if nothing else, yet experience might correct this over­high conceit of the work of Sacraments. That which we evi­dently see is not wrought by Sacraments, we cannot believe they are assign'd of God to work. This Proposition hath certainly reason in it; They certainly do that office, which God hath as­sign'd and appointed them. But we evidently see that they do not actually work all that they figure out, even where (accord­ing to these) there is no bar put; therefore there is no cause to believe that they are design'd of God for it. Here I might in­stance in their failing in the work of remission of sin in Infants, seeing when they come to growth we oft see them in that way of sin, that stands not with actual forgivenesse. But I know that many that here are adversaries confesse an intercision of Ju­stification, [Page 409] and therefore this is not against them: and others that admit not that doctrine speak of a double Justification, one, for the state of Infancy; another of those that are of growth upon their acceptation of Christ by faith: and therefore though sins be remitted in Infancy, and afterward, upon their acting of sin, charged, here is no such intercision of justification, which Arminians hold, and their adversaries oppose. I shall therefore wave this, and instance in the failing of Baptisme in the work of regeneration, which is as well figured out in Baptisme, as that other of remission of sin. Baptisme comes not alone to remove the guilt; but also to correct the power of original corruption, and so to work in us a freedome from the power of sin, as well as the pardon of it. And in case Baptisme effects this work, how is it that sin in Infants is so apt to shew it self? that as soon as they act, they are so readily prone to act that which is evill. When Saul said he had done the Commandment of the Lord, Samuel had a confutation ready; What means then (sayes he) this bleating of sheep, and lowing of oxen in mine ears that 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 [Page 410] 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 [Page 411] 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 [Page 412] 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 visible people of God, and those that are strangers to him, work no otherwise, as to vitall and saving grace, than hath been spoke, let us take heed lest these dissimilitudes do not draw us to imbrace a cloud instead of Juno, when it shall appear that they have not so much of elegancy, but are answered with equal incongruity. If they be such marks as these instances seem to hold out to us, how are they then conditional means, to communicate these blessings? Upon what condition I marvel was it that Moses knew that God was in the bush? Or the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, that the An­gel was in the water? Or the Apostles, that the Spirit was come down upon them? These were undoubtedly to be lookt upon as unconditionate communications of the respective presence of God, his Angel, and his Spirit. And how this stands with that which presently after we find in our Authour, I know not, (un­lesse many grains be allowed to abate the height of them) that Sacraments are not Physical, but moral instruments of salvation, duties of service and worship, which unlesse we perform as the Au­thour of grace requireth, they are unprofitable. For all receive not the grace of God which receive the Sacraments of his grace. Mo­ses undoubtedly did enjoy the presence of the Angel, and the Apostles the presence of the Holy Ghost. Let us then learn to use them, as the Authour of grace requireth, and that is as signs and seales, as his chosen vessel to convey his grace here tea­ches.

I shall onely adde in this place. If Sacraments work as signes and seales, then they must be allowed to have that whole work on all that are Communicants, which as signes and seales they can possibly effect, either for the bettering of their understanding, or farther engagements in wayes of godli­nesse, and that by the help of the Word, they may help the un­derstanding even of unregenerate persons, and make discovery of strong engagements to wayes of godlinesse, can scarce be questioned. If the Word can teach the unregenerate by hear­ing, then the Sacraments being appointed for visible teaching-signes, [Page 413] by the help of the Word may also teach them by seeing, and unregenerate men making profession of their relation to God, may here see further engagements and provocations to godlinesse. This effect cannot be denyed to be possible in Sa­craments, as signs, at least upon some persons in unregeneration; and when they further see all the glorious priviledges of the Covenant, upon the terms propounded of God to be attainable, may they not be of singular use as seales to put them on, and stirre them up in all consciencious use of means to rise up to the answer of conscience? And so as the Word as an instrument in Gods hand, by instructions, motives, exhortations and other provocations is a means for conversion; so may the Sacraments as appendents to the Word, and by the help of it be herein ser­viceable likewise, which is the whole that I do or ever did attri­bute to Sacraments, so much as in a possible way, of conver­sion.

SECT. I. The thing signified and sealed in Sacraments.

THe whole use and office of Sacraments we have seen,Sacraments are suitable to Co­venants. which is to seal the gift and grant of God in Covenant, as well as to signifie. The thing sealed in them here comes to be spoken to, which is the righteousnesse of faith. There being a double Covenant given of God to man, one in mans integrity, whilest he was in spiritual life, for preservation in life; the other in mans fallen condition when dead, for restitution to life. There is a double righteousnesse answering to this double Covenant: The one inhe­rent in man, to be wrought by himself, and called our own righteousnesse; The other wrought by a Mediatour in our stead, and made ours by Faith, and therefore called the righte­ousnesse of faith, and sometimes the righteousnesse of God, be­ing wrought by Christ who is God. And answerably to this double Covenant, and double righteousnesse, Sacraments of a double kind were instituted. The first without respect had to any Mediatour, confirming Gods engagements, on the terms of perfect obedience. The other with respect to a Mediatour, and [Page 414] Faith in him; confirming happinesse to believers. The Sacra­ments of the Covenant of grace are of this latter sort. They are signs and seales, as were the trees of life, and of the know­ledge of good and evil, and seales of righteousnesse, as they were also, but of righteousnesse of another kind. The former were seales of the righteousnesse of works; These are seales of the righteousnesse of faith. Those were seales to assure a reward to our own righteousnesse; These are seales to assure us of an­others righteousnesse, made ours by faith. From hence these two Observations follow; one implyed, the other in the words ex­prest. The first which is implyed in the words, is, ‘The righteousnesse of Faith is the great Promise of the Covenant of Grace.’

