THE Covenant Sealed OR, A TREATISE OF THE SACRAMENTS of both COVENANTS, polemical and PRACTICAL.  
ESPECIALLY Of the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace.  
IN WHICH, 

The nature of them is laid open,  
The adequate subject is largely inquired into, respective 

to right and proper interest.  
to fitness for admission to actual participation.    
Their necessity is made known.  
Their whole Use and Efficacy is set forth.  
Their number in Old and New Testament-times is determined.  
With several necessary and useful Corollaries.    
Together with a brief Answer to Reverend Mr. Baxter's Apology, in defence of the Treatise of the Covenant.  
By Thomas Blake, M. A. Pastor of Tamworth, in the Counties of Stafford and Warwick.  Davenant. de morte Christi, pag. 1. 
Neque tam pugnam meditor, aut dimicationem; quam planam & pacatam totius rei explicationem, ad conflictum cum nullo host ventures, nisi ita se nobis obviam dederit; ut non possumus aliter, quam pugnando, viam ad veritatem aperire.  
London, Printed for Abel Roper, at the Sun against Danstans' Church in Fleetstreet, 1655.   

To the Right Worshipful, Sir FRANCIS NETHERSOLE of Nethersole in the County of Kent, Knight.  
THe great engagements in which I stand by many favours received, to much Honoured friends of yours, put me on, to send forth a former Treatise into public view under their names. This being of so near affinity, I thought it meet that it should come abroad under the Patronage of one of so near alliance. I need not mention my particular engagements, which you do not desire I know to hear. Since the time, that after your great employments hath at home and abroad, in affairs of State God hath been pleased to seat you in these parts; your singular candour towards all those that labour in the Work, to which through grace I am called is eminently seen. You were tenderly conscientious, without great caution put, to adventure on the purchase of a Manor to which an Impropriation was annexed, which yet for many reasons you could not without great inconvenience avoid. And notwithstanding a Vicarage there endowed, which others (though not you) would have judged a competency, your great care was as soon as you were fully possessed, finding an Incumbent there, whom you had no reason to encourage, nor power to remove, to superinduce others, one after other, in a more happy, and edifying way; to carry on that work. It was no sooner void, but you took care to settle one of eminent gifts and graces, with that liberal munificence, that a free School for poor children, built at your proper cost, being provided for, little remains yours, of that part of your purchase. Your solicitous care is still, no less (whereof there are many knowing witnesses) how to settle it with all possible speed upon posterity, in such a way, that God may be most honoured, and piety advanced by it. Which also (as I have heard from your own mouth) your much honoured and pious Lady deceased, did often persuade to hasten; although she well knew, that out of your love to her, you had by your last Will and Testament devised to her, that whole Lordship of Polesworth (to a fourth part whereof she was heir) and all the rest of your Estate in these parts, for an increase of her Jointure. If the Lord Christ tells us, that the cost which that Pious woman spent on him, should be told for a memorial of her, wheresoever in the world the Gospel should be preached; I suppose that this which you have done, may be mentioned for your honour, with hers, that rests in the Lord: wheresoever this small piece by Providence shall come to be read. I may well look upon you, as one of the most acute of my Readers: If therefore this may gain your favour, I shall have less cause to fear others censure; Though in so great variety of things, as are here touched upon, and so much controversal, I cannot expect that any one should subscribe to every piece. The whole may be serviceable, though some part remain under dispute. As it fares with me in reading the Labours of many others, so I may well expect that it will be with others, in reading any thing of mine. Your great zeal, as to the whole of the worship of God, so to this part here treated of, where you are known, cannot be hid. Your complaint hath often been, of the sad neglect of the Lords Supper; and it lies as a sad burden on the spirits of many eminently Pious servants of Jesus Christ, that they see not a door opened for their comfortable, and orderly administration and participation of it. If any thing be here said to give any further light in these sacred mysteries, and to facilitate the way of administration to pious dispensers, so, as the honour of the Ordinance may be preserved, and the edification of souls promoted, I have that which I desire, and have made my endeavour. The Lord honour your whore hairs with everlasting days, and give you the comfort of all that you have done, in, and for his Name: Sir, I am  
From my Study in Tamworth, Jun. 5. 1655. Your Servant in any Christian Office, Thomas Blake.   

Worthy Reader,  
THe holy Scripture puts an eminent character, Acts 18.24, 25, etc. upon Apollo's, then but an alphabetarian in the Gospel-doctrine, That he was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. And if I would cut by this pattern, and that either the Reverend Author, whose learned Works have already spoken him to the Church: Or this Judicious Treatise which now fitly follows its elder brother under the name of the Covenant sealed, stood in need of an Epistle Commendatory, I should not be ashamed, both to testify my honour of the man, and my valuation of his Work; and yet neither I, nor any other man in this case ought to be interpreted, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a propugnatour of every opinion in the book by him commended to the Press; no more than the Midwife is accountable for every imperfection of the child by her brought forth to light.  
I confess I had the liberty and honour afforded me to peruse this Treatise before it saw the Press; but my indisposition of body prohibited me of making a full survey: only my greedy eye led me so far as that I could make observation of two things: 1. The predominant scope of the Author in this work. 2. The pursuance thereof as to the main. The scope is rare, viz. An Essay to find a way of regular admission unto, and holy administration of the Lords Supper, between those extremes of promiscuous intrusion on the one hand, and the total forbearance of it on the other, both which do afflict the spirits of the godly that are cast into broken Congregations all the Land over without Card or Compass to steer by to their comfort; and so it is very likely to be a word spoken upon his wheels to many Ministers, who may find here a thread to direct them out of those labyrinths and perplexities out of which they find it hard to extricate themselves.  
And then in pursuance of this main scope, and indeed in all the parts of the Treatise that I have read: Scriptures are balanced and pondered so Judiciously, and there is so much demonstration of acuteness of judgement, solidity of reason, sweetness and candour of spirit, that if thou in reading dislodge prejudice, and hold the scale even, I hope thou shalt not write upon thy pains, Labour in vain. Vale, fruere.  
Laurence-Jury, London, June 12. 1655. Thine in the Lord, Ri. Vines.   

