The Covenant Sealed

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

THe next observation follows.

All that the Sacraments work on the souls of receivers, is by way of sign and seal. They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or privileges, but as our understanding is exercised by them, as Indicative signs, and our faith, as ratifications and seals 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, 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 rendered 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 confirms by the testimony of David; describing the blessedness of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, ver. 7, 8. As David describes blessedness, that way man is blessed; But David describes it to be by imputation of righteousness, and not by works: Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith, he proves by a full testimony of Scripture, Gen. 15.6. He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to for him for righteousness. Now it might be objected, that this justification of Abraham, and blessedness that David speaks of, was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised, but to the Jews 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 Abraham's 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 righteousness 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 Baptism, as Paul here doth about Circumcision, as you may find, 1 Pet. 3.20, 21.) having mentioned God's long suffering towards disobedient ones, in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, he says; Few, that is, eight souls 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, mountains, buildings, or whatsoever might have been their ruin. Then he parallells Baptism with it; The like figure whereunto even Baptism 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, implies no more then a resemblance, or, as Calvin speaks, a correspondence, though, Heb. 9.24. the Apostle useth the same word otherwise. The Ark then saved a few, when the rest were destroyed; Baptism now saves a few by the resurrection of Christ. It will always be (saith Calvin on the words) as it was in Noah's days, when mankind runs on their own ruin, God wonderfully saves some from the common destruction. But here an objection lies, that Noah's Ark, and New Testament Baptism are nothing, parallel, few entered that, but now numerous, or rather innumerable multitudes are baptized. The Apostle answers, that the parallel lies not between the outward Baptism, 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 Baptism, 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 says, Baptism saves, and yet says, 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, Son, and holy Ghost, is Baptism; so is not the answer of a good conscience, that is no Baptism. The Apostle then should rather have said, that the answer of a good conscience saves, and not Baptism. But he says, Baptism saves. I see no other way of reconciliation, or to make sense of his words, then to understand him that Baptism 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 happiness, not any other way of conveyance, then as it hath its work on the conscience of the receivers.

[Reasons confirming.] 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 privileges. 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 privileges, 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 gains 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 only in those that believe, 1 Thes. 2.13. The bare work done in hearing saves none, and so also it is with Sacraments.

Secondly, Signs 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 signs, This may be made good in particular instances, in a large induction of signs of all sorts. The double sign vouchsafed of God to Gideon for his confirmation in the deliverance of Israel, Judge. 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 thread in Rahab's 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 God's promise. The same we may say of all signs and pledges both human and divine: But Sacraments are signs, 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 signs that we receive as seals 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, only 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 Abraham's Circumcision, neither is there any other Scripture in which anymore 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 anything 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 defense of this position, I shall refer him to reverend Mr. Gatakers learned dispute held with reverend Dr. Ward, where he may see multitudes voting for it. And when Dr. Ward saith, that some Divines do stick at his tenent, and do restrain the effect of Baptism infallibly taking away the guilt of original sin only to the effect, Mr. Gataker replies, 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. Taylor only, but by most Divines, and godly people, as far 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, It is disputed whether Sacraments are only signs and seals of the Covenant of grace, or outward signs annexed 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 public testimony of it, which (saith he) is the common opinion of Protestants, or whether they be further efficient causes of this saving and justifying grace, or whether they be effective instruments of this grace appointed of God for this thing, that they should indeed contain 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 justify any) to be evidently false and pernicious: And they teach, that all Sacraments by the ordination of God himself have only a power to signify and seal, and not to confer the grace of the Gospel itself. And whereas several passages in the Liturgy of this Church did seem to favor the opposite opinion, affixing adoption, membership of Christ, and inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven, and regeneration to Baptism: we know how great offense 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 only Sacramentally such. And doubtless 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 loath were the sons of the Church to be quarrelling with their mother, and yet more loath with her to run into errors.

The Observation itself, if heeded, hath a caution or limit in it; Affirming that Sacraments work no otherwise then as signs and seals; and that they confer no inward graces or privileges further then they work upon the understanding, and faith of those that receive them: it implies, that they do confer what an outward symbol, or sign is apt to, and of powder to convey; and that outward privileges 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; infers 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 with it this great privilege, it conveys with it all other inferior Church-privileges; right to the Passover upon this account was theirs, Exod. 12.48. and not otherwise: So it is with Baptism, 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 Baptism 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 God's power, whereby he did persuade Japheth to dwell in the tents of Shem, Gen. 9.27. And therefore when Durand denied, that the Character which the Church of Rome speaks of, was any quality in the soul, but merely a relation coming 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 Heresy of this time. And further saith, That Heretics 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 Ministry. We do confess indeed that there is that relation in Christians to Christ by the work done in the Sacrament of Baptism, which is not in Heathens. And though we deny Orders to be any Sacrament, yet we confess there is that relation in Ministers to Christ by virtue of their Ordination, that is not in those that are not called to the work of the Ministry. There are those indeed that do deny it; But those that Bellarmine had to deal with, and that he charges for Heretics, as Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Chemnitz willingly yield it. And in case this were all the character that they talk of to be imprinted in Baptism; yea, in Ordination, we should never contend about it. And as these privileges are conferred as to actual interest in the initiatory Sacacraments, both of Baptism, and Circumcision; so the same privileges in the following Sacraments are infallibly evidenced, as appears in that text, 1 Cor. 10.17. The Apostle there making it his business to take off Christians from their resort to the Idols temples, to eat there of that which had been offered in sacrifice, which they judged to be within the verge of their liberty; An Idol being nothing in the world, tells them, that as joining with Jews in their sacrifice offered on the Altar, did declare them to be one body with the Jews; 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 yield it; which holds true of the Passover, seeing only the circumcised who were in saith Jews, 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 confer grace by the work done, where there is no bar put, and having quoted testimonies of Bishop Abbot, Calvin, and Whitaker, sharply enough declaring themselves against it, adds, That for the axiom itself 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 endless labor to launch out into the controversy, and to gather up the various opinions of those of a contrary judgment, and their different thoughts to make good their tenets, whether of those that deny Sacraments to be Seals, 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 yielding them to be seals, as well as signs, yet affirim that these are less 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 confer grace where no bar is put to hinder their working; or others that hold it with limit only to Baptism, 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 always thus regenerate in Baptism; But that it holds so in ordinary: Or of some (that I have met with in discourse) that suppose that Baptism hath his work in those elect infants, where God foresees that death will prevent their regeneration by the Word: or others that say, that God works by Baptism to regeneration, and forgiveness 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 confess, I see not foundation in the Word for any of them. These that are thus agreed, that the Sacraments as instruments confer 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, dispute. 9. quaest. 62. art. 4. Sect. 2. six several opinions about it; some will have them to be no efficient, but material causes only, as a dish conveying a medicine, is no cause of health, but a material instrument only of conveyance. Others hold that they confer grace per modum impetrationis, because the Minister and the Church obtains 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 applied, they move God to confer 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 confer grace, because God in a more special manner appears in them as a principal agent, or efficient; which my Author complains is very obscure. But he that will consult the Author of this opinion, which is Henricus à Gandavo Quod. quart. quaest. 37. may find much against any power in the Sacraments to confer, 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 Catholic 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 ado endeavored to prove a possibility of their working of grace in a Physical way, he concludes, that this is their way of working, and that not barely in working some disposition towards grace, not reaching grace itself, nor yet in working an union only of grace with the soul; But in the most proper and rigorous sense, Sacraments Physically work grace; the very Physical 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 Councils, and Fathers about them. But it might pity the Reader to see how miserably he comes off with this assertion of his, only telling us, that the Scripture says, 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 Physical 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 symbol, to engage 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 Physical 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 applied in washing experience will soon discover it. The Psalmist also shows 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 soul; 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 natural workings they have any possible activity to reach, as in the water of the Poole of Bethesda, upon the moving of the Angel to heal him that first stepped into it, and in the water of Jordan to cleanse Naaman of his Leprosy by seven times dipping in it. Had it had, that natural power of cure Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damascus, would never have been esteemed equal 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 as soon believe a transubstantiation in the bread from hoc est corpus meum, as such a transmutation, or renovation of the soul, or any such privileges 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 moral instruments in what they do; but then there is so much work to understand what a moral instrument means, that I dare neither without further expression of myself affirm or deny it. Some make them such instruments by which God works according to pleasure, sometimes working that which they signify, 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 staff of an Abbotship, a pall df a Bishopric, a Book of a Canons place, and this doubtless 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. Baptism 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-privileges. But yet this difference, The Staff, the Pall, the Book, the Twig, and Turfe, the Rod, the Crown, lead no further then to that which they immediately confer, 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 honor. But Sacraments vesting us in Church-privileges, and these privileges 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 us unto all that Church-privileges 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.