The Apostle tells us of blindnesse that in part happened to Israel, Rom. 11.25. and the blindnesse was this, that they would not be brought to an acknowledgment of this righteousnesse; But in an high zeal made it their businesse to establish their own righteousnesse, Rom. 10.2, 3. It do's not appear that they wholly denyed the concurrence of all grace for the work of this righteousnesse in which they confided. The Pharisee, who is brought in to personate those of this opinion, saith, God I thank thee, I am not like other men; He therefore did acknowledge some kind of discriminating grace; But it was his own act, thorow grace, a righteousnesse inherent, and not through grace impu­ted; wrought by himself, and not by another in his stead, in which he confided. This observation might have been perti­nently and properly spoken to, in this place, being that on which the Sacraments are bottomed; A flaw here must needs be the undoing of all. The Jew mistaking here was at losse of all his pains, in sacrifices, Sacraments and all other personal perfor­mances. When he had carried on this with the greatest vigour, and alacrity; he was still too short, and this held him back that he look't not after any other righteousnesse, and so perished without any such righteousnesse as was able to justifie. I should not therefore have wholly past this by, but that a long expected and greatly desir'd Treatise on this subject is sent to the Presse, and will for a good space of time prevent this piece, where the Reader, I doubt not, will find full satisfaction. I shall there­fore wholly passe it by, and come to the Observation which the words expresly hold out.

This enters we see the definition a Sacra-ment,Propositions holding forth this righteous­nesse. and is expressely laid down in the text of the Apostle, and for a right understanding of this great priviledge here sealed some Positions or explicatory Propositions must be laid, Proposition 1 down.

1. This is called the righteousnesse of faith (as before was hin­ted) in opposition to, and to distinguish it from the righteous­nesse of works required in the Covenant, entered with man in his integrity; and which the Jewes for a great part conceited they were bound to answer acccording to the letter of the precepts of the Law, for the attainment of salvation. That of works is cal­led by the name of our righteousnesse, Rom. 10.3. Phil. 3.18. be­ing to be done by our selves, in our own persons; as also by the name of the righteousnesse of the Law, being required at our hands by the Law, so that salvation gained this way, is of our selves, of works, Ephes. 2.8, 9. This other is called the righteous­nesse of faith in this text, as also, Phil. 3.9. Heb. 11.7. Faith be­ing the hand that receives it of Gods free gift, by grace; it is called also the righteousnsse of God, Rom. 10.3. Phil. 3.9. Either as being the gift of God, which that phrase seems to imply, the righte­ousnesse which is of God by faith, or else as being the work of Christ, that is God. So that salvation this way gained is of grace, and the gift of God, Ephes. 2.8. These two are still op­posed one to the other; when one is followed, the other is quit and left, Rom. 10.3. They being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse, have not submit­ted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God: so also, Rom. 10.5, 6. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them: but the righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise, &c. Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the rigteousnesse which is of God by faith.

2. This righteousnesse is synechdochically put for the whole Proposition 2 of the Covenant of grace that interests us in this righteousnesse, and so it must be taken in those words of the Apostle forequoted: The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise, that is, the Covenant which interests us in the righteousnesse of faith, [Page 416] speaketh this language; so that Sacraments sealing this righte­ousnesse, they seal the whole of this Covenant.

3. All the blessings and priviledges following upon, and fol­lowing Proposition 3 from this Covenant unto true and full blessednesse, are here by the like figure comprized, as appears by the Apostles words, v. 9. Commeth this blessednesse then upon the circumcision onely, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse. This righteousnesse, and blessednesse, is made one and the same in those words of the Apo­stle.

Proposition 4 4. Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant, that brings man into Covenant with God, is the fountain from whence all this blessednesse comes, in that by him this righteousnesse is wrought, so that he is the whole of all that good, that is comprized in the Covenant, and sealed in the Sacraments This is plain in that of the Apostle, Rom. 10.4. speaking of the error of the Jewes, in going about to establish their own righteousnesse, and their non-submission of themselves unto the righteousnesse of God; he saith, that Christ is the end of the Law for righte­ousnesse to every one that believeth, that is, finie consummans (as Gomarus saith) not consumens. The end at which the Law aimed, and not putting an end and period to it. One Christ assumes to himself; It becometh us, to fulfil all righteousnesse, Matth. 3.15. The other he disclaimes, Matth. 5.17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to de­stroy, but to fulfil. The Law calls us to righteousnesse, but is not able to work it in us: Christ hath done it for us, and in our stead. He is therefore called our righteousnesse, 1 Cor. 1.30. Jehovah our righteousnesse, Jer. 23.6. so that wheresoever we prove that Christ is sealed to us, in the Sacrament, or any other benefit flowing from Christ as Mediatour, there is a sufficient proof of this observation.