The PREFACE.  
GOds Covenant is the ground of all our comfort; it is (as I may call it) the Grand Charter, by which all our Christian rights and privileges are conveyed unto us. Then (saith the Lord) will I remember my Covenant with Jacob, and also my Covenant with Isaac, and also my Covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the Land, Levit. 26.41. Remember, break not thy Covenant with us, say the people of God unto him, Jer. 14.21. O Israel, fear not, saith he; why? Thou art mine, Isai. 43.1. How? I entered into Covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine, Ezek. 16.8. I am thine, save me, saith David unto him, Psal. 119.94. building his confidence upon this, that he was in Covenant with God, and was his by Covenant. I am the Lord thy God, saith he, viz. 
* Gen. 17.7. Jer. 31.33.  by Covenant; what then? Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it, Psal. 81.10. As if he should say, Seeing thou hast such Covenant-interest in me, enlarge thy desires as much as thou canst, and I will satisfy them. As Christ said to his Disciples, If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you, Joh. 15.7. Hereupon Jehoshaphat pleaded with God in his distress, saying, Art not thou, our God? 2 Chron. 20.7. O our God, wilt not thou judge them? for we have no might against this great multitude, neither know we what to do, but our eyes are upon thee, verse 12. So likewise Asa cried unto the Lord his God, saying, Help us, O Lord our God, etc. 2 Chron. 14.11. This was the ground of the everlasting happiness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that God was in Covenant with them, and was their God by Covenant. Thence Christ inferred, that they were not so dead, but that their souls did still live, and that their b●dies also at last should be raised up, and both souls and bodies live for ever, Matth. 22.32. God's Covenant is an everlasting Covenant, ordered in all things, and sure, 2 Sam. 23.5. He is a God that keepeth Covenant, Neh. 1.5. He will ever be mindful of his Covenant, Psal. 111.5. He is Elohe, Amen, the God of truth, Isai. 65.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God that cannot lie, Tit. 1.2. He hath given his Son to be a Medaitour of the new Covenant, Heb. 12.24. In him all the Promises are Yea, and in him Amen, 2 Cor. 1.20. And to confirm the Covenant the more unto us, God hath so condescended to our weakness, as to vouchsafe us not only his Word, but also his Sacraments, as signs and seals of his Covenant. The word Sacrament Christians have borrowed from Heathens. Pliny the younger, a heathen Author, useth the word with reference unto Christians, yet with no respect (I suppose) to either of the Sacraments, but only according to the usual (though here metaphorical) acception of the word among the heathens. 
Seque Sacramento non in scelus al●quod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, etc. Pl n. Epist. 97. ad Trajan.  He saith, That Christians assembling together did use to bind themselves by Sacrament, (or oath, did solemnly and religiously bind themselves, as Soldiers were wont to bind themselves to their General) not to any wickedness, but against the committing of any theft, or robbery, or adultery, etc. Tertullian doth frequently use the word, but whether at any time in that strict notion, as it is now used, I cannot easily say. Sometimes he useth it in allusion to that Military oath which the Heathens called Sacramentum. 
Credimusne humanum Sacramentum Divino superinduci licere et in alium Dominum respondere post Christum? T●rt. de Cor. Mil. cap. 11. Commun●catio pacis, et appellatio fraternitat●s, et contesseratio hospitalitatis; quae jura non al●a ratio regit, quam ejusdem Sacramenti traditio. De Praescr. c. 20.  Do we think (saith he) that after a divine Sacrament it is lawful to superinduce one that is humane, and after Christ to acknowledge another Lord? And again, The Communication of peace, and the appellation of brotherhood, and the contesseration of hospitality, are rights, which no other reason doth rule, but the tradition of the same Sacrament. 
Rectè hîc Macereus Sacramentum vertit Gallicè juramentum. Alludit enim ad jusjurandum, quo tanquam Sacramento militari in Baptismo nos obstringimus. Pamel. in Annot.  Upon which place Pamelius saith, that Macereus did rightly render Sacramentum an oath; for that Tertullian did allude to the oath, (the solemn obligation he meaneth) by which as by a military Sacrament (or oath) we bind ourselves in Baptism. Sometimes by Sacrament in Tertullian is meant Faith, or Doctrine, as when he saith of Heresies, 
Nullo modo Apostol●cae ob diversitatem Sacramenti, De Prescript. cap. 22.  that they are no way Apostolical, because of the diversity of the Sacrament; that is, as Pamelius doth well expound it, the diversity of Faith: for otherwise Heretics may have the same Sacraments with the Catholics. Sometimes Tertullian speaking of Sacraments, doth instance indeed in Baptism and the Lords Supper; 
Ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum Divinorum in idolorum mysteriis emulatur, nempe Diabolu●. Tingit et ipse, etc.— Habet et Virgins, habet et Continentes. De Prescript. cap. 40.  but so also in divers other things, some whereof the Romanists themselves do not reckon among Sacraments, as Virginity and continency, which Pamelius takes no notice of, when he pretends to find all their seven Sacraments, except Extreme Unction, there asserted by Tertullian. An ancient Bishop, though after Tertullian, viz. Firmilianus, 
Nulla quippe d●fferentia est inter Pseudoprophetam, & Haereticum. Nam ut ille in nomine Dei, aut Christi, ita iste in Sacramento Baprismi fallit. Epist. 7●. inter Epistolas Cypriani. Circa celebrandos dies Paschae, & circa multa alia divinae rei Sacramenta, etc. Ibid.  in an Epistle to Cyprian doth sometimes mention the Sacrament of Baptism; but whether he doth take the word strictly, or largely, may be a question, because in the same Epistle he speaketh of many Sacraments, and nameth the Celebration of Easter as one of them. That Treatise de Cardinalibus Christi Operibus, one part whereof is de Baptismo Christi, wherein Baptism is called a Sacrament, that Treatise is found to be none of Cyprians: 
Pamel. in Annotat. Bellar. de Scriptor.  and though Pamelius and Bellarmine suppose that the Author was ancient, and of the same time with Cyprian, because the title speaks it as if it had been directed to Cornelius, who was Bishop of Rome in Cyprian's time, yet B. Usher observes, that in old Manuscripts, 
B. Usher in the Catalogue of Authors, cited in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge.  Arnoldus Carnotensis Abbas Bonevallis, who was many hundred years after Cyprian, viz. in the year 1160. is mentioned as the Author. Hilary about 100 years after Cyprian, 
Quàm autem in eo per Sacramentum communicate carnis & sanguinis simus, etc. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 8.  speaks of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. Ambrose about the same time with Hilary, or but a little after, hath written six Books De Sacramentis; and, which is observable, he treateth therein only of Baptism, 
Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum, Aug. in Joh. Tract. 80.  and the Lords Supper. Austin writing not much after Ambrose, (by whom he came to the knowledge of the truth) often useth the word, and that in the most strict acception. The Word (saith he) being added to the Element, there is made a Sacrament; which is also itself as it were a visible Word. And again, 
Quid sunt aliud quaeque corporalia Sacramenta, nisi quaedam quasi verba visib●lia? Contra Faust. l. 19 c. 16.  What else are all corporal Sacraments, but as it were certain visible words? And having said, that Christ did institute Sacraments, in number very few, for observation very easy, 
Christus Sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit, sicut est Bapt●smus, et Communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, etsi quid aliud in Scriptures Canonicis commendatur. Epist. ad Jan. 118. cap. 1.  and for signification most excellent, he expressly saith, that these Sacraments are Baptism and the Lords Supper; adding indeed, and if there be any other commended in the Canonical Scriptures. But that there is any other Sacrament besides Baptism and the Lords Supper, commended in the Scripture, 
Hoc tempore posteaquam resurrectione Domini nostri Jesu Christi manifestissimum indic●um libertatis nostrae illuxit, nec corum quidem signorum, quae jam intelligimus, operatione gravi onerati sumus, sed quaedam pauca pro multis, eadamque factu facillima, et intellectu augustissima, et observatione castissima, ipse Dominus, et Apostolica tradidit discipl na; sicuti est Baptismi Sacramentum, et Celebratio corporis, et sanguinis Domini. De doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 9  he doth not affirm. Yea, in another place having used the like words concerning the Sacraments of the New Testaments he mentioneth these two only, leaving no suspicion at all, as if there were any other. Besides, when he affirmeth the Sacraments to be as it were visible words, (as in the places before cited) he plainly enough excludeth those Popish Sacraments, Penance and Matrimony. 
Satis est ad Sacramenti naturam quatenus signum est sensibile, ut al●quo sensu percipiatur, nec debet excludi sensus audiendi, etc. Bellar. de Sacr. in gen. l. 1. c. 14.  Bellarmine would have it suffice, if the outward sign be any way sensible, though it be perceived only by the sense of Hearing. But (as Chamier well observes) Austin needed not to have mollified his speeches with as it were, if he had not taken the word visible properly, and as distinct from that which is perceived by any other sense then that of Seeing. 
Si de Sacramentis secundum aliquas conditiones, quas haeretici requirunt, loqueremur, neque nos diceremus esse tam multa, quam ponimus. Greg. de Valent. apud Cham. tom. 4. lib. 4. cap. 6.  Gregorius de Valentia (as Chamier citys him) granteth, That Sacraments being considered in respect of some conditions, which Protestants (whom he, as their manner is, termeth Heretics) require, so there are not so many, as otherwise they hold there are. So though Bellarmine (in the place above cited) will not admit Sacraments to be seals, 
Fatemur Sacramenta novae Legis esse signa, seu sigilla quodammodo promissionis divinae. And again, Sacramenta vetera fuerunt velut sigilla quaedam, quibus est obsignata, et firmata apud homines Divina promissio. Greg. de Valent. apud Cham. tom. 4. lib. 2. cap. 9  yet this other Jesuit Valentia is not so straitlaced, but doth acknowledge, that they are after a sort seals of God's promise, whereby it is confirmed unto us. So the Council of Trents Catechism doth make this one reason why Sacraments were ordained, 
Altera verò causa est, quod animus noster haud facilè commovetur ad ea, quae nobis promittuntur, credenda.— Quemadmodum igitur in Veteri Testamento Deus fecerat, ut magni alicujus promissi constantiam s●gnis testificaretur: Ita etiam in nouâ lege Christus Salvator noster, cum nobis peccatorum veniam, coelestem gratiam, Spiritus Sancti communicationem pollicitus est, quaedam signa oculis, et sensibus subjecta instituit, quibus quasi pignoribus obligatum haberemus, atque ita fidelem in promissis futurum dubitare nunquam possemus. Catech. Trid. de Sacram.  viz. because we are slow to believe, and therefore Sacraments are not only signs, but as pledges to assure us of those things which are promised unto us. And as the Apostle calls Circumcision a seal, Rom. 4.11. So Abrabaneel, a famous late rabbin among the Jews, in his Commentary on Esay 52.13, etc. speaking of Circumcision, doth call it, chotham beareth, that is, the seal of the Covenant. It is true, he speaks of it only as a seal, whereby Abraham did assure himself unto God, to be his, whereas the Apostle speaks of it as a seal, whereby God did confirm his Covenant unto Abraham. But the Covenant being mutual, wherein God doth engage himself unto man, and man doth engage himself unto God, the Sacraments as seals of the Covenant, serve to confirm both the one and the other engagement. Now the Sacraments thus having respect unto the Covenant, and standing in a subserviency unto it, this reverend Author (Mr. Blake) having by Divine assistance composed and published a Treatise of the Covenant, which deservedly hath found good acceptance, by the good hand of his God still upon him doth now offer to public view a Treatise of the Sacraments, which (I presume) will be no less accepted. The Authors former Works do sufficiently speak his worth; he needs not my Elegy, neither can it add any thing unto him. Yet having been more than ordinarily acquainted with him above 20 years, (though more than half of this time the great distance, whereat Providence hath set us, hath much hindered the improvement of our acquaintance) this I cannot but say, that I always held him one, whose judgement in any matter of Divinity is very much to be esteemed. What Casaubon said of Persius, may truly be said of him, 
Fatemur erudissimum Poëtam eruditionem ubique ostendere, usquam ostentare negamus. Casau●. Prol●g. in Pe●s.  as this Treatise, and his other Writings doth show, He is one that doth rather show Learning, then make a show of it. They that in some things descent from him, I think will do him so much right, as to acknowledge, that he is no Theologaster, no Smatterer in Divinity, no superficiary, or unstudied Divine. Neither is he rash and forward to vent his notions; or one that doth affect novelty and singularity in opinion, which is the garb of many wanton Wits in these times. It is very rare, if he decline that which is generally, received; yet doth he not rely upon the authority of others neither, but 
* Disceptatione si potes, vince, vince ratione. Cyprian. ad Demetrian.  reasons and argumenes are the things, which sway with him. Where he doth a little step aside out of the road, he doth it not out of any humour of contradiction, not with any uncivil censure, or petulant expression, but as with some rational plea, so with much modest deportment. As here in this Treatise, where he holds, that the Sacraments as appendants to the Word, may be profitable to the unregenerate, and instrumental to Conversion. And yet he doth withal largely and learnedly impugn the Physical operation of Sacraments, which doth no more follow upon the other (as some perhaps may imagine) than the Physical operation of the Word, which all explode, and yet confess that the Word is an instrument, or means of regeneration. And so (me thinks) this learned and judicious Author hath here competently evinced, that the Sacraments may be, not solely by themselves, but as accompanied with the Word, and as being after a sort visible words, holding out that to the eye, which the Word doth to the ear, and setting forth both Law and Gospel to those that understand the meaning of them. Some one or other particular there is besides, wherein this Author is apt to meet with either Opposers, or Dissenters: but as he is not unfurnished with grounds and reasons to support his opinion, so neither is he desirous to impose upon any further than strength of argument shall prevail. Some Digressions he hath, but they are not heterogoneal to the subject in hand, and he was moreover enforced to them, as also to those Disputes in the Postscript. Before Mr. Baxters' Apology came forth, hearing of his intentions, he expressed in a letter to me how much it troubled him, that he should have him Antagonist, whom in divers respects he did so love and honour. And surely his Book of the Covenant doth sufficiently declare how unwilling he was to appear in a way of opposition to that worthy man. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. Ethic. ad Nicom. lib. 1. cap. 6.  But the saying of Aristotle (though not in those words, yet to that effect) is well known and no less approved, Though Socrates be a friend, and Plato a friend, yet Truth is so much more. If in this Contest he sometimes show some acrimony which is not usual with him, it is not to be considered how he was provoked. Assoon as I perused his Treatise of the Covenant, being not unacquainted with Mr. Baxters' Aphorisms, I could not but observe how he doth scarce ever name Mr. Baxter (though he name him often) but where he doth approve and commend him: when he doth dissent from him, and oppose him (as he doth many times) it is still so (excepting only, I think, where he speaks of the mannee how the Sacraments do seal; and there he could not but alter his course) at to conceal his name, and to deal merely with his opinion. Whereas Mr. Baxter on the other side in his Apology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they say, with open face doth fall upon Mr. Blake, and that also oftentimes in such sort, that some, favourably enough affected to Mr. Baxter, and his Writings, have to my knowledge expressed no small dislike of him for it. He that will speak his pleasure, 
Qui quod vult, loquitur, quod non vult audiet.  (they say) must look to hear something to his displeasure. I hope Mr. Baxter will not interpret me so, as if I spoke thus to exasperate him, or to heighten the difference betwixt him and Mr. Blake; Thas is far from my thoughts: I desire only to apologise (if need be) for my ancient friend, so far as the justness of the cause doth require. Upon this account I shall made bold to advertise the Reader, that peradventure now and then (though very seldom, I dare say) he may meet with some circumstantial mistake, which as it is nothing at all to the main, so neither is it any more than that which is incident to the best Writers. Thus, page 581. that is ascribed to Granatensis, 

— Non ego paucis  
Offendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit,  
Aut humana parùm cavit natura.  Horat. de Art. Poet.  which belongs not indeed to him, but to another, namely, Michael ab Isselt, who doth preface to that piece of Granatensis, which is entitled Dux Peccatorum. I might say more concerning this Author, and the Treatise here set forth, but I would not be over-tedious. I shall therefore take off, only praying that the Lord will be pleased to make both this Work profitable, and also the Author still more and more serviceable to Himself, and to his people. Amen.  
Christopher Cartwright.   