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 man's heart, is evil from his youth, Gen. 8.21. The word (as Ainsworth, and Rivet on the place, with Mr. Hildersham 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 lies. The sin of all begins then, the sin of bad men still remains, no change is wrought in them, nor amendment seen, but a progress 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 David's parents. Let any man look into the context, and see whether it will bear any such gloss. David is there upon a serious humiliation of his soul for sin, and aggravating it in the circumstances of it, and how his mothers sharp throws in travel, or either of his parents height of lust, can add anything at all to aggravate his guilt, or increase his sorrow, none can understand, he presently prays 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.

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 faultless, 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 Christ's Incarnation, in order to the work of Redemption; taking man's nature, he began as man begins in sin, even with infancy; he died 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 Baptism, and are therefore under the defilement of sin.

3. By the stroke or judgment unto which infants are subject, being liable to sickness, 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 readiness and proneness of little ones to run upon sin is an evidence of it. The thorns, briars, and weeds, that the earth casts out, when precious flowers, and choice 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 man's innate degeneration. This even Heathens could see, though they knew not whence it was. Plato observed that men by nature are wicked, and that they cannot be brought to learn righteousness; and 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 labor, prone to lust, in whom every Divine spark is overywhelmed. If any man demand how it comes to pass that we are thus, we must look as far as Adam, to see the inlet of it, By one man's 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 only 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 likeness, 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 show themselves in action so far as there is power to act. A young Serpent doth sting none, poisons none, but there is in them a poisonous and destroying na ure, which grows, as nature grows.

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 worn, 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 man's hereditary estate, hath in it not only a want of that Priwitive purity, which God stamped upon man, according to his own likeness, 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 deceitful 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 and the later is his Sovereign; the one is followed, the other served. 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 profane Authors; but all their wit will not work men from under this guilt, or gain him anything more in his birth-state, but wrath for his portion.

[ 3] Thirdly, To restore man to his Primitive happiness, his nature must be healed, 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 forlorn: 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 happiness is not repaired. And this was the converted Corinthians glory; they were under the defilement of Adultery, Idolatry, Fornication, Drunkenness, &c. and upon this account, under the sad doom of exclusion out of the Kingdom of heaven; but being washed, sanctified, justified, the doom 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 privilege of all of Gospel-interest. 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 righteousness, now we are alive to righteousness, 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 Sanctify, 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 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 confers habitual graces, and he honors with relative privileges.

Fifthly, These may be distinguished, 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 talk 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 privileges of adoption, and pardon of sin, are conferred on infants in Baptism, 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 God's love of infants, Rom. 9.13. of Christ's 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; uncleanness of birth, as well as uncleanness of life, stands as a bar to our entrance into heaven; and no unclean person must enter there.

Sixthly, The Sacraments, especially those of initiation (whether [ 6] in the old or new Covenant) about which concerning this in question there is most dispute, 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 implied in those respective signs of Circumcision and Baptism, and that is our uncleanness 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 applied, which is of an abstersive, cleansing faculty, but to let us know that there is uncleanness to be removed? Cleansing for that which is clean is vain, and needless. As Sacrifices for atonement did imply wrath, so this cleansing implies 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 signify, viz. That the taking off of the stain, and the removal of our guilt, is to be done by another's power. Why is this applied by another hand, but to let us know that it is above our strength? Somewhat, not the signs of themselves, but the Word of the Covenant that is annexed teaches, and that is, That the blood of Christ removes this guilt, and that the Spirit of Christ takes away this stain. This the signs of themselves could never show, 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 Baptism holds out the Spirit unto us for Sanctification, and change of our ways, is (that I know) denied 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: Baptism 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 Baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him through the faith of the 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 quickened 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 Baptism holds out to us, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptism 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 newness 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 Baptism, but they will have nothing else looked after in Baptism, but the work of regeneration: But this doubtless 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 aim in it, which (as we have heard) is to show, that Abraham's 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. Righteousness of faith is not Sanctification, Sanctification is inherent, the righteousness of faith is imputed; but circumcision is a sign, and seal of the righteousness of faith. And that Baptism signifies, and seals the same thing we find expressly in Peters words, Ast. 2.38. Be baptized everyone 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. Baptism is for remission of sins; and therefore the water in Baptism 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. Baptism engages to the first work of regeneration, and to the first work of making all new within: To this circumcision did tie; as it signified it, so it engaged to it, Deut. 10.16. Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts, and be no more stiffnecked. If by virtue 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 days 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 wilderness: 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 progress, both in circumcision and baptism is clear: In baptism we are explicitly dedicated (as the Jews 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 progress in grace, yet all of them cannot be so Interpreted. And there is not any of them but implies, 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 baptism engage to it, but God rather engages for it. To which I answer, Though it be out of our power, yet it is within the command of God, and is matter of our duty. God's command is no rule of our strength, neither is it brought down to answer our weakness; so a carnal 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 always concerned to be active, and as soon 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. God's 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 shows) the righteousness of Faith, and consequently all other privileges 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 privileges. They are (as Mr. Baxter hath well observed) seals of the conditional Covenant, and so they must seal, whatsoever they do seal, on God's terms and conditions: they ratify mercies promised, on those terms that the Covenant doth promise; now graces are the conditions, and terms of the Covenant, and mercies are promised upon those terms: and therefore the Covenant requires them, but the Sacraments do not ratify and seal them. The Sacraments as signs show 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 privileges 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 ratify the homage, that is to be done by the Lessee, or the service from him due; but the inheritance, or benefit whatsoever, which upon condition of such homage, or service is conveyed. Graces are the homage, and privileges are the benefit, or the inheritance; the privileges then, and not the graces, are directly in Sacraments sealed to us. It is not sealed up to us; either in Baptism or the Lord's Supper, that we do believe or repent; but that believing, and repenting, we have forgiveness 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 annexed as seals, properly promises privileges 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 show 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 privileges to us.