Proposition 5 5. Faith is here considered, as an instrument receiving this righteousnesse, and interesting us in this Covenant-promise. They that will not allow that faith should be called an instru­ment of justification, yet are not much troubled that it should be called an instrument that receives Christ, that doth justifie. And if either may be allowed, (as I do not doubt but that both will hold current) this will hold, that faith is considered here as an instrument, and not as a work, neither yet as an instrument of [Page 417] the soul, producing any act beyond its self, as the hand is the instrument to the soul in labour, but as receiving, and taking in a gift from God. This the Phrase of the Apostle, Phil. 3.9. doth clear. The righteousness of God by faith; otherwise it might be stiled the righteousnesse of works; yea, when the words are the righteousnesse of faith, the meaning must still be, the righteous­nesse of works; as a man when he receives pay for threshing or digging, receives pay for working. But these are made directly opposite one to the other, and not confounded one with the other, Rom. 10.5, 6. Faith therefore is considered not as a work or habitual grace in the soul: So considered it is a branch of our own righteousnesse; but as an instrument applying Christ, and in­teresting us in his righteousnesse.

These Positions being premised,The Point proved. the Observation may be ea­sily proved, that the righteousnesse of faith, or the righteous­nesse of God by faith, is sealed in the Sacraments of the Cove­nant of grace, and may be made good in an induction of par­ticulars. Circumcision, the leading Sacrament of the old Co­venant is expresly here spoken to, and here we see what is the thing signified in it, and sealed by it. And in case we saw no more in it, then the most carnal amongst the Jewes saw, that it was a note of distinction between them, and others that had no visible relation to God in Covenant, yet we know that this di­stinction was grounded and founded in Christ.By Scriptures. The one stood in a visible relation to him, and the other were strangers from him. And the Apostle, Col. 2.11, 12. is full in the proof of it. Having said, that we are compleat in Christ, enjoying him we want nothing, it might be objected, that we want the very lead­ing Ordinance which receives a people into visible Communion with God, which was Circumcision; The Apostle answers, that in him we are circumcised, with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circum­cision of Christ. This, Circumcision did figure, Deut. 30.6. Jer. 9.26. Rom. 2.28, 29. And this is the work of Christ, as we see in the Apostles words, and therefore circumcision led to him.

For the following Sacrament of the Passeover, if we look to the letter of the institution, together with the explication given, we shall find it a memorial of a temporal mercy. It is the Lords Passeover, Exod. 12.11. that is, a memorial that the Lord passed [Page 418] over them when he smote the Land of Egypt, v. 13. But this is no concluding Argument, that it sealed not Christ, or the righ­teousnesse of Christ by faith, as may (God willing) be made to appear when we shall have occasion to speak of the Cloud, that guided Israel out of Egypt, the Sea that they passed through, and Manna and the rock whereof they ate and drank. This de­liverance celebrated in the Passeover was in and through Christ, as is gathered from the blood that was to be struck on the two side-posts, and on the upper door-post of their houses, Exod. 12.7. But most clearly from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.9. He there sayes they tempted Christ; but they tempted him, from whom they had defence, and present deliverance: And therefore the Apostle expresly calls the Paschal Lamb by the Name of Christ, 1 Cor. 5.7. For even Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us. And John Baptist had respect to it as well as to other Sacrifices of the Law, when pointing out Christ, he said, Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, Joh. 1.29. This is so clear in the Sacraments of the New Testament, Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord, that proofs do not need.

By Reasons.And the Reasons of it are clear.

Reason 1 First, Sacraments are for power against sin, and pardon of sin, as appears by those frequent Texts produced for the working power of Sacraments, which need not to be repeated; But by Christ we have power against sin, Without him we can do nothing, Joh. 15.5. We can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth, Phil. 4.13. In him we have the Circumcision made without hands, which is the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh, Col. 2.11. By Christ we have pardon of sin, God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. Christ then is signified and sealed in the Sacraments.

Reason 2 Secondly, Sacraments are for salvation, that is their end, in common with all other Church-Ordinances whatsoever. Baptisme saves, 1 Pet. 3.21. But salvation is through Christ, He is the Authour of eternal salvation, Heb. 5.9. Neither is there salva­tion in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Reason 3 Thirdly, Sacraments lead to the Covenant, and confirm by way of seal, all whatsoever that there in word, is made over. This is done in all seals which serve for ratification of grants. [Page 419] When you see a seal you must find the use and latitude of it in the Covenant, so it is in Sacramental seals, God entering Covenant with Abraham to be his God, and the God of his seed, which was a Covenant for true blessednesse, Matth. 22.31, 32. Cir­cumcision was instituted for confirmation of it, and put (as we see in the Text) as a seal to it. When Christ had promised his flesh for meat, and his blood for drink, being to leave the world, he iustituted signs for memorial which are seals of it: With this explanation or comment of his own upon them, This is my body which is given for you, this Cup is the New Testament in my blood. And that Christ is the great Promise for blessednesse in the Covenant, and that in him all Covenant-promises are made good, needs not to be proved. Christ therefore is sealed in the Sacraments.