To the READER.  
THe overture which I gave in the Treatise of the Covenant, of my intentions by God's assistance, to send forth the like of the Sacraments; not a few have endeavoured to turn into a promise, and have much solicited me for performance. Which at last through many difficulties and interruptions is now done, and exposed to thy censure; which I expect to be different, according as it shall meet with men aforehand principled. If contention shall hereby unhappily be increased (as is too often seen in writings of this nature) my intentions will be altogether disappointed, and expectations frustrated. I had never appeared on this subject, had I not seen the best of men in their thoughts much divided, if not perplexed; and conceived some possible hopes of contributing somewhat towards satisfaction, and settlement. That great Ordinance of the Lords Supper appointed of Jesus Christ for a more near union; through men's mistakes (and not from the nature of the Ordinance itself) hath proved the greatest distraction. How mighty contentions, and vehement disputes have of a long time been held about Christ's presence? First, with those of the Romish party; afterward with the Lutheran Churches? When there is a full agreement of parties that Christ is there, (supposing an administration according to his institution) the manner of his presence hath occasioned all the difference: When, if men would consider, as they confess; that it is a Sacrament about which all this contention is thus driven on, they could not but see, that Christ's presence with, or in, the Elements, can be no more than Sacramental, in which the sign is still put for the thing signified. The bead is the body, and the cup the blood of Christ, no otherwise then the rock in the wilderness was Christ. In the explication of Sacramental signs, there can be expected no other than Sacramental speeches: And therefore that great Lutheran Logician was much mistaken, in charging the transgression of his maxim upon Calvinists, that the proper sense of Scripture is ever to be held, unless the contrary can be evidently proved, in their leaving of the letter in the words of the Supper, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he speaks: Taking it for granted, that no such necessity can be shown. When it is enough to evince the necessity of a trope, that the words are an explanation of a Sacramental sign, We must not put this Sacrament at such a distance from all others, as to make the whole here rigidly proper, and all others Sacramental. Words must be fitted to the nature of the subject. But to help himself out, he wisely borrows from Bellarmine an assertion, that Reasons are not to be demanded of any that hold the proper sense, why they keep to it. Both of them, it seems, despairing of giving any reason that is satisfying. But methinks he might blush in the use of the Simile, that he hath also borrowed to make his assertion good. This were, (say they) as if any should ask of those that are in a journey, why they hold the old beaten way; and why they go in at the door, and not at the window? When they, or either of them, can make it appear, that the old way of interpretation of Sacramental speeches is, to understand them properly, without any Metonymy, than I shall say, that the letter here is not to be left, but in the strictest rigour to be followed: But till then I shall believe them to be both out of the way. And all Sacraments being appendants to promises, it will likewise follow, that Christ's presence with him that in faith takes these Elements, is no other than a presence in Spirit. Where these things are happily accorded, and all scruple laid aside, a new quarrel is raised about the subject of Sacraments. That they are institutions of Christ, and gifts vouchsafed by him to his Church is acknowledged: But to whom they belong, and who of right can make his claim to them, is not determined; when yet the visibility of the Ordinances, and trust reposed in man for dispensation of them, (whose sight is more weak then to discern that which is invisible) necessarily concludes that they belong to visible Church-members, not in a select way picked out of other Churches, (which is a way that no Scripture-Saint ever trod) but in as great a latitude as the profession of the Christian faith. In this, Scripture is so plain, that it is wonder, that ever it was made a controversy. Either the Jew outwardly was misnamed, when the title of Circumcision was given him; and a foul misprision run upon, when a proselyte was circumcised, or a new convert in Scripture-way baptised; or else this must necessarily be granted. So that, as to title, and right of claim, if Scriptures may judge, the Covenant-grant is clear. Yet as there are many that have their just right in Legacies, and inheritances, who are not judged meet for present fruition: It would be many a man's loss, even to ruin, to have that presently put into his hands, which justly might be claimed as his own. So it fares in this great Ordinance of the Lords Supper, which all that partake of, are to look upon, and improve as a memorial of Christ's death; for which all are not in any possible capacity, as they are not for some other duties: And here in all reason, they that are to dispense this Ordinance, are most concerned to distinguish. And if Regeneration be the mark by which they are to be steered, it is not like a Sea-boy, appointed for the Pilot's guide, floating on the top of the water, but rather, as one hid in the bottom, which necessarily involves both dispenser and receiver in inextricable difficulties and perplexities. And when most confess that men free from ignorance, error and scandal, though unregenerate, must have admission; and all acknowledge, that such (will we, nill we) will enter. If it be concluded, that unregeneration is an undeniable and invincible bar to all possible benefit, and blank paper is always sealed whensoever such take it; it is not yet made known how it may be dispensed by those in whose hands it is entrusted with any possible comfort. A great part of this work is, to render the way here more comfortably passable, in giving the doubting soul hopes, that yet sees not concluding evidence, in his own thoughts, of a new birth: (many of which upon principles that they have taken in, sadly reason against themselves in participation of this Ordinance) and withal, to put courage into the hands of the Ministers of Christ, to press the power of this soul-humbling Ordinance of God, on the hearts of intelligent hearers, competently instructed in Gospel principles, whom yet they may justly have in jealousy not yet to have come up to this great and blessed work of a thorough change wrought, in the mean space differing little or nothing from the common received opinion as to the qualifications of those that are to be, or are not to be denied admittance. Yet I thought not meet that they should go alone, but to send out upon this occasion into public view, a just Tractate of Sacraments, which occasionally is grown into a bigger bulk than I ever intended. That which appears clear to my sight, I doubt not but will seem otherwise in the eyes of some others. And therefore I put it upon my account to meet, not only with dislike (as every one does that deals in works of this nature) but also with opposition. I hear indeed that as of old it hath been said, that unregenerate men have no true right in the sight of God, to any of his creatures; and that all such possessors are usurpers; so, also it is now maintained that all such, notwithstanding their visible Church-interest, are without all right to any Church-priviledges. Though they make use of them, as unregenerate men do of the creatures, and by command from God must make use of them, so that their neglect of them is justly charged as their sin, yet they are still without any true right to them, or title in them. This I confess with me is a strange assertion. I should think that those immunities which Jesus Christ (to whom all power is given in heaven, and in earth) of his good pleasure, doth vouchsafe to men of mere visible Church-interest, in order to bring them to an invisible right and title, and which unregenerate men enjoy, in order to work them to a Regenerate state, are their true ana proper right; as the immunities which the highest power grants to civil incorporations; in order to bring them to a further honour and lustre, are their just inheritance. When Moses commanded the congregation of Jacob a law, this is called their inheritance Deut. 33.4. By virtue of the grand charter from God himself, who herein differenced them from all other nations. It is true, that the gross abuse of civil immunities granted to incorporate bodies, may justly move the highest power to disfranchize them: but whilst the grant remains, the privilege is theirs: and the like abuses of Church-priviledges, may justly move Christ Jesus, and hath moved him, to dischurch a people, and take his Kingdom from among them, removing his Candlestick from them; but whilst his Kingdom remains, and their light by his long suffering-holds, their right continues. The Regenerate make a more blessed use, but the unregenerate have an equal right. There was no difference in the right of Apostleship between Peter and Judas, how great soever the difference was in their respective improvement of it. The barren tree whilst it hath a place in the Vineyard, is within the verge of the servants care, and hath right to be digged, and dunged, as well as the fruitful. To draw towards an end, and not to hold thee longer from the work itself; as to the whole that thou shalt find here delivered, the great thing that I crave at thy hands is, that those two great enemies to a right apprehension of truth, Prejudice and Respect of Persons may be laid aside, that so my reasons may gain, (which otherwise they will be denied) an indiffent hearing: and that nothing may be charged as mine (upon any supppsed want of distinct explication) which I do not clearly own, and which men may have reason to believe that I shall disclaim. For prevention of which, so far as may be in me, I have given in a list of Erratas, which I pray thee to correct before, or as thou readest, if it be not already done to thy hand, as in most Copies, I hope, care will be taken of those that are more foul: many of which do not only destroy the sense, which were more tolerable: but lead to a contrary sense. Other smaller faults, merely literal or mispointings, or such mistakes; in a word, where that which was intended is clearly obvious, I hope I need not entreat thy candour. As for any that shall please to appear against me (as in almost every part of the work I know, that I have some of one interest or other that are adversaries) I only desire that they deal with me, as I have made it my business to deal with others. Personal invectives, Sarcasmes and Jeers, though upon the fairest supposed advantage, falsifications, wrest of sentences, industrious concealment of the strength of arguments may possibly cloud an adversary, but shall never advance the glory of truth; which stands not in need either of men's passion, or fraudulency, which will be found no better than his folly. And what name soever may be gained, where truth gains nothing, let those enjoy that look after it: I desire not to be any share in it. So far as I yet see (and I think I see much reason for it) I intent here to set down my staff, and to travel no further in this troublesome way, resolving not to change my purpose unless I shall either be convinced by truth, and so shall manifest the change of my mind; or else see the truth in danger to suffer, which I do not yet see in any thing, which is published against me, and not answered by me. And in such case I shall endeavour to take that way that truth may be best cleared, and the Reader least troubled, which will be, as much as is possible, to examine adversaries arguments, and decline personal concernments. The Lord grant, that all that is here spoke for truth, may be successful for thy Spiritual good! And if any thing, through mistake, be let fall against it, that it may speedily be discovered, that nothing here may be thy Spiritual detriment.  
Thomas Blake.   