Seventhly, The texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments above all that they do, as signs, and seals; 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 Baptism 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, 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 sanctify 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 Baptism is here evidently spoken to, and some allusion may be conceived to be here made to Baptism; yet I suppose that it can by no good argument be proved, that the Sacrament of Baptism in any of these Scriptures is intended. First, The Lord's Supper may be as fairly 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 Baptism may be evinced out of any of those texts alleged: when yet Protestant Writers unanimously conclude, and several learned Papists yield, that no Sacramental eating is there intended. To clear this they say, there is a mere Sacramental eating, and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, when the outward signs are received, and no more; a mere spiritual eating and drinking, when Christ is applied by faith without any Sacramental sign; and an eating, and drinking both Sacramental and Spiritual, 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 merely spiritual washing, that in these texts alleged is understood. Secondly, There are the same phrases, or those that are parallel 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 Hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter then Snow, Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinckle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness. And it must needs be that mere Spiritual, and not Sacramental washing, for the reason alleged, must in these texts be understood. Thirdly, If outward Baptism were there intended, why should not the word Baptism 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 Baptism is frequently used, as Mar. 7.8. Luk. 11.38. and so also, when legal cleansing is spoken to; as, Heb. 9.20. And in case Baptism itself 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 may justly be doubted, whether the Sacrament of Baptism, or inward washing in that place of Titus 3.5. be understood; & then adds, Though, I am not he that will deny that some respect is had in those words to the outward rite of Baptism, yet I believe that they are expressly 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 baptism, but regeneration itself, 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 only 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 says, Our Divines answer, 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 baptism, his authority will but little help them. I do not doubt (saith he) but that the Apostle doth at least allude to baptism; and further saith, I can easily bear, that this place should be interpreted of baptism; on which words of his, Mr. Gataker, pag. 123. very well comments. 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. Burgess, Spiritual Refining, Part 1. pag. 214. speaking of Baptism, 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 Baptism, as Calvin 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 only as they have their influence upon the understanding, and faith of the receivers. And therefore Calvin, when he was prevailed withal to yield so far, as we have heard, presently adds, Not that salvation is included in the outward symbol of water, but because Baptism seals it to us, when Christ hath obtained it for us. And Danaus speaking to that Argument of Bellarmine, that the Scripture witnesseth, that the words of the Sacrament are active instruments of our justification, and not seals of the promise, giving instance in these, and the like Scriptures for this purpose, answers: Instruments, and signs merely testifying, and sealing are said by a trope, and metonymy to do that which they seal; for even a ring used in espousals, which only is a sign, is said to join and bind the espoused; an instrument of contract, which is only 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 signs, or instruments, as to causes, lest upon that account, we may think that such signs 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, only 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 signs and instruments properly so called do very much differ; For signs contribute nothing to the work, of which sort are Sacraments, but only truly and certainly testify, and seal the work of the Spirit of God wrought. Danaus Contra Bellarmi. Tom. Contro. 2. 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 only borrowed by way of metaphor, from the circumcision of the flesh, and applied to the heart, as is clear, Deut. 10.16. where that work is given in command to the Jews, and they were not commanded to circumcise themselves, but were already in Circumsion.

A second sort of Scriptures are such where Baptism is indeed mentioned, and the Sacrament of Baptism intended, but faith is evidently required for the attainment of the effect specified. These especially are, Acts 2.38. Repent, and be baptized everyone 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 refer the Reader for a full vindication of these Scriptures to Mr. Gatakers disceptation, pag. 9, 10, &c. pag. 56, 57. and shall only add, that that phrase, in the Name of the Lord, utterly destroys 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 years (as these were, to whom this speech is directed) are in their own persons, not only to make profession of faith, but in sincerity to believe, in order to attainment to the pardon of their sins, or any other spiritual privilege 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 bar that will hinder? If it be a bar in men of years, then the Sacrament works not without actual faith in the baptized: It is the privilege of faith to obtain forgiveness of sin, Act. 13.39. Rom. 3.25. It is the work then of faith in the baptized to obtain it, and baptism to them (as Circumcision to Abraham ) is only 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 bar to the working of Sacraments. Sacraments only 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, 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 Baptism works in Infants any real change, but only that which is relative, that it confers any habits, or anything more then privileges 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 real, not relative; of habits, and not of privileges. When this is made good, it will appear to any impartial eye, that the Scripture-Texts alleged 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. That it is the undoubted opinion of all antiquity of our Church, and as he thinks of the Scripture itself. 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 says he had often affirmed, that the argument borrowed from Infants, which Arminians, Papists, and some of our own use to maintain the apostasy of Saints, or believers, is not only invalid, but altogether impertinent, as to that controversy. His third Proposition, to make good this, assertion, is, That Papists do not receive it for a point of faith, that the habits of faith, or charity are infused into Infants in Baptism, neither do they deliver it, as of faith, that are thereby made formally just, by any inherent habitual righteousness or holiness. 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 Catholic faith, and that Estius doth ingenuously acknowledge, that this infusion of inherent righteousness 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 Council, he first answers, that that Council hath no such authority as to make that an article of faith, which for so many hundred years hath not been such, and afterwards peremptorily denies, that that Council did ever so determine, concluding, that it is resolved upon by Papists, that all baptized Infants are some way rendered acceptable to God; but that this is done by any such infused habits, or by any inherent quality created of God, is (as he says) as yet doubted among them. His fourth Proposition is, that Protestants do not yield, that justifying faith, or charity, that unites us to God: or regenerating grace, that repairs all the faculties of the soul, is infused into Infants in the very moment of Baptism; quoting Calvin, Beza, and Peter Martyr, speaking fully to it. Adding, that he does not know, that any of our Divines determine, that that regeneration which consists in the creation of spiritual qualities (which we call Sanctification, and Papists, formal Justification) is infused in the instant of Baptism. And he brings in also Montague in his appeal vouching it out of these Belgic and French Confessions, and then concludes, when neither Arminians, Papists, nor Protestants acknowledge that Infants in their participation of Baptism, 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 loss of Faith or righteousness, or Apostasy of the Saints, by an argument drawn from Infants. His fifth Proposition is, That the Fathers do not acknowledge, that either actual or habitual Faith, or charity is given to Infants in Baptism; and that they teach, that conversion or creation of a new heart, which is properly regeneration, is not wrought in them but only when they come to years, and are capable of reason. For this Austin is quoted, and frequent places out of him are produced; and with him Jerome, Nazianzen, Justin Martyr, and Bernard, making all up with the testimony of Whitaker, that the Fathers did not so much as dream of the habitual faith which Papists say is infused, by the work done in Baptism, inferring this as the result of all that in five several propositions he had delivered; that (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 Baptism works not these graces or habits in infants; His first proposition, in the affirmative, tending to show what Baptism does work, is, 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 confer grace on the receivers, either utterly deny, or else doubtfully hold that Baptism works any real change in infants, but only that which is relative, and that it confers, not habits, but only privileges on Infants baptized.

For the other part of the position, that the Scriptures which these bring for proof of this power of Baptism, almost all speak of such a change, that is real, not relative; of habits, and not of privileges. 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 of original guilt, is understood. To which Mr. Gataker replies, that he sees nothing that can persuade, much less 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 yourselves 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 everyone of them a real, habitual change is mentioned, Acts 2.38. Remission of sins is indeed mentioned, and very probably, Acts. 22.16. But in what sense to be understood, I have shown 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 Baptism for the pardon of sin 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 only distinguished by them, but divided; The virtue 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 only unto others.

SECT. III. Objections against the former doctrine.

[Obj. 1] HEre it is objected, Where the blood of Christ on God's part is offered, and applied 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 God's part is offered and applied, and no impediment put by him that receives it; Ergo in the Baptism 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 assert, Where the Spirit of Christ is offered on God's part, and applied 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 Baptism of Infants the Spirit of Christ is thus offered, and applied, and no impediment is put: Ergo. The Major in this syllogism can be no more denied, then in the former. The Spirit of Christ is as efficacious for regeneration, as his blood for pardon; It were over-much boldness to put any difference between them. And for the Assumption, none can deny but the Spirit is as well applied in Baptism, as blood; either then both must hold, or both must be denied.

2. I utterly deny, that the blood and Spirit of Christ, that either [Answ. 2] blood or Spirit, are thus applied in Baptism; 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 Baptism applied to Simon Magus, it would so have seized 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 applied 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 bitterness, 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 only impetration of the merit of Christ, but also application in that latitude as Baptism is administered. 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 denial of this proposition, let him consult learned Mr. Gataker, Discep. pap. 6, &c. whereby his industrious pains (after his manner) many are multiplied; Danaus leads the way, He is deceived (saith he) that thinks that Christ and his benefits, are applied by the sign of water, which is only the seal of such application.

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

[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 Baptism: Repent and be baptized everyone 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 uncleanness and wrath; For it makes way for the Assumption to be as large, namely that in Baptism the Spirit is promised, and applied, 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 Baptism there is both remission of sin, and regeneration. The Infant is thus made, both happy and inherently holy.