1. This we are so to understand,The doctrine by rules ex­plained. that as all happinesse and true blessednesse is comprized under the righteousnesse of Faith, (even all that the Apostle looked after and made his ambition to compasse in lieu of all those priviledges, which he once had Rule 1 made, and false teachers his adversaries still did make matter of their glory, Phil. 3.8, 9.) so every Sacrament, that is a seal of this righteousnesse of faith, seales all whatsoever is given of God in Covenant to his people. If there be thousands of things made over in any grant, one seal is the confirmation of all; and though the seales be many, (as Amesius observes) yet all that is passed in Covenant is made good in each. Our Justification, Adoption, Perseverance, Glorification, and whatsoever else in order to these or any of these, a people upright in Covenant may expect from the hand of God, is under seal, in every Sacrament con­firm'd unto them. So that, whatsoever it is that the Word pro­miseth, that the Sacraments by way of seal ratifie and confirm unto us. Abraham had this righteousnesse of Faith revealed to him by promise, the Gospel being preached to him, Gal. 3.8. He had also the Land of Canaan given in promise as a special gift to his posteriry; This was now confirm'd also to him in his Cir­cumcision. The righteousnesse of faith was, as the marrow and substance of the gift, and therefore the Apostle puts it into his definition: yet the gift of the Land of Canaan, which was one­ly an adjunct annexed (as Chamier observes) is confirmed with it. Every baptized man hath the righteousnesse of Faith in Promise, and ratified to him in Baptisme, and whatsoever else is [Page 420] made over in promise by reason of any special calling or relation which is of God, is confirm'd in Baptisme likewise. When we are put of God into any way, we have his promise, Psal. 91.11. to be kept in that way. This promise is assured and confirmed in Baptisme, Ministers are called of God, and commissioned for their work, in which we know they have many and large promises; all of these in their Baptisme are confirmed to them.

Rule 2 2. Sacraments seal these blessings not onely universally, and in the bulk, but with particular application, to every one that doth partake of them. The Word holding this out indefinitely unto us, that he that hath the Son hath life, and that unto whom God gives his Son, with him he gives all things; that, eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, believers have eternal life: here a particular tender is made of his body and blood in these visible Elements of water, and of bread and wine. The water is passively received in Baptisme, the bread and wine actually taken, eaten and drunk in the Lords Supper. In either whole Christ, and the whole of all the benefits of Christ is tendred and to be received. So that what miracles extraordinarily were to particular promises, as we read in Scriptures, for the confirma­tion of those that beheld them, and for whose sake they were wrought; that Sacraments ordinarily are, and serve for, as to true blisse and eternal happinesse. This Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen. cap. 24. charges on his adversaries, quoting Melancton and Luther for it, and we are content willingly to own it; and among many others which he charges as errours, he sayes this is the chief, and diligently to be refuted: therefore he sets him­self professedly against this use of Sacraments, and will not have them to serve by way of seal for confirmation of our faith in particular. And this he endeavours with five several Argu­ments.

SECT. II. Objections against the former doctrine.

1. IF Sacraments confirm our faith by way of seal or after the Object. 1 manner of miracles, then Sacraments must be better known, and more efficacious to perswade to Faith, than the Word; But nothing can be more efficacious for perswasion than the Word of God: and experience tells us, that words are better understood than dumb signes, and Sacraments compared to the Word are as dumb signes.

Answ. 1. The assumption here should have been, Nohting is Answ. 1 either more easily known, or more eminently efficacious than the Word. But the former is left out, lest it should give check to their doctrine of obscurity of Scriptures; and instead of making the Word easily intelligible, he contents himself to say, that it is more intelligible than nods or dumb shews, when yet dumb signs or such nods are better known, and more easily understood, (as we have experience sufficient) than the Word of God, or any other word whatsoever, in an unknown language.

2. If this Argument be of force, then nothing else in the Answ. 2 world but the bare Word of promise revealed in Scripture, is any way serviceable, for more full assurance of the thing given in promise: Not onely Gideons, Ezekiah's and Ahaz his signs, but the oath also made to Abraham, was superfluous. All these had the Word of God, and unlesse the signs given them, and the oath made to them, were more efficacious then the Word, (which, as he sayes, nothing is) according to him they are all su­perfluous.

3. Comparison is not to be made between the Word, and Answ. 3 Sacraments, whether of those considered apart, is more effica­cious. Then the preheminence is to be given to the Word, as Bellarmine sayes Luther acknowledgeth: but enquiry is to be made whether the Word together with Sacraments, annext to it, be not more efficacious by reason of our weaknesse and incli­nations to diffidence, than the Word without any such visible ratification. Nothing can be more firm than the promise of God, seeing God cannot lye, Tit. 1.2. His Oath is no more valid [Page 422] then his Word, yet God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heires of promise, the immutability of his counsel, confirm'd it by an oath, That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye, we might have strong consolation.

Object. 2 2. The nature of Sacraments cannot any where be better under­stood, than from his words that is the authour of them; But in the Holy Scriptures they are no where called seales of Promises, but in­struments of Justification: Ergo.

Answ. 1 Answ. 1. If this Proposition stand, then some at least of the Sacraments of Rome, and most of their Sacramentals must fall, seeing, by Thomas Aquinas his acknowledgment they are not to be found in Scriptures.

Answ. 2 2. There is nothing more false then this assumption, as abun­dantly hath been declared, and the Text in hand is a sufficient witnesse.