Errata.  
The Title of Chap. 5. Sect. 3. is by mistake put on the head of the leaf to the following Section; and the title of Chap. 7. Section 16. is by like mistake put to the two following Sections likewise.  
Page 300. It is said by inadvertancy that Circumcision was taken up again in the Wilderness, Josh. 5.2. when indeed it was when they had passed Jordan and were in Canaan, I desire that the Reader may look upon this as expunged.  
Words to be blotted out. Page 94. line 14 deal to be, p. 313 l. 6. a fine, del. it, p. 385. l. 13. a fine, deal done, p. 443. l. penult. deal and. p. 461 l. 10 deal There follows. p 613 l. 5 deal know. p. 617 l. 18 deal the.  
Words to be added. Page 37. line 4. add, is not mentioned, p. 121 l. 9 are obliged. p. 164 l. 10 the minor Proposition in a syllogism is left out, and must be thus supplied [Butler men short of faith which justifieth are Christians] p. 167 l. 11. to be, p. 240 l. 30 speaks so. p. 242 l 2 are apt. p. 305 l. 26 Let us so do it as. p. 314 l. 15 These may, p. 345 l. 11 a fine any thing. p. 376 l. 9 a fine where no bar is put. p. 465 l 7. they little thought that, p. 481 l. ult. or Justification. P. 485 l. 20 and thus argue. p. 540 l. 9 he, p. 574 l. 8 a fine speaks of. p. 634 l 12 have not.  
Words to be changed. Page 16 line 24 r. last. p. 26 l. 13, 14 r. 6. p. 40 l. 15. r. Noah. p. 29. l. 24 r. of. p. 35 l. ult. uncircumcision. p. 37 l. 6 a fine Divinity. p. 41 l. 14 avoidable, irresistibly, l. ult. wonders. p. 56 l. penult. nor, p. 69 l. 33 though he. p. 105 l. 4 a fine which as. p. 136 l. 6 a fine lost. p 142 l. 3 mere. p. 175 l. 12 accept. p, 184 l. 16 Few. p. 193 l. 13, to p. 195 l. 8 a fine taking oft. p. 196 l. 6 load. p. 229 l. 7 a fine bereft p. 236 l. 18 years. p. 238 l. 11 jest. p. 240 l. 26 commonly. p. 244 l. 14 were, p. 247. l. 3 a fine strangely, p. 284 l. 14 that all, p 280 l 16 or produce a, p. 307 l. 10 persistest, p 341 l. 12 a fine the soul, p. 357 l. 19 led, p. 359 l 8 read ver. 15, p. 360 l. 6 Those, p. 396 l. 6 a regenerate, p. 400 l. 10 a fine deviations, p. 416 l. 3 flowing, p 429 l. 10 a fine the, p. 430 l. 15 a fine Pharisees, p 445 l. 12 a fine speak, p. 448 l. 19 is most, p. 449 l. 18 says, p. 445 l. 21 Ilart, p. 463 l. 7 or, p. 468 l. 6 a fine dealing, p. 472 l. 8 justification, p. 525 l 3, 4. In order to our enquiry into it, this, l. 17 never, l. 23 scope, p. 550 l. 15 You, p. 567 l. 22 His blood, p. 570 l. 12 member, l. 22 before me, p. 573 l. 22 Tom, page 576 marg. directly, page 579 l. 6 ascribes, p. 584 up to Ibid. nor, p 588 l. 7 older, p. 589 l. 4 less, l. 5 more, p. 590 l. 19 which, page 606 line 10 a fine Travellers, page 611 l. 11 takes off the force of the Law condemning, p. 614 l. 4 a fine Then, p. 648 l. 20 wait.   

THE Covenant sealed. OR, A TREATISE of the Sacraments of both COVENANTS, Polemical, and Practical.  