Secondly, The fruit of Baptism, a right carried on, (conscience [Answ. 2] answering to baptismal engagements) is indeed forgiveness of sins: But the promise that place mentioned, is not remission of sins (supposedly to follow upon the act of Baptism), 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 offspring, which argued them to be yet in Covenant. And the Apostle makes use of it, as a motive to press them to accept of Baptism, the present initiating seal of it. See this text further spoken to, Treatise of the Covenant, Chap. 37, 43.

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

Answ. 1. Baptism 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 bar be put by the receivers.

3. Sacraments do effect what they figure, as seals effect what the Covenant conveys, 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 baptism is useless, 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 Baptism is vain and needless. And therefore upon this account, complaint is made by some friends of Infant Baptism, that the doctrine de nudis signis (as it is called) making Sacraments bare and empty signs, is the ground of Anabaptism. And the greatest sticklers against Infant Baptism, have publicly 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 Anabaptism, then I marvel how it comes to pass that that doctrine ceasing, Anabaptism 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 doctrine 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, 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 signs distinguishing Christians from Jews, 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 custom premised) called the signs 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 everyone 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 public 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 honor upon them, rise so high in their elogies, and yet fall so low in their proofs, they put an argument into their mouths, 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 war, 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 holiness was ceiled to their roof, or plastered 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 honor that Scripture gives them, with like success as these did places of public holy assemblies; a good cause hath not a greater adversary then a weak argument taken up in the defense of it. This argument, I confess, had it ground to stand upon, might be of force for the battery of Anabaptism, but having no Scripture-bottom, it presently falls before any adversary, and Anabaptism gathers strength by the fall of it.

3. As to the argument itself, tending to evince the uselessenesse [ 3] of infant-Baptism, it may very fitly be paralleled with that Objection, made against Paul's doctrine, Rom. 3.1. when he had made it his great business, 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, unless 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 useless.

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-Baptism? Having asserted in general, Much every way: he answers more punctually, instancing in one eminent privilege, that virtually comprised all the external privileges enjoined by Israel as Church-members, chiefly that to them were committed the Oracles of God. It was said before that these privileges in all Sacraments, are either actually conferred or infallibly evidenced. In Baptism a true title is legally conferred. Upon account of our baptism we have an orderly and legal right, and title to all succeeding Church-privileges, as the Jews had done upon account of their Circumcision, though there be not always 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, 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 saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee, &c. and they shall put my Name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless 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 privilege 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 privilege of every infant, that upon Covenant title is baptized; God will not suffer their enemies to pass 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 harm these, that, are a seed dedicated unto, and growing up for God. 4. Baptism 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 ways. 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 denied this badge, it is the way to bring them to malign them: each one is apt to love those of his own 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 favor 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 heightened 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 mouths 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 useless when it is done. 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 Baptism hath its actual use in behalf of infants, whilst infants, as hath been shown, 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 useless.

SECT. IV. A Corollary from the former doctrine.

THen it follows by way of necessary Corollary from that which hath been said; that unless 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 Ark of Noah, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water: he adds, The like figure whereunto Baptism doth now save us by the resurrection of Christ. The Ark did save those that entered into it; Baptism doth save those that are received into the Church by it. And whereas an objection is obvious, that Noah's Ark, and New-Testament Baptism doth much differ, and that in the very thing in which the similitude is brought; few entered the Ark, 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 Ark and the outward act of Baptism, as by man administered, and there called the putting away the filth of the flesh, (so there is a vast disproportion, the outward act, as administered by man saves not,) but between the Ark and the inward work, which is The answer of a good conscience towards God. That of Tertullian (which Beza says, may serve as a Comment upon these words) is elegant: The soul is established by answering, and not by washing. And further to clear this text, we must know that the Covenant hath a Proposition in it, to which all in Covenant must give assent. He that believes, and repents, shall be saved. This assent is presupposed in all those that make actual improvement of the Sacraments. Faith and Repentance being the terms of the Covenant. And this Divines in their Treatises of Conscience call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now in case we have the benefit of salvation by Sacraments, conscience must answer (and a good conscience, only can answer) But I believe I repent. This Divines call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Then and not otherwise Sacraments save. Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25. hath these words: Here I think the observation is easy, out of the body of the text, that the work done in Sacraments avails not to righteousness or salvation except the condition of the Covenant be performed by those that partake them; first the condition, then the Antithesis shows 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 concur, 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 offense 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 yourselves 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 wilderness for Canaan, had the Cloud, and the Sea of the same use as Baptism: And Manna, and the Rock of the same use as the Lord's Supper. The two former are called by the name of Baptism, and the two latter, Spiritual meat, Spiritual drink. All were baptized in the one, and all did eat and drink of the other; yet (says the text) with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. If you would know who suffered thus under God's 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 grieved forty 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 happiness. This might be further evinced with arguments.

1. In this case where the soul answers not to Sacramental engagements, Sacraments are but as outward shadows, 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. Baptism 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 Savior) 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 Jews, with whom he had to deal, then you must understand the keeping of the Law in its full perfection; for to this Circumcision, looked 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 righteousness of faith, then sincerity is intended. If this be wanting, Circumcision is uncircumcision: where that of the heart is, there Circumcision in God's account, is; and where it is not, there Circumcision is not, Rom. 2.28, 29. We are the Circumcision, saith the Apostle, that worship God in Spirit and truth, when the cutting of the foreskin in those false teachers was no better then Concision, the worship of God in Spirit in whomsoever it was, was Circumcision.

[Arg. 1] 2. Sacraments in this case are only aggravations of sin, and heightening of judgments. In case of uncircumcision in the time of the Law, and Non-baptism in these times, sins were no more then transgressions of the Law; but now they are breaches of Covenant: Then they would have been merely rebellion against Sovereignty, but now they are Apostasy, and treachery. 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 Baptism we undertake a profession of Christ, in ways 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 follows 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 less reason to serve ourselves 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 judgment 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 honor. It appears that he is now in dislike with sin, and better pleased with Christ, But when a man leaves Christ, and his ways 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 complains.

3. In this case where conscience answers not to Sacramental [Arg. 3] engagements, those two seals vouchsafed of God for his people's benefit will stand one opposite 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 God's 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 only 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 impress 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 ratify 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 liable to judgments, and therefore the Apostle says, He that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment 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, purloining, runaway 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 enjoys 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 Baptism, and expect it at the Lord's Table, must study to come up to Covenant-engagements, and exercise themselves continually to have a conscience void of offense, both towards God, and toward man.

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

HEre a great question lies, 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 business, all the days 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 labors 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 mere 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 mere 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 anymore 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 God's Commandments, 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 God's own heart, 1 Sam. 13.14. his delight, Prov. 11.20. The effects which grief hath with men, is not seen in God's 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 damn 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 weakness. He brings not his sword upon them to avenge the quarrel of his Covenant. Though sin wheresoever it is, is opposite to God's Spirit, yet God is well pleased in their bearing up, and holding opposition against it. These walk up to their Covenant-vow made in Baptism, and come every way fitted for the Lord's 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 terrors. Every promise made to the believing, sincere, upright, perfect, obedient, is theirs. These may sit down at the Lord's Table, with all alacrity; having a work upon their spirits to abide forever. When they are taken hence they shall change their place, but not their company and fellowship. Their humbling of their souls 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 says, 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 God's Commandments. And these, whilst such, and as such, come not within the compass, either of failing in, or forfeiture of their Covenant.

Others are sins above infirmity and unavoidable weaknesses, and these are either mere breaches in, or violations of our Covenant with God; or else such breaches that are also forfeitures: and those I call mere breaches or violations of this kind, how foul soever, that are short of forfeitures, such as was David's uncleanness and blood, Solomon's Idolatry, Hezekiah's pride, Jonas his flight to Tarshish, Jobs passion, Peters denial of Christ, and whatsoever other sins that may stand parallel with these, whether of omission, or commission. These are sins above infirmities, towards presumption at least, much of will and consent of heart is in them; these are outbreaches from God, and violations made upon our Covenant entered 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 several Positions, and then apply all to our present purpose.