Object. 3 3. If Sacraments be onely seales of the promise of grace, then either they are superfluous, or else of very slender use and benefit, for we have more Testimonies far more efficacious. Good works are better signes and testimonies of righteousnesse obtained, then wash­ing with water, or taking of the Eucharist, which may be received Hypocritically.

Answ. 1 Answ. 1. If this Argument be of any force, then wheresoever there is one witnesse, to speak in any cause, all the other are vain and superfluous; and so that of the Apostle will fall to the ground, At the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.

Answ. 2 2. It is well that works are made a witnesse of assurance, then this way at least assurance may be had, which he and his party are wont to deny.

Answ. 3 3. Works are not Testimonies instituted of God for this end, (as Amesius observes) but of their own nature, they evidence our fitnesse for glory, and as fruits of our faith, as Whitaker speaks. And those which Bellarmine uses to make the best of works, Almes, Fasting and Prayer, may be hypocritically perfor­med likewise.

Answ. 4 4. This witnesse or seal of Sacraments is not a distinct wit­nesse or seal from that which the Jesuit here produces, but stands in co-ordination with it, or rather in subordination to it. It is upon the answer of a good conscience, not otherwise, that Sacra­ments give this witnesse.

[Page 423]4. If Sacraments seal by way of particular application for sup­port Object. 4 Faith, then it is in vain to baptize Infants; But Lutherans are wholly for Infant-baptisme.

Ans. 1. We may learn of Bellarmine, that Protestants at least Answ. 1 think that this doctrine, and Infant-baptisme, will well stand to­gether.

2. The Apostle was certainly able to have given a satisfying Answ. 2 answer to this Objection, seeing he tells us, that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith, and yet himself was circumcised the eighth day, Phil. 3.5. It is of equal strength against Infant-circumcision as against baptisme.

5. If Sacraments be seales of grace which in particular is con­ferred Object. 5 upon any, then oftentimes they are false, viz. when the Sa­crament is given to a man, who pretends to believe, and indeed doth not believe; and so it were unlawful to baptize any, lest we should cause God to give witnesse to a lye, for we certainly know of none, whether they believe truly, or onely pretend it.

Ans. Our Adversary here prevents us, Answ. and puts an answer in­to our mouthes. Perhaps, saith he, they will say, That the Sa­crament is a seal or testimony of grace, not absolutely, but, if he that doth receive the Sacrament, do believe the promise. And this in­deed is their Answer, as out of Amesius, Whitaker, Vorstius, Pareus, Dr. Reynolds, Mr. Rutherford. I have shewn; to which may be added, that full Testimony out of Dr. Slater before men­tioned. As for those that will have the Covenant to be abso­lute, and the seales to be put without any respect had to any con­dition: against the full stream of Protestant Writers, I shall de­sire them to help us to any other satisfying answer to this Argu­ment. I must confesse, that in case I be once convinced, that the work of Sacraments is to ratifie Gods promise in an absolute way, as the Rainbowe do's, that God will no more destroy the World by water, without respect had to any condition at all. And that a seal is put to a blank, in case any unregenerate person be baptized or admitted to the Lords Table; I must either be holpen with further light, than I can yet see, or else I think I shall never more adventure upon Baptisme, or the Lords Sup­per. And Bellarmine supposing that this will be our answer, can bring nothing more to avoid [...] then two speeches of Luther, and one of Melancton, nothing at all to purpose.

SECT. III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine.

Circumcision no carnall badge.THen it followes by way of necessary Corollary, that Cir­cumcision is no carnal badge, but a seal of spiritual mercies given in promise. The righteousnesse of faith is no carnal, but a spiritual priviledge. Circumcision is a seal of the righteousnesse of faith, and therefore it is no carnal badge, but a seal of spiri­tual mercies. This might here fitly be enlarged to take off this shift which Anabaptists have borrowed from Jesuites; But this is already done at large, Treatise of the Covenant, Chap. 26. And here nothing needs to be added.

SECT. IV. A further Corollary from the Doctrine.