CHAP. I. Of the word Sacrament.  
THe mutual relation between the Covenant of God entered with man, and the Sacraments by him instituted and appointed, is generally acknowledged. Sacraments are in that way bottomed on the institution, that both Sacrament and institution have respect to the Covenant; Though some to keep back such from all interest in any Sacrament, that they know not how to deny to be in Covenant, have made it their business (had it been feasable) to have made a divorce between them: Having therefore by God's assistance, published a Treatise of the Covenant, I would willingly add somewhat (the subject being of so near affinity) of the nature and use of the Sacraments, of which I know much is already said, by men of all parties and interests. Though few have written industriously of the Covenant, (and several books that carry that title have very little of the thing) yet they are almost above number that have treated of the Sacraments. He that would have a List of names may consult Chamierde Sacramentis, pointing the authors out, as they have dealt in the several heads of this Controversy; as also Vorstius, Enchirid. Controversiarum: and to complete the Catalogue (especially in the addition of English Writers) Dr. Wilkins his Ecclesiastes: yet notwithstanding this plenty, (in which abundance of more light by God's mercy hath been brought forth) I suppose I may say, That much is left to be further spoken, especially in the particulars in our times most in agitation, where I think there is least need, I shall be more brief; and if in any thing I shall have hopes to add any strength to the truth, or light where it is not so clear, I would be more large. And before I come to speak of the thing itself, it may be expected that I should premise somewhat of the name by which these Ordinances are ordinarily known. 
The word Sacrament vindicated.  In which Papists (saith Chamier) have disputed much, Catholics little, giving the reason, Because the mysteries of Divinity are not contained in words. Some have manifested their dislike of the word, seeing it is not a name given of God, nor to be found in Scripture with application to these Ordinances. Bellarmine will have it to be the same with Mystery, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek (saith he) is to be translated Sacramentum in Latin, but confesses, That though the word Mystery be frequent in Scripture, yet it is only once used in Scripture in reference to any of the Sacraments, and that is, Ephes. 5.32. in reference to Matrimony. But neither is Matrimony a Sacrament, (as hereafter may be shown) nor yet hath the word Mystery in that place reference to it, (in which according to Durand there is no Mystery) but to the Conjunction of Christ with his Church. And upon this account that Scripture useth it not in this sense, (as is confessed by Protestants) some lay aside all use of it, as we find in the practice of our Dissenting brethren. As they differ from us in the subject of the Sacraments, so they differ from us in the name. One with them is dipping, the other is breaking of bread, but neither of them with them is a Sacrament, to both of which terms, I have spoken somewhat. Bellarmine lib. 1. De Sacrament. Cap. 7. lays the dislike of this name, to the charge of many of our Divines, as Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Calvin; But falsely, saith Whitaker Praelect. De Sacramentis, pag. 4. And Chamier dealing with him about it, entitles the first Chapter of his first Book de Sacramentis in genere, 
a De Sacramenti nomine Calumnia.  The Calumny about the name of Sacrament, in which he acquits these Authors, and with Whitaker admits the use of the word, as it is commonly received. So also Vossius, Thes. 13.14. De Sacrament. Efficacia; and Vorstius speaking in the name of Protestants in general, in the entrance of this Controversy, taking notice of Bellarmine's defence of the use of the word, saith; 
b Nostri hic facile assentiuntur, licet id quod de Graecae vocis aequipollentia dicitur non omnino admittant: uti nec ca omnia, quae de etymologia Hebraea & Latina dicuntur.  Here our Divines willingly assent, only he saith they make some animadversions on some passages of his making Mystery and Sacrament to be equipollent, as also his Etymology of the Hebrew word Razi, and the Chaldee word Raza. 
c Fallit ergo & fallitur Bellarminus, cum Luthero, Zuinglio litem movet, quasi absoluté à vocibus illis abhorruissent.  Bellarmine is deceived, and doth deceive (say the Leyden Professors, Disput. 43.) when he contends with Luther, Zuinglius, as though they had absolutely condemned those words. And their unanimous practice speaks their opinion; In Treatises, Catechisms, Sermons, constantly making use of the word, without the least scruple about it. Religion not consisting in words, but things; when there is consent in the thing, there is not contention to be raised about the word. In case we had a word in Scripture from the Pen of the Holy Ghost fitted to the thing itself, and comprising these ordinances, in that generality as the word Sacrament doth, in the common use of it, I should then quit this name, and take to that. But seeing there is no such word, And Tertullian the most ancient of all the Latin Fathers, (whose works are extant) using it, as Vossius observes, Thes. 6. De Sacrament. and since his time in the successive ages of the Church it is continued, and now generally received; it were too much affectation of singularity to recede from it; yet I would put this caution upon the use of it; That it must serve only to denote the thing, that we treat about, and that no argument from the word, be drawn to hold out the nature of these Mysteries. 
The reason of the word enquired after.   
But those that upon this, and the like grounds, do freely admit the use of the word, cannot so easily agree of the reason of it; how it comes to pass, that these Ordinances came to have this term, or name put upon them; why Baptism and the Lords Supper should be called by the name of Sacraments. There are only three opinions, that I meet withal, that are worthy to be taken notice of; and these drawn from three several acceptations of the word Sacrament, in profane Authors.  
First, The depositing of money by men striving for Masteries, in Consecrated places, (upon those terms, that he that conquered should take away his part; and he that was conquered should leave his with the Priest) according to Varro was called a Sacrament. They collected therefore, that the Sacrament signifies our depositing of ourselves (as I may say) with God, or our yielding up of ourselves to him. As they that strive for mastery, did leave for a pledge a sum of money, so we leave ourselves as a pledge with God. But this use of the word Sacrament, I suppose is more obscure; and the analogy not so clear, and therefore Divines in ancient times, would scarce borrow this word from thence, so few understanding the allusion, or the application of it.  
Secondly, The oath which anciently Soldiers took, when they listed themselves to the Emperor; for faith and obedience, was called by the name of Sacrament. Therefore others judge it very probable, that these Ordinances are called Sacraments; in that in them every Christian Soldier doth tie himself to his Captain Christ Jesus. This is far more probable, for three Reasons. 1. The use of the word in this sense, was more common and received, and therefore more apt to give occasion to the like use of it in these Sacred Ordinances. 2. The application is more clear, seeing our Sacraments (as God willing shall be shown) are engagements. 3. Heathen Writers make such allusion; 
d Deo oportebat & nos jurare & milites Caesar.  It behoves us (saith one of them) to swear to God, and Soldiers to Caesar. And the Fathers used the word Sacrament with this allusion, as Vossius out of Tertullian quotes two passages, 
e Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi jam tunc, cum in Sacramenti verba respondimus.  We are at that instant called to the warfare of the true God, when we answer in the words of the Sacrament; and elsewhere, 
f Ut Sacramento benedictionis exauctoretur, nunquam in castra Ecclesiae reversu●us.  That he may be disbanded and shut out from the blessings of the Sacraments, never more to return into the tents of the Church. To which may be added a third quoted by Bellarmine; The Devil imitates the very things of Divine Sacraments, in idol-Mysteries, he washes some, and signs other of his Soldiers in their foreheads. And Austin in his Preface to the 181 Sermon De tempore saith, 
g Notum est dilectissimi quod beneficia temporalia a temporalibus Dominis accepturi, prius Sacramentis militaribus obligantur & Dominis suis fidem se servaturos profitentur. Quanto magis ergo aeterno Regi militaturi & aeterna praemia percepturi debent Sacramentis coelestibus oligari & fidem per quam ei placituri sunt publicè profiteri.  It is known, Beloved, that the Soldiers being to receive temporal rewards from their temporal Masters, do first tie themselves with military Sacraments, and profess faithful service to their Lords. How much more should those that war under an Eternal King, and are to receive rewards from him, bind themselves with heavenly Sacraments, and publicly profess that faith whereby they may please him. In this Rivet rests satisfied, as appears in his Cathol. Orthodox. Tract. 3. Quaest. 2. 
h Vox Latina Sacramentum deducta est à verbo Sacrare, & à Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Latinis à militia desumpta fuit, in qua juramentum quo milites duci obstringebantur, vocabatur Sacramentum. Refert Claris. Ed. Leigh. Crit. Sac. pag. 270.  The Latin word Sacrament (saith he) is borrowed from the verb Sacrare, and by Ecclesiastical Latin Writers, is taken from proceed in war, in which the Oath wherewith Soldiers were tied to their Captain, was called a Sacrament.  
Thirdly, There being so great affinity between Mystery among the Greeks, and Sacrament among the Latins, Mystery signifying that which is secret of any kind whether sacred or profane, of which there are many instances given; and Sacrament signifying that which is made sacred, or consecrate, words seldom long holding their signification; Mystery began to be taken more strictly for holy secrets; and so Sacraments for Sacred secrets; afterwards the word Mystery and with it Sacrament began to be used for sacred things held forth in outward signs. The vision of the seven Candlesticks setting out seven Churches, are called Mysteries, Revel. 1.20. The conjunction in marriage of man and wife, setting forth the union between Christ and his Church, is called a Mystery, Ephes. 5.32. And when Divines found no word in Scripture, to set out these Ordinances of the Old and New Testament, Circumcision, Passeover, Baptism, the Lords Supper, they gave them the name of Sacraments, further restraining their signification to holy secrets, held forth in outward signs, and sealing spiritual grace to us. This Vossius takes to be most satisfactory. Though I profess myself scarce satisfied with the reason that he gives, Thes. 16. and comparing it with what he hath said in his 6th. Thesis', it may seem to speak as much in favour of the second opinion, which he rejects, as this third which he follows. The reason that he assigns as taking with him is, 
i Latino's in variis Sacramenti notionibus, secutos esse Graecos, qui & ipsi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunc rem arcanam appellant; nunc rem arcanam sacram; nunc rem arcanam symbolicam; nunc denique rem arcanam sacram symbolicam, gratiae spiritualis significativam.  That the Latin Fathers in the use of the word Sacrament, had much respect to the use of the Greek word Mystery. And so in several places by him produced they had respect unto the military use of it in like manner. Here it is not for me to interpose, I suppose none is able to speak any more than conjecture, In which I leave the Reader to use his own liberty, assenting to Vossius, that those are weak arguments that are drawn from the use of the word, either in the first or second acceptation; and concluding that they are as weak, that are drawn from the use of it according to the third opinion; There must be a better bottom for an argument, than the bare denotation of the word, especially when it is of humane, not of Divine imposition. And the use of the word being thus taken up by man, the acceptation or use of it upon that account hath been very various, and ambiguous, insomuch that when Writers speak of Sacraments, the Reader is often at a stand what they mean by them. 
The various acceptation of the word.  Sometimes every thing that is secret is called by the name of Sacrament; therefore the vulgar Latin (which appears to be more ancient than their number of seven Sacraments) doth not only render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacramentum, in Eph. 5.32. (upon which they take advantage to bring in marriage into the number) but frequently elsewhere, when nothing towards a Sacrament by their own confession is intended. Having made known to us the Sacrament of his will, Eph. 1.9. By revelation he made known to me the Sacrament, Eph. 3.3. To make all men see what is the fellowship of the Sacrament, Eph. 3.9. To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this Sacrament, among the Gentiles, Col. 1.27 Great is the Sacrament of godliness, 1 Tim. 3.16. The Sacrament of the seven stars, Rev. 1.20. I will tell thee the Sacrament of the woman, and the beast that carries her, Rev. 17.7. And Tertullian speaking of Christianity, calls it, 
k Religionis Christianae Sacramentum.  The Sacrament of Christian Religion: and Jerom saith, 
l Sacramenta. Dei sunt praedicare, benedicere, confirmare, communionem reddere, visitare infirmos, orare. Refert Gerardus de Sacram. cap. 1.  The Sacraments of God are to preach, to bless, to strengthen, and establish, to hold communion, to visit the sick, and pray. Allegorical interpretations of Scripture also are called by the Ancients, by the name of Sacraments. Sometimes every outward sign of any thing that is holy is called by the name of Sacrament. And as they began to borrow rites from the Jews in Baptism, they called them by the name of Sacraments. Their Ointments and Chrismes (yea the Cross itself, which the Church of Rome makes no more than a ceremony in Sacraments) are called by the name of Sacraments. But these acceptations of the word are grown obsolete, and are so far from holding out the nature of those Ordinances, which now pass under the name of Sacraments, that men cannot be brought to any mistake in reading of them. The word Sacrament is ordinarily now taken in that sense as Austin doth define it. An outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, that is a sign instituted of God to hold out and seal saving grace to the soul, as afterward (God willing) may be more largely held forth. Now in every Ordinance of this nature, there is, first, an outward sign open to the senses; secondly, there is a spiritual grace; thirdly, an order established and declared between the sign and the thing signified, and some of these still give the denomination. Sometimes the outward sign is taken for the Sacrament, and therefore the distinction is ordinary between Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti. And it can be no more than a bare sign, when the thing signified is apart considered and put in opposition to it. Sometimes the outward sign and the thing signified, considered jointly, are called by the name of a Sacrament, and this Gerard says is the most proper and most usual acceptation. Sometimes the order or analogy that is betwixt the sign and the thing signified, is called by the name of Sacrament; and therefore Keckerman defines a Sacrament to be 
m Sacramentum est ordo sanctus inter rem externam in sensus incurrentem, et visus imprimis objectum tanquam ●●gnum, et inter rem spiritualem, tanquam signatum, à Christo Mediatore institutus ad obsignandam fidelibus redemptionis certitudinem et simul beneficia quae ex redemptione fluunt, tum significanda tum confirmanda.  an holy order between the outward element obvious to the sense, especially to the sight and the spiritual grace as the thing signified, instituted of Christ the Mediator to seal to Believers the assurance of redemption, and with it all benefits that flow from redemption. So that he makes neither the outward sign, nor yet the thing signified apart considered to be the Sacrament in that definition, nor yet the outward sign and thing signified jointly considered, but the order or analogy that is held between them. Lastly, the word Sacrament is taken for the outward sign, with relation had to the thing signified, leading to it, and by way of seal confirming it, and in this sense it is taken by Divines when they treat exactly about it. And in that sense the Apostle takes circumcision, when he defines it to be A sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11. The use and office of the cutting off the foreskin of the flesh, as by way of sign and seal it stands in relation to the righteousness of faith is there held forth. This therefore we may well judge to be the most proper acceptation of it. Keckerman therefore as soon as he had defined a Sacrament, as before, presently tells us, that 
n Sacramenti vox per se concreta est, et significat rem sive subjectum, cum modo rei, id est, cum rel tione rei additâ: interim tamen potest etiam usurpari pro Ipso abstracto, id est, pro relatione ut nos quidem in definitione usurpavimus.  the word of itself is a concrete, and signifies the thing or subject with the manner of it, that is, saith he, with the relation added to it: yet it may be taken for the abstract, that is, for the relation as (saith he) we have put into the definition. But seeing the word of itself, by our Author's confession, is no abstract, but a concrete, and the Apostle in his definition doth so consider it, we have just reason in that sense to speak to it; and so in this whole Treatise I shall take it. And before I proceed in any further Enquiry, the Reader may justly expect such a definition as may serve as a thread through the whole Discourse. But my intention being to inquire something into the nature of Sacraments in man's integrity, (that so the Work may answer the Title) A Treatise of the Sacraments, but mainly to insist on those that are appointed by God for his people in the Covenant of Grace, I am necessitated to put off the enquiry after such a definition that may give satisfaction, till I come to that which I intent as my principal Subject. Yet that by the way he may not be wholly left unsatisfied, I shall here offer such a definition that may comprehend all Sacraments as well in the Covenant of Works, as in the Covenant of Grace; entreating him to forbear any strict enquiry into the reasons of it, until he come into the full Body of the Discourse, where by the definition, which (God willing) shall be given of Sacraments in the Covenant of Grace, and from Scripture at large confirmed, he may easily judge of the definition of Sacraments in general, and thus I suppose it may be held out. A Sacrament is a sign instituted of God for the use of his people in Covenant, to signify and seal his Promises upon Terms and Propositions by himself prescribed and appointed.   

CHAP. II.  