1. Though these sins thus acted do not take away all title to the Kingdom 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 syllogism, inquiring as before into the answer of the conscience to Covenant-engagements. He that believes and repents shall be saved, is the bottom on which the whole edifice of assurance must stand, and how the soul, under so sad a witness, 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 Kingdom 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 bottom 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 less 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 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 bliss? or may we without danger pervert Christ's speech, and say, Few are called, but many chosen? If Miriam upon sin was not fit for the Camp for seven days, Numb. 12.14. much less 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 doubtless the Spirit of Christ hath not in present made them meet or glory. Some say, What if David had died 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 died 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 die, and a Murderer and Adulterer cannot live. We find therefore, that Paul did not die in his Persecution; he that chose him to life, chose him also to the acknowledgment of the truth. David did not die 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 only 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. God's Election carries on undoubted and infallible effects, through doubtful and contingent means. 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 doubtful 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 other ways than in a contingent manner. An elect man may perish, if we consider his own 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 Britain, art. 5. part. 2. thes. 3, 4, 5, 6. Davenants Epist. prop. ult. Burgess on Justification, pag. 240. The Assemblies confession of faith.

[Position 3] 3. Sins of this nature in an unregenerate man, bring him under God's wrath and present displeasure, though they do not work him into a state of wrath or utter loss of his justified state. They cause him to bear his Fathers frown, though he shall not die 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 covetousness 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 ways, 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 God's everlasting love, being those whom he heals, and to whom he restores comforts. They were yet overmuch carried out to covetousness, and pursuit of creature contentments; God's 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 Aaron's sin, and the Psalmists observation upon it, Psal. 106.32, 33. They angered 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 God's beloved. 2 Sam. 11. we find David's 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 oneness and sameness of the Covenant which we and they were under, doth evince it; so also God's dealings with the Corinthians upon their profanation of the Lord's Supper is a proof of it.

4. Sin thus committed is such an obstruction in the way of bliss [Position 4] and salvation, that there lies 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 forgiveness. This is God's way to bring his into the ways of salvation and life, when they have stepped aside into the ways 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 profanation of the Lord's Supper, and dissuaded 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 judgment to themselves; he farther sets before them present experiments of God's 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 judgment, If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. Our examination and sentence might avert the examination and sentence of heaven. And then acquaints them with God's 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 easy, 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 judgments 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 far that sentence of giving up to Satan did reach, I shall not stand to determine, whether barely to cast him out of the Church, and put him among those over whom Satan reigned, or as consequent of it, horrors and terrors from Satan by God's 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 man's 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 rejoice 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 ungodliness; this will then follow, which some have profanely 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 needless; 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 easy.

These in this posture under the present power of lust or temptation, are not as they ought mindful of their Covenant, 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 Lord's 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 dishonor 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 hatefulness 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 ways of God with that Scribe that was not far from the Kingdom of heaven, Mark 12.34. may be otherwise accepted at the Lord's Table, then these persons notwithstanding their habitual graces.

To distinguish these which are unavoidable weaknesses, 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 less there is of weakness, [Rule 1] and so the crime more heinous, and violation of Covenant more dangerous. A man of dim sight, whether through want of abilities to apprehend or helps vouchsafed to understand, is under an unavoidable impossibility to reach that exactness which others much above them in light may compass; so that one Rule will not serve to discover the weakness 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 weakness in one, which is out of will, and perverseness in another. Sincerity admits of degrees, differenced according to men's several abilities.

2. The less there is of temptation, the more of sin, and less [Rule 2] of weakness; The bowle may run more evenly towards the mark whilst it meets with no rubs, but a rub necessitates some unevenness in the running. Temptations of this kind are of two sorts, some from within, from men's natural constitution and temper. It is above possibility for some men to be in that measure free from all appearance and evidence of covetousness, ambition, lightness, passion or the like, as some others. He is not farthest from weakness, in whom least appears of sailings; but he that is least vigilant, and makes least resistance. There are many of choice principles, that yet by reason of the temper of their natures are men of strong temptations. And the Heathen could see that it is 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 thyself; 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 equal to those that are in grace far their inferiors. 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 sometimes 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 robbed 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 loss of some wool through many briars.