Sacraments in the time of the Law and dayes of the Gospel are of the same use and signi­fication.IT further followes, that Sacraments in the time of the Law, and in the dayes of the Gospel were of the same use and sig­nification: the Sacraments of Israelites and Christians are all one in substance. This is clear. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith; and in case, Sacraments in the dayes of the Gospel seal not this to Christians, we must then leave the Apostles, and seek a new way of happinesse. Yea, if then there were any Sacrament properly so called, (as some argue) that Sacrament must necessarily be of the same, and no other use and signification than these, which followed after in the time of the Law, and dayes of the Gospel, seeing those Fathers were under the same promise of the righteousnesse of faith, That was Noah's inheritance, Heb. 11.7. This further appears from the Apostle,1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. opened. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. I would not that ye should be igno­rant, how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the Sea: and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the Sea. And did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. The Apostle here first [Page 425] gives the very name of our leading Sacrament unto theirs; they were all baptized unto Moses (saith he) in the Cloud & in the Sea. 2^dly, he declares that the thing signified was the same in theirs, as it is in our Sacraments. They ate the same spiritual meat, and they drank the same spiritual drink, and so from hence this Argument is obvious. Where there is the same name, and the same thing, there is the same Ordinance in substance; But here is the same name and the same thing (as we have seen); and therefore the Ordinances are in substance the same. The Apostle gives no greater excellency (saith Calvin) to our Sacraments then to theirs, when he saith, that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat with us, interpreting him­self, that that meat is Christ. Bellarmine here finds severall dif­ficulties (as he calls them) seemingly making for us against him, and presses them further then he can find strength to answer. 1. If the Jewes ate the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink as we do in the Lords Supper, then there was the same vertue in Manna as in the Lords Supper. To this he an­swers, that they all are of the same meat one as others among themselves, but not the same with that which we eat. But, I had rather follow the Apostles own Comment then Bellarmines: and he interprets this meat to be Christ: and unless we feed not on Christ, we and they have the same spiritual food. For, as the Apostle tells us, they fed on him. 2. If it were spiritual meat, spiritual drink, wherewith they were fed, it had the same effica­cy as our Sacraments. Ours have no efficacy above that which is spiritual. 3. He saith, we urge the state of the question which the Apostle there handles. The Apostle there warns Christians not to rest too much in their fruition of Sacraments, so as to think themselves safe, because they were baptized and admitted to the Lords Supper, seeing Sacraments like to these, little availed the fathers that did not abstain from sin. And lastly, Austin is produced on our behalf, who, Tractate on Joh. 16. saith, That the Sacraments of the Jewes and ours were different in their signes, but the same in the thing signified. They were different in outward visible appearance, but the same in their divine ver­tue. These he makes it his businesse to answer, lib. 2. de effectu Sacram. cap. 17. Which answers of his are so fully taken off, by Amesius, Bellar. enervat. tom. 3. cap. 4. And by Whitaker, praelect. de Sacram. Quaest. 5. cap. 3. that I need not cause this work to swell any bigger with it. And this Text, I doubt not, is clear for it.

Col. 2.11, 12. The Apostle makes Circumcision, and Bap­tisme one and the same, and calls Circumcision by the name of Baptisme, Circumcision of the heart (which is the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh) was signified (and in the right use of it effected) in circumcision, Deut. 10.16. Jer. 4.4. Rom. 2.28. And the same is signified, and in the right use of it effected in Baptisme, as appears in the text quoted, as also, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptisme into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newnesse of life. Reasons as­signed. This also appears in rea­son.

Reaſ. 1. 1. Sacraments have their esteem and excellency, according to promises. They have no efficacy, or excellency in themselves; but as they relate to promises: but the Fathers were under equal promises with us, they were under the same promises as we may see, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlast­ing Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee. And the Apostle, Heb. 11.16. speaking of the Fathers, saith, God is not ashamed to be called their God. This promise is interpreted by Christ to include mercies for eternity, Matt. 22.31, 32. Temporal promises will not evince a resurrection: But these promises, as Christ lets us know, do evince it. Gos­pell promises are the greatest: but they enjoyed Gospel-promi­ses, Gal. 3.8. Heb. 4.2. They were therefore our equalls in promises.

2. Children of the same father, are fed at his table, with the Reas. 2 same food; at least so farre the same, as to work to the same life: But they were children of the same Father, Rom. 9.4. To them pertained the adoption: Ergo.

Reas. 3 3. Subjects of the same kingdome enjoy the same ordinances: But they are subjects of the same Kingdome, Matth. 8.11. I say unto you that many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven. The same Kingdome in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were, Gentiles that are called in Gospel-times are Ergo.

Explicatory Rules.This we must understand with these rules.