Sect. I. Of Sacraments in man's state of integrity.  
I shall leave the word which is of least moment, being not of divine original, and come to inquire after the thing which must be distinguished before it can be defined either in the general what a Sacrament is, or what this or that Sacrament, viz. Baptism or the Supper of the Lord is in particular. Now Sacraments (being instituted of God for the use of men) in tendency towards their happiness must be considered according to the several states of man, and dispensations in which God hath manifested himself to him. 
Distribution of Sacraments.  And man may be considered either in his state of integrity, or in his fall, either before sin, or under it. For the state of integrity enquiry is made, whether man enjoyed any Sacrament at all, or were in capacity of any? In which we have Thomas Aquinas his conclusion, Part 3. Quest. 16. art. 2. in the negative, 
a 
In statu innocentiae homo non indigebat Sacramentis, nec pro remedio peccati nec pro perfectione animae.  
The tr●e of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil w●re Sacraments.   That man in innocency needed no Sacrament, neither for any remedy of sin, or perfection of his soul. His followers (it seems) not satisfied, with his determination, unless they themselves may have the interpretation of it (yet not daring to adventure on a contradiction of their master) are at odds among themselves about his meaning, enquiring what he means by necessity, and what by innocency: whether he means Adam's own state, in which he actually stood, or that which he should have attained if he had stood in his integrity? A labour worthy of their pains, had they before hand had assurance that an unerring oracle had uttered it: But others have concluded, that the tree of life in Paradise was no other than a Sacrament to our first parents, and it is marvel that Aquinas who denies it, hit not on that of Austin, to have made up at least a fourth objection, that 
b Erat homini in lignis aliis alimentum, in hos Sac amentum.  In other trees there was nourishment, but in this a Sacrament. For the clearing of this point I shall lay down several propositions.  
First, 
Positions tending to the illustration and confirmation f●t.  That all Sacraments whether in the state of integrity or under sin, must answer to the Covenant which they are appointed for to ratify and confirm. Now the Covenant of God entered with man in his state of integrity, was for his preservation, not for his reparation, as I have showed in a Treatise of the Covenant, Chap. 3. pag. 10. and so must this tree of life in case it have the nature of a Sacrament be a Sacrament of preservation, not restitution. And so Thomas Aquinas his foundation, on which he builds, that man in integrity needed no Sacrament, because the whole need not the Physician, but those that are sick, Matth. 9.12. is answered. There being a Covenant for man's preservation as well as his restauration, there may be a suitable Sacrament for preservation also, and so there is a plain fallacy in his argument, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, because our Sacraments in the state of sin are for recovery from the disease of sin, he will have it to be so in all Sacraments even before our fall into sin. Chamier returning answer to this argument, distinguishes of persons subject to sickness; 
c Resp. aegrotos, alios actutales dici, qua les omnes homines post pecatum, al●os potentia, in quorum natura principium est morbi propinquum vel remotum.  Some are actually sick so are all men (saith he) in the state of sin; some are in possibility or danger of sickness, having a principle in them capable of it, either more immediate or remote; so it was with man in integrity, he needed Physic for prevention, not for cure; to keep him in the state in which he stood that he might not fall: not to recover him out of evil being fallen.  
Secondly, The Covenant of works passing between God and man in an immediate way without any reference had to Christ, (as hath been largely shown, and objections answered, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 13. etc.) the Sacraments annexed must needs be without reference to Christ likewise: I know many learned men suppose that Christ was a Mediator between God and the Angels, and between God and man in his integrity: and these will have the tree of life, Gen. 2.9. to be a symbol of Christ, as the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, which indeed necessarily follows upon that supposition: but that falling all the supposed relation of sign and thing signified between the tree of life and Christ falls with it. That opinion of theirs referring the tree of life to Christ they suppose hath strength from that speech of Christ to the Church of Ephesus; To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God, Revel. 2.7. which all Interpreters refer to Christ, seeing there is no life but in Christ, 1 Joh. 5.12. He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life. As also from Revel. 22.2. speaking of the new Jerusalem, it is said, In the midst of the street of it and of either side of the river was the tree of life, etc. which can be no other but that Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings, Mal. 4.2. But neither of these places serve their purpose, nor is the argument drawn from thence at all cogent. The tree of life in the literal Paradise was a symbol of immortality, and everlasting bliss, which man persisting in obedience should have enjoyed, whether on earth or in heaven, still remained in God's choice to determine; In the state of sin this could not be without Christ, and every symbol of it, therefore in this state leads to Christ. But it follows not that it was so in man's state of integrity. He should then have enjoyed it, by ah immediate gift from God, & not through Christ, whose whole work was not to keep man in statu quo, as before sin, but to recover from sin into which he was fallen. In those places of the Revelation there is (after the manner of the visions of that book) an allusion borrowed from that tree in Paradise, which as Ravanellus observes was a type of immortality. This tree assured man of it in Paradise on terms of bedience. In the state of sin the same is to be had through Christ on Gospel terms and conditions. In case any will assign the work of man's support in any transcendent way to the second person in the Trinity, who is said to uphold all things by the word of his power, without any reference to his wotk of mediation, as to be incarnate: as I dare not assert it, so I will not contend about it. But in this I am confident the substance of our Sacraments is Christ incarnate, and all the benefits of them is through and by christ, but so it was not in the Sacraments in Paradise.  
Thirdly, The life promised in the Covenant of works to man in case of obedience, was not barely a prorogation of his being or preservation from dissolution to an immortality in nature. This he might have enjoyed and have continued for ever perfectly wretched, and so the performance of the promise should have been a curse, and no blessing. As it was said by our Saviour of Judas upon his great sin of betraying Christ, It had been good for that man that he had never been born, Matth. 26.24. So it might have been said of Adam, though he had never sinned it had been good for him that he had never been created, and therefore those that see no more towards bliss, in this promise of life then a perpetuation in being, according to the vulgar acceptation of it, understand that speech of God concerning our first Parents, Gen. 3.22. And now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever, to be a speech of mercy to keep man from an immortality of misery: and according to that opinion the curse threatened for transgression had been suffered, and the blessing affixed to obedience at once enjoyed, which is the greatest of paradoxes; life then (as elsewhere I have showed) in the promise comprises true blessedness, a fruition of all that serves to make happy, and a freedom from all that tends to misery, so that man lived no longer than he stood and sinned not; death in its measure immediately seized, though the full execution in the highest degree to some is delayed, to others the whole reversd.  
Fourthly, The names given to these respective trees must not be accounted vain (as it fares many times with names given by men) seeing the Spirit of God hath affixed these names to them. But something must be found in the trees, or from God by the trees, answering the names that they carry: When God gave Abram the name of Abraham, which signifies a father of multitudes, Gen. 17.5. the event we find answered, how improbable soever (when the name was given him) it appeared; Therefore (saith the Apostle) sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the seashore innumerable, Heb. 11.12. Solomon was called Jedidiah, 2 Sam. 12.25. which signifies beloved of the Lord, and was not barely so named, but indeed beloved, Nehem. 13.26. Among many Nations there was no King like him who was beloved of his God. The name of that wonderful birth, Esay 7.14. was Immanuel, which the Spirit of God hath interpreted, God with us, Matth. 1.23. he was so named, and this he did effect, 2 Cor. 5.29. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. Our first Parents therefore were to expect some way both life and knowledge from these trees: They had their names in reality, and not by way of fiction, or fancy given to them.  
Fifthly, This tree of life with that other of the knowledge of good and evil had not any natural power or innate efficacious vigour, to answer their names in giving life by the taste, or eating of them, as Satan bore the woman in hand concerning the one of them. This I know hath been the opinion of some, which false supposition hath occasioned an hot and curious dispute, whether this tree should have given man life totally and wholly to a full immortality? or whether it should have preserved his life to some definite time of some thousands of years? But the contrary is plain both by reason and experience, and so the ground of this dispute is taken away.  
This appears, first by reason. 
d Arbores enim infra homines sunt, imo infra an malia, quia ne sensus quidem capaces fuere ergo propter aliud & ex institutione, adeoque Sacrameenta.  Trees (as Chamier well observes) are below men, yea, below other creatures that were made for the use of man, being capable of a vegetative life, only for growth, but not of sense, and so could not confer on man by any power from themselves either life or knowledge. Some that stickle for this opinion see the force of this reason, and therefore yield that it is above them to produce any such effect directly. But indirectly they say there may be such an efficacy; Meats that are singularly suitable to nature have their work, in a direct way on the animal spirits for a life of nature, and indirectly upon the organs of the inward senses. A good constitution (which a wholesome diet works) serves to the preservation of health, and hath hereupon its work upon the faculties of the mind, and consequently preserves life, and increaseth and quickeneth knowledge. 
e Sed hac ratione omnes arbores horti potussent arbores scientiae boni & mali appellari. Par est enim credere, Deum qui ad e●um hominis in sta●u integritatis constituti arbores illas creaverat, eye etiam talem vim & succum ind●d●sse quo hominis innocentis corpus non gravaretur sed alacrius esset ad omnes suas functiones, & per consequens o●gana sensuum, etc.  But (as Rivet well observes) all the trees of the garden might in this sense have been called trees of life, and trees of knowledge of good and evil, as well as those two trees in the midst of the garden: All of them being for food, and to keep men in a due temperature both of body and mind.  
As the truth of this appears in reason, so also by experience, in that tree forbidden; when Eve listened to Satan and did eat of it (and her husband by her solicitation) knowledge was not gained but lost, which mankind sadly knows; For that speech of the Lord before mentioned, Gen. 3.22, 23, 24. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man, and placed at the East of the, garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life; which may seem to imply that in case man had been permitted to have put forth his hand, and eaten of the tree of life, he had lived for ever, in such an interpretation we should scarce conceive the tree to be any creature of God, but an omnipotent agent, standing in opposition against God, when God for sin had denounced against man the sentence of death, this tree against this sentence would give him life; 
f Quid audimus? an suam Adae incorruptionem à qua jam deciderat restituere peterit fructus ille?  What is it that we hear? (saith Caluln) can that fruit restore te Adam the integrity that he had lost? Me thinks the former part of the two and twentieth verse serves well to interpret the latter. Behold, man is become like one of us. Even as the tree of knowledge of good and evil made man like God, in a full omniscience, so the tree of life would have rendered him equally like in immortality. If we confess an Irony in the former, as is concluded by Interpreters, we must understand the like, or somewhat much like it, in the latter. Man will have like immortality in sin, as he had omniscience by sin. Therefore he puts, and keeps him out of Paradise, that now being deprived of the thing, he might not delude himself in the outward sign or Sacramental representation of it.  
Sixthly, It remains therefore that these trees were set apart of God from other trees of the garden for a Sacramental use, having no more power of themselves to confer life or knowledge then water in Baptism or bread and wine in the Lord's Supper to confer pardon of sin or spiritual life on the soul. 
g Arbour igitur vitae non ab in sita vivificandi facultate sed à Sacramentali signif●c●tione sic dicta est.  The tree of life was so called (saith Wollebius) not from any innate quickening faculty, but from a Sacramental signification. Paraeus indeed putting it to the question whether the tree of life be so called by reason of the effect that it had produced had man stood, or by way of signification? saith, these two opinions in his judgement may be joined, and says, 
h 
Sine dubio habitura erat haec arbor seu ut cibus seu ut medicina vim conservandi hominis sanitatem & vitam, ne corpora vergerent in senium, aut sentirent defec●um, donec in coelestem immortalitatem transirent.  
Deinde data fuit homini in vitae Sacramentum.   The tree might give life as food or as physic, and preserve from age till man should be translated into an heavenly immortality, and then proceeds to show how it is a Sacrament of life. But sure these opinions are altogether inconsistent, Sacraments are so signs that they are not physical causes of the thing that is signified. If they had any such effect in nature, than all mystery in the Sacrament ceased and there needed no word from God to clear it, every man would know that food hath a natural tendency to life, and physic to health, if there were no Scripture. If we were able to make it good that they were physical causes of life and knowledge, than we must disclaim their Sacramental use; but seeing that cannot appear, and the contrary is evident; This other must be asserted, It may easily be made out that the tree of life was a Sacramen. Man was to put forth his hand to eat of it, as the Jews did the Passeover, and we do the Lords Supper. 
i Voluit igitur hominem quoties fructum arboris illius gustaret in memoriam revorareunde vitam haberet: ut se agnosceret non propria virtute, sed Dei unius beneficio vivere; Neq●e esse intrinsecum bonum ut vulgo loquuntur sed à Deo provenire.  And as often as he eaten of it, or had his eye upon it (as Calvin well observes) he was to remember from whom he received life and bliss, and by whom he was preserved and upheld, that he had no principle of life and bliss in himself, but as he received it from God, so by his favour and free Grace it was continued: And to mind himself of his duty on what terms he stood with God, and upon what condition his life and bliss was continued: whilst he sinned not he must not die, as long as obedience lasted he must enjoy a life in happiness. Others add that it shadowed out Christ, by whom both he and the Angels stood in happiness: but I have already spoke my thoughts to that particular. But how to bring that other tree of the knowledge of good and evil so aptly to hold out the nature and use of a Sacrament, is not so easy: and I find many Interpreters asserting it, but not any that I can meet with demonstrating it. And it must be confessed that this Sacrament did herein differ from all other Sacraments. Those did consist in their use; This in man's abstinence from it. In this it is said thou, shalt not eat: In the Passeover and the Lords Supper the communitants must eat. But God hath it in his power to institute Sacraments according to pleasure, by way of prohibition, as well as by way of injunction. In other Sacraments in the due use, men attain to the good that is promised: In this by abstinence man should have avoided the evil threatened. In eating of the tree of life, while man persisted in obedience, he was assured of life, that was a seal and pledge of it. And while he abstained from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he had like assurance of freedom from death. This alone was a negative Sacrament, and it was proper to this Sacrament only, that not the fruition of good, but the avoidance of evil was the thing signified. The reason of the name is the enquiry of many why it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Some that would deny it to be any Sacrament, say that it had the name from the natural effect that it was apt to produce, being created to quicken or ripen man in the use of his reason, conceiving that our first Parents were created weak in knowledge, of an infant understanding: And to know good and evil (that is, choose the good, and refuse the evil) in the Hebrew phrase setting out the use of reason, as, Esay 7.16. Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good: They say this tree was to work them to this maturity in knowledge. How false this is of our first Parent's weakness in knowledge is clear by the names that man gave to all creatures upon sight, as he had dominion over them, so he understood the nature of them, as also in that speech that he uttered concerning Eve, when the Lord upon her creation brought her to him to give her in marriage. The Wise man says that God made man upright, Eccles. 7.29. And this uprightness comprizes man's whole conformity to God in all in which his image doth consist, which was as the Apostle tells us, in knowledge, as in righteousness and true holiness, Col. 3.10. To avoid suspicion of inclination to any such opinion, some when they speak of man's first estate, purposely avoid the word innocency, and choose to use the word integrity. And how unapt the fruit of a tree could possibly be in nature to produce any such effect, that which was spoken concerning the tree of life being applied hither may demonstrate. And whence this opinion came but from the Devil I cannot tell, who told our mother Eve, that God did know that in the day that they eat thereof their eyes should be opened, and they should be like unto gods, knowing both good and evil, Gen. 3.5. He was the first that vented it, and she was the first that believed it; when she saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eye, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; she did take and eat thereof, Gen. 3.6. The taste it seems was the taking quality; the other trees were good for food, and doubtless lovely to the eye, but this alone answerable to the name with the Devils comment upon it was a tree to be desired for this end, but she found the contrary; light was not only not increased, but put out, so that man now is a beast by his own knowledge; others therefore conclude that it had name, not from any such effect that in nature it was apt to produce, but by reason of the event that followed, and upon the taste of it must of necessity follow; now they experimentally know the good which they had by sin lost, and the evil which they had incurred. 
k Quemadmodum qui medicus est theoretice vim morbi & sanitatis bonum cognoscit, in morbum delapsus amissa sanitate nova quadam ratione, per experientiam bonum sanitatis, & malum morbi cognoscit.  As a Physician (faith Riding) that hath the theory of health, and sickness, understanding what health is to desire it, and what sickness is to shun it, yet falling into sickness he hath another manner of knowledge out of his own experience. Pererius the Jesuit dislikes this Interpretation; he that pleaseth may read his reason on these words, and Rivets vindication, Exer. 18. in Gen. He fixes upon a third, that this name was given to this tree, upon occasion of the speech of Satan, bearing Eve in hand, that in eating of it, she should gain the wisdom of God, to know both good and evil; And therefore it had the name of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But whosoever gave the name, whether God himself who placed the tree in the garden, or Adam who to his cost knew it, or Moses that wrote of it, it is not probable they would borrow a name from Satan's delusion; The former therefore which the Jesuit confessed to be an opinion most received, I judge to be most probable, and till I see more shall not recede from it.   