[Rule 3] 3. The more there is of deliberation and conviction, the less there is of weakness, and the more of sin. A man sometimes is so surprised, and taken at a disadvantage, that he knows not how at present to act for the best for the safety of his person, or his worldly advantage, of which yet he uses to be more sensible; much less then is he always able to do for the best for his Spiritual and everlasting concernment. A dispute is sometimes held between a man's conscience, and his fears, when the danger is so sudden, and thereupon his fears so high, that the voice of conscience cannot be heard, nor hath it leisure 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 less 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 yielding 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 less the opportunity, through the multitudes of occasions, the more it is towards weakness. 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 honored 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. Sins 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 only blur our evidence for heaven, and bring the soul under God's present wrath and displeasure, but destroy all title to happiness 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 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 says, 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 die. 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 Kingdom of Christ and of God, Eph. 5.5. that they shall not inherit the Kingdom 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, or footsteps of piety and holiness, but such whose transgression speaks within the heart of all, that there is no fear of God before their eyes: A profane 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 filthiness. Some are such that understand little, or nothing of God or ways of godliness, but with the high-way ground hear 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 darkness, instructors of the foolish, and teachers of babes, which have a form of knowledge and truth in the law; perhaps of abilities to prophesy in the Name of Christ with those mentioned by our Savior, that claim the Kingdom of heaven upon that account, Matth. 5.22. Some are universalists (as I may say) in sin, at least, with that profane deboist youth that obeyed not the voice of his teachers, nor inclined 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 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 concur 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 Kingdom of God. Some have their beloved, endeered lusts in a more open, outward way, their filthiness of flesh to the defilement of the outward man in drunkenness, gluttony, adultery, senseual pleasures. Others their spirit-filthiness, distrust of God, inward pride, confidence in the arm of flesh, self-seeking and the like. Some are carried away in their affections only whether sensitive or rational, fixing them upon forbidden objects, but in the mean time hold the truth thus imprisoned in unrighteousness, Rom. 1.18. Others have a taint in their judgments, not holding the head, from which all the body by joints, and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together increaseth with the increase of God, Col. 2.19. Though in this age these have many advocates, yet their case is the same with others, already mentioned. Heresy is a fruit of the flesh as well as adultery, fornication, drunkenness, lasciviousness Idolatry, witchcraft, and together with them shuts out of the Kingdom 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 days, 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 seldom 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 die, of a Scarlet-color, 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 rigor in God to proceed against them in eternal judgments, 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 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 parallel 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 heals all the diseased parts; And no unclean person can inherit the Kingdom of God, Eph. 5.5. They are truly 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 ruin by sin, Ezek. 18.30. Repent and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin; and unless 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 Kingdom of God, John. 3.3. These are the men which by their claim of Baptism, and offer of themselves to the Lord's Table, subscribe the equity of their own condemnation, and justify 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 liable to the sentence of eternal death. Yet not remedilessely, helplessely, hopelessely, 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 readiness to receive to mercy those that have gone away from him in ways 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 die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live. And though it be a wickedness 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 man's, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord. He that hath hitherto come in the highest degree of unworthiness to the Lord's Table, as oft as he hath come to it, yet casting that off, which was his unworthiness, and coming up to God's 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, 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-privileges; and in particular, Sacrament-privileges. And to this they are induced by divers reasons. 1. Because Sacraments are an honor, which God hath vouchsafed to his people, and denied to others that stand not in that relation, and they cannot think that it is in vain, that such an honor is conferred upon them. 2. There are great promises annexed 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 Lord's Supper the Communion of the blood of Christ, 1 Cor 10.16. It is the New Testament in Christ's blood shed for many for the remission of sins, Matth. 26.28. Baptism 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 Baptism we are made children of God, members of Christ, and inheritors of the Kingdom of heaven; These promises are straight applied; without any eye had to the terms and Propositions annexed to them, like unto men that look at dignities in offices, and never regard the burdens. 3. Interest in Sacraments is not only a privilege, but a duty; not only an honor, 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 Lord's Supper, is a duty, as it was to be circumcised in the flesh of the foreskin, and to eat the Paschal Lamb 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 always met with teachers to sooth them up in them, 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 magnify them, affixing, and limiting salvation (except in some cases extraordinary) to the water in Baptism; and how great things they ascribe to the body of Christ received, if no bar be put, (which they understand of the Sacramental bread) is very well known. But as some have observed, where poison grows, 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 Jews in his time had of Circumcision? Jer. 9.25, 26. As also Paul, making use of his authority against the Jews in his time, and disputing at large against it, Rom. 2. And the Apostle Peter foreseeing (it seems) that Baptism would be set up as high among Christians as ever Circumcision was among the Jews, makes it his business to prevent it. Having affirmed that Baptism 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 bottom, 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) 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 virtue to them, such that we never read that God ever put into them: which error (saith he) dangerously 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 embrace mere vanity instead of truth. For the Schools 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 Justify, and confer grace, provided that we put no bar 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 loss of the Church, it hath prevailed. It is certainly (saith he) devilish; for whilst it promiseth Justification without Faith, it casts souls headlong to destruction. And upon that account, because they derive the cause of righteousness or Justification from the Sacraments; by this superstition they so ensnare the poor souls of men, (over-much of their own accord inclined to earth) that they had rather rest in a corporeal 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 add 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 assigned of God to work. This Proposition hath certainly reason in it; They certainly do that office, which God hath assigned 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 designed 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 forgiveness. But I know that many that here are adversaries confess an intercision of Justification, 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 Baptism in the work of regeneration, which is as well figured out in Baptism, as that other of remission of sin. Baptism comes not alone to remove the guilt; but also to correct the power of original corruption, and so to work in us a freedom from the power of sin, as well as the pardon of it. And in case Baptism effects this work, how is it that sin in Infants is so apt to show itself? that as soon as they act, they are so readily prone to act that which is evil. When Saul said he had done the Commandment of the Lord, Samuel had a confutation ready; What means then (says he) this bleating of sheep, and lowing of oxen in mine ears that I hear? 1 Sam. 15.14. If God's command had been done, a sheep had not been left to bleat, or an ox to low in his hearing. Here is a real confutation as ready; If Infant-baptism 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 show them their young ones, as averse from sin as a fish is to a life in the air, 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 Anabaptism; 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 error, 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 error with us, and they put no more bar to the working of Baptism, then the Infants of others. And therefore all benefits which thus follow upon Baptism, 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 labor to show the use of the holy Sacraments, assign unto them no end, but only to teach the mind by other senses, that which the Word doth teach by hearing. Whereupon how easily neglect and careless 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 anything 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 less estimation. To this I may well answer; 1. I know not who those be, that have given offense that way; They at whom this learned Author is apt to take exceptions, and most professedly opposeth, do not limit the use of Sacraments within so narrow a compass, 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 God's own from strangers. 2. As bonds of obedience to God, strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity, provocations to godliness, preservations from sin. The Author himself lays down both of these; and I scarce think that in this, he hath ever been excepted against by any. As seals, they have a further work upon the will, for the strengthening of our Faith, in assured confidence of the promises, as our Author hath likewise observed. In regard of the weakness 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 conscientiously 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 choice which to take, I should make use of the better, and leave the more inferior. 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 conscientiously use the one, in neglect of the other. But let us see whether that which the Author 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 adds, But their chiefest force and virtue consisteth not herein so much, as that they are heavenly Ceremonies, which God hath sanctified, and ordained to be administered in his Church, first as marks, whereby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof; and secondly as means conditional which God requireth in them unto whom he imparteth grace. For since God is in himself invisible, cannot by us be discerned working, therefore when it seemeth good in the eyes of his heavenly wisdom, that men for some special 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 endued the waters of the pool of Bethesda with supernatural virtue 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 entering into the soul of man, we are not able to apprehend or express how, do notwithstanding give notice of the times when they use to make their access, because it pleased Almighty God to communicate by sensible means those blessings which are incomprehensible. Who would not wish that these elegancies might universally hold, and that as sure as Moses knew that God was extraordinarily present in the burning bush, and the diseased in Jerusalem knew that the Angel was present when the waters were moved, and the Apostles that the Spirit was come down, when they saw the fiery cloven tongues; so in receiving of the Sacramental signs, we might as assuredly know, that vital, and saving grace is imparted to us, and that these sensible means 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 vital and saving grace, than hath been spoke, let us take heed lest these dissimilitudes do not draw us to embrace 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 looked 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 Author, I know not, (unless 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 unless we perform as the Author 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 Author of grace requireth, and that is as signs and seals, as his chosen vessel to convey his grace here teaches.

I shall only add in this place. If Sacraments work as signs and seals, then they must be allowed to have that whole work on all that are Communicants, which as signs and seals they can possibly effect, either for the bettering of their understanding, or farther engagements in ways of godliness, and that by the help of the Word, they may help the understanding even of unregenerate persons, and make discovery of strong engagements to ways of godliness, can scarce be questioned. If the Word can teach the unregenerate by hearing, then the Sacraments being appointed for visible teaching-signs, 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 godliness. This effect cannot be denied to be possible in Sacraments, as signs, at least upon some persons in unregeneration; and when they further see all the glorious privileges of the Covenant, upon the terms propounded of God to be attainable, may they not be of singular use as seals to put them on, and stir them up in all conscientious use of means to rise up to the answer of conscience? And so as the Word as an instrument in God's 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, which is to seal the gift and grant of God in Covenant, as well as to signify. The thing sealed in them here comes to be spoken to, which is the righteousness of faith. There being a double Covenant given of God to man, one in man's integrity, whilst he was in spiritual life, for preservation in life; the other in man's fallen condition when dead, for restitution to life. There is a double righteousness answering to this double Covenant: The one inherent in man, to be wrought by himself, and called our own righteousness; The other wrought by a Mediator in our stead, and made ours by Faith, and therefore called the righteousness of faith, and sometimes the righteousness of God, being wrought by Christ who is God. And answerably to this double Covenant, and double righteousness, Sacraments of a double kind were instituted. The first without respect had to any Mediator, confirming God's engagements, on the terms of perfect obedience. The other with respect to a Mediator, and Faith in him; confirming happiness to believers. The Sacraments of the Covenant of grace are of this latter sort. They are signs and seals, as were the trees of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil, and seals of righteousness, as they were also, but of righteousness of another kind. The former were seals of the righteousness of works; These are seals of the righteousness of faith. Those were seals to assure a reward to our own righteousness; These are seals to assure us of another's righteousness, made ours by faith. From hence these two Observations follow; one implied, the other in the words expressed. The first which is implied in the words, is,

The Apostle tells us of blindness that in part happened to Israel, Rom. 11.25. and the blindness was this, that they would not be brought to an acknowledgment of this righteousness; But in an high zeal made it their business to establish their own righteousness, Rom. 10.2, 3. It do's not appear that they wholly denied the concurrence of all grace for the work of this righteousness 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, thorough grace, a righteousness 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 loss of all his pains, in sacrifices, Sacraments and all other personal performances. When he had carried on this with the greatest vigor, and alacrity; he was still too short, and this held him back that he looked not after any other righteousness, and so perished without any such righteousness as was able to justify. I should not therefore have wholly past this by, but that a long expected and greatly desired Treatise on this subject is sent to the Press, 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 pass it by, and come to the Observation which the words expressly hold out.

This enters we see the definition a Sacra-meant, and is expressly laid down in the text of the Apostle, and for a right understanding of this great privilege here sealed some Positions or explicatory Propositions must be laid, [Proposition 1] down.