First, These Sacraments, theirs and ours, are not in that man­ner Rule. 1 one; but that there are many circumstantial differences be­tween [Page 427] 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 [Page 428] 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, [Page 429] 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 of Christ; but also the superero­gation of the Saints; which, as they perswade themselves, is satis­factory, not onely for the Saints themselves, but for others. The Church of Rome makes it her care to take in the whole of all these branches of righteousnesse, and in all of them they place their justification. Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us. That righteousnesse which according to the precept [Page 430] of the Law, is to be wrought by our selves; as to sanctification or qualification of the soul in the way of salvation; we must vigo­rously pursue and not disclaim. As Christ when he was accused by the Pharisees to destroy the law, and to be an enemy to righ­teousnesse; to take off this calumny, he tells his Disciples, Matth. 5.20. I say unto you, that except your righteousnesse, shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdome of Heaven. So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works, except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of these supersti­tious ones, ye can by no means enter into the Kingdome of hea­ven. The righteousnesse of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees, for tradition the Trent Councel makes known their zeal, Concil. Triden. Sess. quart. p. 11. With the same degree of reverence, and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers, as we do the bookes of the Old and New Testament; and how defective both of them were touching the righteousnesse of the law, their agreement in the glosse which they put upon the law is a sufficient witnesse. The Pharisees glosse on the law we may read in Christs refutation, Matth. 5. and the several pre­cepts, which Christ there delivers, transcending the Pharisees dictates, Papists will have to be no branches of the law, but Evan­gelical Counsels added to it; So that B. Hall quotes a speech of Serrarius the Jesuite that the Pharisees may not unfitly be com­pared to Catholiques, adding as his own, that one egge is not liker to an other, then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuites. Super­erogating righteousnesse, and that which is bottom'd on tradi­tion, we must wholly shun. It is enough that we can bring it up to the rule, in the parts of it, it must not exceed. It is hard to determine whether a man that casts off all regard of righteous­nesse, or a man of such righteousnesse, be more hatefull in Gods presence; one utterly sleights the soveraignty of God, and the other corrects his wisdome; one refuses to serve at all, the other serves onely, according to his own pleasure. As to the other branch of righteousnesse wrought by others, The supposed satis­faction of the Saints must be left, and the Lord Christs alone chosen. That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai. 63.3. spo­ken of the conquest of his enemies, I have trod the Wine-presse alone, and of the people there were none with me, holds true, when it is applied (as by many it hath been, though not according to the [Page 431] letter of the text) to his satisfaction, By one offering he hath per­fected for ever those that are sanctified, Heb. 10.14. yea, the righ­teousnesse of Christ, in the matter of justification must stand alone, in opposition to all righteousnesse in the world, whether of others, imaginarily to be applyed, out of any publique treasu­ry, by way of indulgence; or wrought by our selves, either by the strength of natural abilities without grace, (which the Papists confesse to be too weak) or in grace, and these works (how great an honour soever of late is put upon them) come short of per­fection to justification likewise, as plainly appears by the Apo­stles argumentation, Rom. 3.20. By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, giving this in for his reason, for by the Law is the knowledg of sin. The argument runs thus, Where the Law discovers sin, the works commanded by it cannot justifie; This proposition is the Apostles: But the law discovers sinne, even in those in whom grace here hath its most perfect work; This needs not to be proved: Therefore works comman­ded in the law, and done by assistance of grace in the regenerate cannot justifie. And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousnesse any other way his own, then by free imputation from God in the work of justification, is clear, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justified. Though he had the witnesse of a good conscience, as his rejoycing, 2 Cor. 1.12. Yet this is not his justification, when the Rhemists on the place, and Bellar­mine de justificat. urge this text against assurance of salvation, Mr. Ball, Treat. of Faith. pag. 107. saith, This text makes strong­ly against justification by works, but against certainty of salvation it makes nothing. And Pareus upon the words saith, Hence it is most firmly concluded that by the works of the law no man is justi­fied. If so great an Apostle cannot be justified by works, then much lesse others. His works were certainly done by the power of grace, and upon new-Covenant-engagements. That of Mr. Baxter, Aphor. of justif. pag. 307. must stand as an eternal truth; who after that he had laid down the Socinians tenent, that they acknowledg not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us, and consequently is none of our legal righteousnesse, but onely hath set us a coppy to write after, and is become our pattern, and that we are justified by following him, as a captain and guide to heaven and so all our proper righteousnesse is in this obedience; And having mark'd it with this just brand, [Most cursed doctrine] he [Page 432] addes, So far am I from this, that I say, The righteousnesse which we must plead against the lawes accusations, is not one grain of it in our faith or works, but all out of us in Christs satisfa­ction.