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

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

Covenant failing all Sacraments relating to it necessarily fall with 〈◊〉.  Thirdly, It yet further follows, That a Covenant falling to which Sacraments are annexed as signs, and seals, the Srcraments fall together with it. The Covenant of works being no longer of use to the attainment of Salvation; the Sacraments which under that Covenant were appointed, are taken out of the way, and no use of them remaint. I know that it is asserted by as learned hand, that Christ doth not absolutely make null or repeal the Covenant of works, but that it still continueth, to command, prohibit, promise, and threaten; yet confessing this assertion to be difficult, and disputable, to which I readily yield; and therefore in a business of no greater moment than this is, I had rather suspend, then either subscribe or oppose. He and I are wholly agreed, as to that for which it is here produced, seeing he saith, We must neither take that Covenant as a may to life; as though we must get Salvation by our fulfilling of its conditions; nor must we look upon its curse, as lying upon as remedilessely. This is as much as I assert, or rather imply in that which I say, that the Covenant of works is of no use to the attainment of Salvation: upon which the Sacraments of that Covenant, the see are laid aside with it: we hear no more of a tree of life, or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Rivet Exer. 40. on those words. Lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and live for ever, Observes a resemblance between that proceeding of God, and the Churches proceeding in keeping unworthy men from the Sacrament: The 
l Quemadmodum nunc ex Dei instituto à Sacramentis arcentur indigni ne sibi Symbola sumant ad judicium & condemnationem, ita hac prohibitione usus est Deus tanquam ex communicatione minori quam abstensionem vocant, ad hominem magis & magis humiliandum, ut se indignum agnosceret vita qui à vitae Symbolo arcebatur.  unworthy (saith he) are kept from the Sacrament, lest they should eat of those signs to their judgement: And so God made use of this prohibition as a lesser excommunication called suspension, for the further humiliation of man, that he might see himself to be unworthy of life, being kept from the outward symbol or Sacrament of it. But me thinks this is so far from resemblance of that kind of Excommunication which is called the lesser; that it is a sentence in terror fare above that which is highest, and greatest: And this it seems my Author saw, and therefore adds: 
m Praeterea tale Sacramentum, homini lapso, non erat amplius aptum: quia arbor vitae non data erat ut vitam restitueret mortuo sed ut viventem in statu vitae commodo conservaret. Ergo Adamo per peccatum mortuo mutanda fuerunt Sacramenta.  Furthermore, such a Sacrament was unmeet, or unsuitable to fallen man; because the tree of life was not given to restore a man dead to life, but to preserve life in a living man; therefore Adam being dead by sin, and his condition changed, the Sacraments were to be changed likewise. Two sorts of men than are here fitly to be parallelled with Adam, in this proceeding of God against him.  
1. Those that God casts out of Covenant, taking away their Candlestick, and his Kingdom, refusing to be their God, or to own them as his people; God denying them his Covenant, all must deny them the sign and seal of it.  
2. Those that cast themselves out of Covenant, and apostatise from the faith of Christ Jesus. Where there is no Covenant in which men may expect happiness, where there is no profession of such expectation, there is to be no Sacrament; there the seal is put to a blank, and these Sacred Mysteries are profaned: Therefore I cannot but marvel at those, that deny the Church of Rome all being of a Church; and affirm, that they are in no Covenant-relation to God; yet yield that they have Baptism in truth among them, explaining themselves, that it is as a true man's purse in the hand of a thief. But the purse, and the man stand not in that relation as Covenant and Sacrament; the Covenant being gone, the Sacrament hath no truth of being remaining.  