1. This is called the righteousness of faith (as before was hinted) in opposition to, and to distinguish it from the righteousness of works required in the Covenant, entered with man in his integrity; and which the Jews for a great part conceited they were bound to answer according to the letter of the precepts of the Law, for the attainment of salvation. That of works is called by the name of our righteousness, Rom. 10.3. Phil. 3.18. being to be done by ourselves, in our own persons; as also by the name of the righteousness 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 righteousness of faith in this text, as also, Phil. 3.9. Heb. 11.7. Faith being the hand that receives it of God's 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 righteousness 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 God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God: so also, Rom. 10.5, 6. Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them: but the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, &c. Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the rigteousnesse which is of God by faith.

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

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

[Proposition 4] 4. Christ the Mediator of the Covenant, that brings man into Covenant with God, is the fountain from whence all this blessedness comes, in that by him this righteousness is wrought, so that he is the whole of all that good, that is comprised 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 Jews, in going about to establish their own righteousness, and their non-submission of themselves unto the righteousness of God; he saith, that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone 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 righteousness, Matth. 3.15. The other he disclaims, 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 righteousness, but is not able to work it in us: Christ hath done it for us, and in our stead. He is therefore called our righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. Jehovah our righteousness, 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 Mediator, there is a sufficient proof of this observation.

[Proposition 5] 5. Faith is here considered, as an instrument receiving this righteousness, 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 justify. And if either may be allowed, (as I do not doubt but that both will hold current) this will hold, that faith is considered here as an instrument, and not as a work, neither yet as an instrument of the soul, producing any act beyond its self, as the hand is the instrument to the soul in labor, 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 styled the righteousness of works; yea, when the words are the righteousness of faith, the meaning must still be, the righteousness 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 righteousness; but as an instrument applying Christ, and interesting us in his righteousness.

These Positions being premised, the Observation may be easily proved, that the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness 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 expressly 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 Jews 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. 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 complete 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 Passover, 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 Lord's Passover, Exod. 12.11. that is, a memorial that the Lord passed over them when he smote the Land of Egypt, v. 13. But this is no concluding Argument, that it sealed not Christ, or the righteousness 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 Passover 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 says they tempted Christ; but they tempted him, from whom they had defense, and present deliverance: And therefore the Apostle expressly calls the Paschal Lamb by the Name of Christ, 1 Cor. 5.7. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. And John the 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, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, that proofs do not need.

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. Baptism saves, 1 Pet. 3.21. But salvation is through Christ, He is the Author 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. 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 blessedness, 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 blessedness 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, that as all happiness and true blessedness is comprised under the righteousness of Faith, (even all that the Apostle looked after and made his ambition to compass in lieu of all those privileges, 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 righteousness of faith, seals 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 seals be many, (as Ames 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 confirmed unto them. So that, whatsoever it is that the Word promiseth, that the Sacraments by way of seal ratify and confirm unto us. Abraham had this righteousness 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 confirmed also to him in his Circumcision. The righteousness 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 only an adjunct annexed (as Chamier observes) is confirmed with it. Every baptized man hath the righteousness of Faith in Promise, and ratified to him in Baptism, and whatsoever else is made over in promise by reason of any special calling or relation which is of God, is confirmed in Baptism 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 Baptism, 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 Baptism are confirmed to them.

[Rule 2] 2. Sacraments seal these blessings not only universally, and in the bulk, but with particular application, to everyone 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 Baptism, the bread and wine actually taken, eaten and drunk in the Lord's Supper. In either whole Christ, and the whole of all the benefits of Christ is tendered 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 bliss and eternal happiness. This Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen. cap. 24. charges on his adversaries, quoting Melanchthon and Luther for it, and we are content willingly to own it; and among many others which he charges as errors, he says 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 endeavors 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 persuade to Faith, than the Word; But nothing can be more efficacious for persuasion than the Word of God: and experience tells us, that words are better understood than dumb signs, and Sacraments compared to the Word are as dumb signs.

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 shows, 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 only Gideon's, Hezekiah's and Ahaz his signs, but the oath also made to Abraham, was superfluous. All these had the Word of God, and unless the signs given them, and the oath made to them, were more efficacious then the Word, (which, as he says, 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 preeminence is to be given to the Word, as Bellarmine says Luther acknowledgeth: but enquiry is to be made whether the Word together with Sacraments, annexed to it, be not more efficacious by reason of our weakness 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 lie, Tit. 1.2. His Oath is no more valid then his Word, yet God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise, the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation.

[Object. 2] 2. The nature of Sacraments cannot anywhere be better understood, than from his words that is the author of them; But in the Holy Scriptures they are nowhere called seals 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 witness.

[Object. 3] 3. If Sacraments be only seals 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 signs and testimonies of righteousness 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 witness, 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 witness 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 Ames observes) but of their own nature, they evidence our fitness for glory, and as fruits of our faith, as Whitaker speaks. And those which Bellarmine uses to make the best of works, Alms, Fasting and Prayer, may be hypocritically performed likewise.

[Answ. 4] 4. This witness or seal of Sacraments is not a distinct witness 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 witness.

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-baptism.

Ans. 1. We may learn of Bellarmine, that Protestants at least [Answ. 1] think that this doctrine, and Infant-baptism, 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 righteousness of Faith, and yet himself was circumcised the eighth day, Phil. 3.5. It is of equal strength against Infant-circumcision as against baptism.

5. If Sacraments be seals 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 witness to a lie, for we certainly know of none, whether they believe truly, or only pretend it.

Ans. Our Adversary here prevents us, [Answ.] and puts an answer into our mouths. 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 Ames, 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 seals 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 confess, that in case I be once convinced, that the work of Sacraments is to ratify God's promise in an absolute way, as the Rainbow 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 Lord's Table; I must either be holpen with further light, than I can yet see, or else I think I shall never more adventure upon Baptism, or the Lord's Supper. And Bellarmine supposing that this will be our answer, can bring nothing more to avoid 〈◊〉 then two speeches of Luther, and one of Melanchthon, nothing at all to purpose.

SECT. III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine.

THen it follows by way of necessary Corollary, that Circumcision is no carnal badge, but a seal of spiritual mercies given in promise. The righteousness of faith is no carnal, but a spiritual privilege. Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness 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 Jesuits; 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.

IT further follows, that Sacraments in the time of the Law, and in the days 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 righteousness of faith; and in case, Sacraments in the days of the Gospel seal not this to Christians, we must then leave the Apostles, and seek a new way of happiness. 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 days of the Gospel, seeing those Fathers were under the same promise of the righteousness of faith, That was Noah 's inheritance, Heb. 11.7. This further appears from the Apostle, 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 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 several 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 Jews ate the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink as we do in the Lord's Supper, then there was the same virtue in Manna as in the Lord's 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 Bellarmine's: 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 Lord's 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 Jews and ours were different in their signs, but the same in the thing signified. They were different in outward visible appearance, but the same in their divine virtue. These he makes it his business to answer, lib. 2. de effectu Sacram. cap. 17. Which answers of his are so fully taken off, by Ames, 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 Baptism one and the same, and calls Circumcision by the name of Baptism, 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 Baptism, as appears in the text quoted, as also, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 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. Gospel promises are the greatest: but they enjoyed Gospel-promises, Gal. 3.8. Heb. 4.2. They were therefore our equals in promises.

2. Children of the same father, are fed at his table, with the [Reas. 2] same food; at least so far 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 kingdom enjoy the same ordinances: But they are subjects of the same Kingdom, 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 Kingdom of heaven. The same Kingdom in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were, Gentiles that are called in Gospel-times are Ergo.

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 them. 1. They differ in their outward signs; appearing to us, in several shapes. That which was seen in Circumcision, differed much from water in Baptism; 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 son, through the Mothers tenderness, as may be gathered from her words, Exod. 4.25. Neither was the Passover without cost and pains; especially to them that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem. 3. There is far 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, Baptism must hold to the end of the world, Matth. 28.20. And the Lord's Supper until Christ come, 1 Cor. 11.26. But none of these make any substantial difference, nor anymore then that which is circumstantial, or gradual; The outward dress 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 man's 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 less value. And though they do not endure always, their efficacy is yet no less, whilst 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 Austin's pen; Some highly advancing our Sacraments above theirs, and others parallelling theirs with ours, which with this distinction may be fairly reconciled, and (as we have heard) the author himself thus reconciles them.