As this righteousnesse which is no otherwise ours, but by im­putation (being neither inherent in us,Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteous­nesse. nor wrought by us) must stand entire, and sole in our justification: so faith must be ac­knowledged to be the alone grace which interests us in it, and attains to our reconciliation to God in Christ, otherwise why is it that not onely the denomination is still from faith onely? (as we see in the text, and alwaies when it is named, it is called the righteousnesse of faith, and not of hope, love, obedience, or re­pentance) But that justification is evermore in Scripture ascribed to this grace? The Apostle speaking of Christ who is confessed to be our righteousnesse, saith, Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. In him, God, who otherwise through wrath stands at the greatest distance, is propi­tious, and this through Faith; on which Diodate hath these words, All this hath been done by vertue of Gods appointment, who of his meer will, and full power, hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the onely means of expiation and reconciliation, applyable to man by faith, which is the means, or instrument whereby we receive the mercy of God. So also, Gal. 2.16. is very full, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by faith in Christ Jesus. The Apostle there first in the negative shewes, where our justification is not, and in the next place tells us, in the affirma­tive where it is; so that all works of all kinds, are by him exclu­ded, and faith onely is acknowledged. Whereas one saith, that Paul doth either in expresse words, or in the sense and scope of his speech, exclude onely the works of the Law, that is, the fulfilling of the condition of the Law our selves, but never the fulfilling of the Gospel-conditions, that we may have part in Christ; It is fully against the Apostle, if by fulfilling the Gospel-condition any thing but faith be understood. All works are excluded, and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged, and we have our part or interest in Christ, in or by fulfilling of no other Go­spel-condition, then that of faith, whereby we receive Christ, and Christ dwells in us, John 1.12. Eph. 3.17. The same Au­thour teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justi­fication (which is upon our contract with Christ, or meer faith) and [Page 433] the confirmation, continuation and accomplishment of it, whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance. But being first possest of justification, we are justified, and of this Paul still speaks, and there is no intercision of it, nor any other way in progresse of time to be interested in it. Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state, which is never lost, and held up onely by Christ upon the interest of our faith. Obedience and Perseve­rance are both of necessity to obtain the end of our Faith, the salvation of our soules, but not to give us this interest in Christ. Sin in the elect-regenerate, may work a man (as hath been said) under present wrath, but renders him not a child of wrath; brings upon him an inaptitude for glory, but makes him not simply liable to condemnation for eternity. This accomplishment of Justifica­tion in the sense spoken to, is no other then glorification; and these two are distinct links in Paul's golden chain (as it is called) Rom. 8.30. Whom he did predestinate, them also he called; and whom he called, them also he justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. As Predestination differs from vocation, and justification; so Justifica­tion also from glorification; when our first possession of Justifica­tion is acknowledged to be of meer faith, Paul's justification is confessed to be of meer faith likewise. The same Authour saith, Paul doth by the word [faith] especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in: for to be justified by Christ, and to be justified by re­ceiving Christ is with him all one; and I am sure faith alone re­ceives Christ, and no Evangelical work either of obedience or perseverance; therefore Faith alone justifies. There is added, And when he doth mention faith, as the condition, he alwayes im­plyeth obedience to Christ, therefore [believing] and [obeying the Gospel] are put for the two summaries of the whole conditions: But Faith as an instrument receiving Christ is the condition, when the Evangelist complains, that He came to his own, and his own received him not, Joh. 1.11. he points out their neglect of the condition required: They were his in Covenant, or else they had not been called his own; and in not receiving him they fai­led in the condition required of them; and in the words follow­ing the Evangelist speaks of those of his own in Covenant, that did make good the condition of it, and that is no otherwise then by believing; But as many as received him, to them he gave power to be the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name. And this faith implyes onely acceptation, though it be an act of the [Page 434] soul that yeelds obedience. It is further said, Our full justifi­cation, and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part: But sincere Obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation; Therefore also of our justification. Here is ei­ther a manifest tautology, or an errour. For either full justi­fication, and salvation are both one, and so here is a tautology; or else, if they differ, it is an errour. The same are not condi­tions of both strictly taken, onely Faith gives title to Christ for Justification; Works qualifie as a condition in order to sal­vation. And whereas it is further said, It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works, as if we be justi­fied by them. Either of both is doubtlesse derogatory to it, and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures, and alwayes expresly de­nyed, except in that one Text of James, Jam. 2. which speakes to Justification, and must admit of another interpretation then our Authour would put upon it, otherwise he can neither be re­conciled to himself, nor to the whole current of the Gospel. Works may be causa sine quâ non of salvation, or a qualification of those that are saved, as, Heb. 5.9. He became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. But this is not to be saved by works, which the Apostle denyes, Eph. 2.9. Not of works, lest any man should boast. And works of this efficiency, wrought through grace, will raise a man to boastings, as ap­pears in the Pharisees [God, I thank thee.] But seeing there are several new questions started, Whether Faith be an instrument in Justification? Whether works do not justifie? Whether the new Co­venant have any condition? Whether Faith be not the alone condi­tion? And how Repentance can be a condition of the Covenant, and not of Justification? And Mr. Ball is almost on every hand ap­pealed to, I suppose it will not be ungrateful to the Reader, if in this place I commend to him the words of that Reverend Au­thour, (though it be in a larger way, then quotations are ordi­narily brought) in which we have not barely his authority, (which I do not offer to put in the balance with any) but the Points in question with singular strength, debated and spoken to; Treating of the Covenant of Grace, pag. 18. he saith, Repen­tance is called for in this Covenant, as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith,Luke 13.5. Acts 11.18. 2 Cor. 7.10. Ezek. 18.27. but is it self onely an acknow­ledgment of sin no healing of our wound, or cause of our ac­quittance. The feeling of pain and sicknesse, causeth a man to [Page 435] desire and seek remedy, but it is no remedy it self. Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food, but a man is not fed by being hungry. By repentance we know our selves, we feel our sicknesse, we hunger and thirst after grace, but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it, is faith alone, without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despair. Repentance is the condition of faith, and the qualification of a person capable of salvation, on our part required. It is a penitent and peti­tioning Faith, whereby we receive the Promises of mercy, but we are not justified partly by prayer, partly by Repentance, and partly by Faith, but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin, and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation. Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification, which is amongst the number of true causes, not being a cause without which the thing is not done; but a cause whereby it is done. The cause without which a thing is not done, is onely present in the action, and doth nothing therein: but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing, and the eare for hearing; so is faith also for justifying. If it be demanded, whose instrument it is? It is the instrument of the soul, wrought therein by the Holy Ghost, and is the free gift of God. In the Covenant of works, works were required as the cause of life and happinesse: but in the Covenant of grace, though repentance be necessary, and must accompany faith, yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life. The cause not efficient, as works should have been, if man had stood in the former Covenant, but instrumen­tall onely: for it is impossible that Christ, the death and blood of Christ, and our faith, should be together the efficient or pro­curing causes of Justification or salvation.Rom. 3.21, 22, 28, 30. Gal. 2.16, 17. Rom. 4.2, 3. When the Apostle writeth, that man is not justified by works, or through works, by the Law, or through the Law (opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification, but not in respect of their pre­sence; Faith, I say, and works, not faith and merits which could never be) without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying: But the particles [By] and [Of] do not in the same sense, take Justification from the Law and Works, in which they give it to faith. For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy; but the Law, and Works, respect the Commandments, not the Promises of meer grace. When therefore Justification and life is said to be [Page 436] 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 [Page 437] 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.