Secondly, Those undervaluing phrases of Old Testament-Sacraments, [Rule. 2] which are sometimes found in the Prophets and Apostles, and brought by adversaries to put them at a great distance behind ours, are either spoken, as they were abused and misobserved by Jews in unbelief, and impenitence, and not according to their institution, or lawful use; in which case we might say the same of Baptism or the Lord's Supper. Or else we must understand them, as having an end by Christ's 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 Jews are types of ours, in the days 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 Baptism is said to be the antitype to the Ark (which according to Interpreters implies only 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 shadows 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 doubtless 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 only shadow out grace, and ours do confer 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 expressed, 1. The Sacraments of the Jews, 6. are types of ours, 7. and their punishments, 11. ensamples for us, when it should rather have been 1. The Sacraments of the Jews are the same with ours, 5. their punishments are ensamples for us. The four first verses making the Sacraments there mentioned to be of the same use with ours, and the seven following verses to v. 12. show 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 follows by way of necessary Corollary, that Christians should see, that they be rightly principled in this doctrine of the righteousness of faith, as that in which the great mercy of the new Covenant, and all that the Sacraments seal is comprised. 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 righteousness, but they hedge it in: as may appear in a brief view of their doctrine. That righteousness which must save, either must be wrought by ourselves, and so styled our righteousness; or else it must be wrought by another, and made ours. There is no righteousness of a third sort. That which is wrought by ourselves, is either according to the command of God, prescribed in the law, or else over, above, and besides the Law, assumed by ourselves, 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 righteousness of the law, falls far short of that for the tradition of the Church. And for righteousness, besides their own, wrought by others, they take in not only the righteousness of Christ; but also the supererogation of the Saints; which, as they persuade themselves, is satisfactory, not only 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 righteousness, and in all of them they place their justification. Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us. That righteousness which according to the precept of the Law, is to be wrought by ourselves; 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 righteousness; to take off this calumny, he tells his Disciples, Matth. 5.20. I say unto you, that except your righteousness, shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of these superstitious ones, ye can by no means enter into the Kingdom of heaven. The righteousness of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees, for tradition the Trent Council makes known their zeal, Council. Triden. Sess. quart. p. 11. With the same degree of reverence, and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers, as we do the books of the Old and New Testament; and how defective both of them were touching the righteousness of the law, their agreement in the gloss which they put upon the law is a sufficient witness. The Pharisees gloss on the law we may read in Christ's 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 Jesuit that the Pharisees may not unfitly be compared to Catholics, adding as his own, that one egg is not liker to another, then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuits. Supererogating righteousness, and that which is bottomed 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 righteousness, or a man of such righteousness, be more hateful in God's presence; one utterly sleights the sovereignty of God, and the other corrects his wisdom; one refuses to serve at all, the other serves only, according to his own pleasure. As to the other branch of righteousness wrought by others, The supposed satisfaction of the Saints must be left, and the Lord Christ's alone chosen. That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai. 63.3. spoken of the conquest of his enemies, I have trod the Wine-press alone, and of the people there were none with me, holds true, when it is applied (as by many it hath been, though not according to the letter of the text) to his satisfaction, By one offering he hath perfected forever those that are sanctified, Heb. 10.14. yea, the righteousness of Christ, in the matter of justification must stand alone, in opposition to all righteousness in the world, whether of others, imaginarily to be applied, out of any public treasury, by way of indulgence; or wrought by ourselves, either by the strength of natural abilities without grace, (which the Papists confess to be too weak) or in grace, and these works (how great an honor 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 knowledge of sin. The argument runs thus, Where the Law discovers sin, the works commanded by it cannot justify; This proposition is the Apostles: But the law discovers sin, 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 justify. And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousness 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 myself, yet am I not hereby justified. Though he had the witness of a good conscience, as his rejoicing, 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 less 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 acknowledge not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us, and consequently is none of our legal righteousness, but only 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 righteousness is in this obedience; And having marked it with this just brand, [Most cursed doctrine] he adds, So far am I from this, that I say, The righteousness which we must plead against the laws accusations, is not one grain of it in our faith or works, but all out of us in Christ's satisfaction.

As this righteousness which is no otherwise ours, but by imputation (being neither inherent in us, 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 only the denomination is still from faith only? (as we see in the text, and always when it is named, it is called the righteousness 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 righteousness, 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 virtue of God's appointment, who of his mere will, and full power, hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the only means of expiation and reconciliation, appliable 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 shows, 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 only is acknowledged. Whereas one saith, that Paul doth either in express words, or in the sense and scope of his speech, exclude only the works of the Law, that is, the fulfilling of the condition of the Law ourselves, 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 anything 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 Author teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justification (which is upon our contract with Christ, or mere faith) and the confirmation, continuation and accomplishment of it, whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance. But being first possessed of justification, we are justified, and of this Paul still speaks, and there is no intercision of it, nor any other way in progress of time to be interested in it. Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state, which is never lost, and held up only 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 souls, 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 mere faith, Paul's justification is confessed to be of mere faith likewise. The same Author 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 always implieth 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 implies only acceptation, though it be an act of the soul that yields 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 error. For either full justification, and salvation are both one, and so here is a tautology; or else, if they differ, it is an error. The same are not conditions of both strictly taken, only Faith gives title to Christ for Justification; Works qualify as a condition in order to salvation. And whereas it is further said, It would be as derogatory to Christ's righteousness if we be saved by works, as if we be justified by them. Either of both is doubtless derogatory to it, and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures, and always expressly denied, except in that one Text of James, Jam. 2. which speaks to Justification, and must admit of another interpretation then our Author 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 Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. But this is not to be saved by works, which the Apostle denies, 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 justify? 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 Author, (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, but is itself only an acknowledgment of sin no healing of our wound, or cause of our acquittance. The feeling of pain and sickness, causeth a man to desire and seek remedy, but it is no remedy itself. Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food, but a man is not fed by being hungry. By repentance we know ourselves, we feel our sickness, 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 darkness 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 only present in the action, and doth nothing therein: but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing, and the ear 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 happiness: but in the Covenant of grace, though repentance be necessary, and must accompany faith, yet not repentance but faith only is the cause of life. The cause not efficient, as works should have been, if man had stood in the former Covenant, but instrumental only: 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. 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 only doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy; but the Law, and Works, respect the Commandments, not the Promises of mere grace. When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith, it is manifestly signified, that faith receiving the promise, doth receive righteousness and life freely promised. Obedience to all God's 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 embraceth 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, of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah, of obedience in Abraham; but it was the instrument only of their Justification. For it doth not justify as it produceth good works, but as it receiveth Christ; though it cannot receive Christ, unless 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 only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveness and eternal bliss. 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 only instrumental, faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the only condition. Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant; not that they cannot stand together in the same subject, for they be inseparably united, but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man. For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant, either being just, he is acquitted; or unjust, he is condemned: But in the Court of mercy, if thou receive the promise of pardon, which is done by a lively faith, thou art acquitted and set free, and accepted as just and righteous: but if thou believe not, thou art sent over to the Court of Justice. Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ, faith in his blood, repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them. The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause, Faith as the instrument giving interest, and making application: Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory. In this (which is the good old Protestant doctrine) God loseth nothing of his grace, but all is free in the work. Christ loseth nothing of his merit, it stands alone as the procuring cause. Faith receives all from Christ, but takes nothing off from the free grace of God, or Christ's merits. God loseth nothing of his Sovereignty, and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty. God is advanced in his goodness and Sovereignty: man is kept humble, thankful, and in subjection, no place being left for his pride, or gap open for licentiousness.