Satan's imitation of God in his precepts of worship to his followers.  Fourthly, Let us yet see, how forward Satan is to imitate God, in prescribing a way of worship to his servants; and how ready the world is to follow Satan in these things by him prescribed. God appointed a tree of life, as a sign and pledge of immortality; in the due use of which man might have lived for ever, and been preserved from the evils, and infirmities of age; and Satan among those in the world, that are his for worship, hath of old found out a fiction of certain meats, called by them Ambrosia, and certain drinks named Nectar, and Nepenthe; which the gods using to take, were preserved from age and death. It cannot be imagined, how they should reach such a fancy, but that the posterity of Noah, had scattered some Divine light of this tradition among them. Their gods, who were but men, and some of them the worst of men, bringing all wickedness to renown by their example, being supposed to have an immortal being, must have some way or means to come up to immortality. As they had their meats, and drinks, that made immortal; so also their fountains (found out by Cadmus; to whom they ascribe the first invention of letters) Aganippe, Hippocrene, Castalius near to Parnassus, at which their Muses drunk; which raised them in eloquence. These they have borrowed from these symbols of the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good, and evil; dreaming of a Physical operation, and not understanding any Sacramental efficacy: God also instructed his people in the use of sacrifices, which we know was with his people from the beginning; and I cannot believe with some Jesuits that this was of the dictates of nature: which (as they say) led them without any revelation, to the use of sacrifices: For in what sense soever we take sacrifices, Nature could never teach man to give it unto God. If we take it more largely, for a gift tendered, reason would tell, that the Divine Majesty stands in no need of it: And in case we understand it more strictly, and make the destruction of that which is offered essential to a sacrifice: how could this in reason enter into any man's thoughts; that when a man had sinned, a beast must die? And that of the Apostle, Heb. 11. doth fully contradict it, Abel offered by faith, and faith is not of nature, but above it. This than was a worship of God by institution, not commanded in the first, but second Commandment: and this Satan is ready to follow. As there was scarce a Nation, as the Orator observed, but worshipped a god: so there is scarce a Nation, that did not sacrifice to those gods: and the Apostle gives us to understand, what those gods were: The things that the Gentiles offer in sacrifice, they offer to Devils, and not to God, 1 Cor. 10. It is his worship, and he teacheth his the way of it. As in duties of worship, there is this imitation seen, so in wonders, and prodigies in like manner, there is an emulation: God had his miracles in Egypt, and Satan his We know the general Deluge in the sacred Histories; in which none were preserved from death, but Noah and his family, by an Ark prescribed of God: Heathens must have a fable in imitation, and tell us of drowning of the World, only Deucalion, and his wife Pyrrha, in an Ark preserved likewise. And as Noah's Ark rested on the Moutains of Ararat, upon the asswaging of the waters: so theirs rested on the Mountain of Parnassus. We have a narrative of Jonah cast into the Sea, and received by a Whale; and after three days, and three nights, cast safe upon the shore: Satan must set up his Arion, and make him famous in his Historians and Poets; A skilful Harper of Greece, having by excellency in music, gained a great sum of money in Italy, and Sicilia, returning to his own Country with his treasure; Mariners with whom he agreed for his Fare, greedy of his money, cast him into the Sea: a Dolphin delighted with his music, carries him safe, and landed him at Taenarus. See the relation and application, elegantly brought home to this purpose by Dr. Abbot, Lect. 15. on Jonah: making notable observations of Satan's policy. In case the Narrative carry any truth in it by his wonders, so far as his art, and power can reach. Satan then makes it his business, to disgrace God's miracles, and cast dishonour upon them by his imitation: though he falls fare short of the Original, as he there shows: and follows him as little Ascanius his Father, with very unequal steps. And in case we take it, for a mere fiction: (which is his judgement upon it) his art is no less observable to discredit, as fare as in him lies, the writings of Scriptures: When this miracle of Jonahs' shall be Preached and published in the world, Arion's fable shall be produced, that like faith may be yielded to either of both. See Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining, Pag. 131, 132. Where this thing in many particulars is enlarged. And the more high the ways of Religion are raised of God in a Spiritual way, the more easy it is for Satan, who is a spirit, to delude. The Spirit is the great Gospel-promise, to be poured out on all flesh; that is, on men of all sorts, Joel 2.28. God will be served in types and shadows no longer, but in Spirit, and truth, Joh. 4.23. When the Jews gloried of Circumcision, as that which did denominate them a people of God, and distinguished them from all other Nations: and urged the necessity of it to salvation: the Apostle tells us, that they are the Circumcision, that worship God in Spirit, Phil. 3.3. Satan now on the other hand, can take the hint, and heighten his way in a destructive manner to Gospel ways. All outward Ordinances shall now be decried as forms, and beggarly rudiments: and with Circumcision in the letter laid aside, though they be Ordinances of the Spirit itself; in which the Spirit expresses its power and efficacy. 1. The written Word, which was dictated by the Spirit, 2 Pet. 1.19. (is the sword of the Spirit, by which it exercises his power on the soul) must be laid aside as a dead letter, and over carnal. The Ministers of the Word, that great gift from the Father's right hand, Ephes. 4.11. set over the flocks by the holy Ghost, Act. 20.28. on this pretence are to be cast off with Moses and Aaron; taking too much upon them, when all the Congregation is holy: notwithstanding for a real confutation, when this Spirit was first given in glory, it came upon the heads of his Ministers, in form of tongues, fiery, cloven, Act. 2.3. To let all know (is that great appearance that was there) (that their tongues are sanctified of God, to Preach the Word in power and life to all Nations. And as the gifts of the Spirit increased; so the Ministers of the Spirit were multiplied; and that very title and name given Ministers of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3.6. And the mind of Jesus Christ made known, that these in a peculiar order, distinct from other men; are set apart to preach the Gospel, as the Priests under the Law in a peculiar order were to wait at the Altar, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Upon the same pretence, Sacraments must be laid aside; the Baptism of the Spirit is pleaded, for the overthrow of the Baptism of water: Though the Apostle that first spoke by the Spirit after it was given in glory, doth argue the clean contrary, Act. 10.47. Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? They that have the Spirit, will be raised in zeal for the honour, and establishment of every Ordinance of God by the Spirit: the more spiritual men are, the more care they will take to advance the Word, the Ministers of the Word, Sabbaths, Sacraments. Let us then observe his imitations his falsifications: He vents doctrine of his own, sets up ways of his own, that carry a resemblance of God's ways: And similitude, is mater erroris: we shall never heed them, as long as we know they are the Devils: but when he transforms himself into an Angel of light, and puts the stamp of God upon his own coin, we must not be ignorant of his sleights; but to have our senses exercised, to discern between good and evil.    

CHAP. III. Whether there were any Sacraments from the fall to the institution of Circumcision?  
THe next consideration of Sacraments, is in man's fallen condition under a Covenant, not of works, but grace; not for man's preservation in life, but his restitution to life. 
A further distribution of Sacraments.  And these are to be distinguished according to God's way of dispensation of us Covenant to his people; which is wont to be done into three periods. The first is from the fall till Abraham, or unto the time that God entered Covenant with him, and his seed: which Suarez, saith, according to the common account, doth end at the giving of the Law by Moses, when the old Law began: yet Circumcision (which was in use long before the Law) continuing the same under the Law; he determines the law of nature at that time, when Circucision began. The second from Abraham till Christ. The third, from the first coming of Christ in the flesh, till the second coming of his to judgement. The first juncture of time, hath usually been known by the time of the Law of nature. The second, the time of the Old. And the last, the time of the New Covenant. Why the first of these should bear the name of the Law of nature, I can read of none that have given satisfaction: The phrase should seem to imply, that then men had no more light, then that of nature, for their guide in the ways of God. But this is evidently false: God did not then begin by way of supernatural revelation, to speak to men in the world. Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae, Tom. 3. Disput. 4. Sect. 1. taking upon him to answer the question, hath much to amuse the Reader, nothing to satisfy him: he says, 
a Lex naturae, intelligitur dictamen rationis, non solum ex naturali, sed etiam ex supernaturali lumine ortum.  The law of nature, is the dictate of reason, arising not only out of natural, but supernatural light. And in ihat sense the Gospel is the Law of nature. Concerning this space of time; whatsoever is the period of it, much enquiry is made, whether there were any Sacraments at all instituted of God, and enjoyed by his people on earth? Concerning which, I shall deliver my thoughts in several propositions.  

God had his Church and people in that juncture of time.  First, That God had his Church and People, with a way of worship pleasing to, and accepted by himself in those times. This evidently appears out of the History: Abel, Henoch, Noah, Melchizedeck (who without all doubt lived in those times; and Job as it is commonly received) spoke so much, and the Apostles Comment, or observation of those times, Heb. 11. makes it more evident: Abel offered to God a more excellent gift than Cain, and obtained witness that he was righteous, Heb. 11.4. They both made Visible profession of the same God, and both sacrificed to God: and God put a difference between their gifts. An emblem of the Church in all succeeding ages, which is that great house, where are vessels of honour, and dishonour. By faith Henoch was translated, that he should not see death: and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God, Heb. 11.5. and as he affirms, that it was by faith that be was thus translated: so he proves it he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossiblc to please him, vers, 6. Noah became heir of the righteousness by faith, vers. 7. God had his worship then, as appears by abels, and Noah's sacrifice: and in Melchizedeks function, Gen. 14.18. Who was a Priest of the most high God, taken from among men, and ordained for men, in things appertaining to God, that he might both offer gifts and sacrifices, Heb. 5.1. The Woman had all that time her seed, and the Serpent his, who kept up their mutual enmity: as Cain, and Abel, Noah, and the men of the world, Lot, and the men of Sodom do give witness: God had a people of Covenant-holiness; those Sons of God that saw thc daughters of men that they were fair, and took of them wives of all which they chose, Gen. 6.1. He had a people truly holy: Lot had that Epithet of just, 2 Pet. 2.7. the name of a righteous man: Noah had that witness of God, that he saw him righteous, Gen. 7.1. and of Abel the Apostle saitb, that his works were righteous.  
Secondly, 
Scripture makes no mention of any Sacraments of Sacramental signs in that ●ime.  We read not of any Sacrament appointed of God for these times, nor of any Divine Ordinance or sign that comes up to the nature of a Sacrament. Those that may be instanced in, with most colour are, 1. That of sacrifice, both before, and after the flood; and that of the Rainbow immediately upon the flood. That of sacrifice comes more near up to the nature of a Sacrament, then that of the Bow; But how both come short of the nature of a Sacrament, in the sense generally received, and now to be spoken to, I shall God willing in a more fit place make known.  
Thirdly, 
Sacraments in substance of the same nature with the Covenant.  If there were any Sacraments in those days appointed of God, for his people in Covenant, they must be of the same nature, as to the substance of them, and thing signified by them, with those under the Law, and now in the days of the Gospel. There was one common salvation, ours and theirs; one and the same Saviour, theirs and ours; we and they were under the same promises; Their Sacraments then must seal these promises. Noah was an heir of righteousness of faith: These supposed Sacraments could then sign and seal no other thing then that righteousness.  
Fourthly, Though we do not rest upon that argument à non dici ad non esse; 
Scripture silence a most probable argument that in those times there was no Sacrament.  because we read of no Sacarments in those days, to conclude, that there was none then appointed or in use: yet we may conclude that it is an high presumption in any in this last age of the world to undertake to assert any Sacraments in those times. This were indeed contrary to that which the Apostle warns, to presume above that which was written, 1 Cor. 4.6. Where Scripture is silent, how dare we speak? Scripture silence affords an argument of far greater probability for the negative, that in those times there was no Sacrament in use, than all the imaginary conceits which men can invent or find. For the affirmative, that there were Sacraments then appointed: The old Rabbins had their traditions, concerning Gods transactions with his people in that age. Weemse in his Divine exercitations, Exer. 16. pag. 61. tells us, that the Hebrews say, that before the Law was written, God gave to Moses seven Precepts, which he delivered by tradition to his posterity after him. These they call the traditions of their fathers which he there reckons up; but not any one concerning Sacraments. It is then sure a vain labour for us at such a distance, to have any thoughts of finding them out. Many Jesuits bestir their wits, to conclude Sacraments in those times. To save labour of further search, for that which is of no greater necessity: the Reader may find much of what they have said, in Chamier, de Sacramentis in genere, lib. 1. cap. 8. which Chapter he entitles, De Sacramentis in lege naturae: Suavez will by all means conclude, that there was then some Sacrament for the remedy of Original sin, grounding himself on this which he puts into his margin, Pag. 40. Column 2. 
b Divinae providentiae est omni aetati providere.  That Divine providence is to take care of all ages; taking it for granted, that providence is defective: if a standing Sacrament in any age of the Church be wanting, and that there is no way in Divine providence to save an infant from Original sin, but the actual application of a Sacramental sign. Election cannot obtain it, nor Regeneration, nor Justification by the Spirit and blood of Christ effect it, without a Sacrament to make application of it. The Jesuit might know, (and if Divines on our part might be heard, they would make known,) that Sacraments are not the remedy against Original sin, but Christ, and the righteousness of faith in Christ, which is the thing signified, and sealed in the Sacrament: and the people of God enjoying means in those times to attain this righteousness, Heb. 11.7. they were not without a remedy: Himself ingenuously confesses there is nothing in Scripture, respective to those times, nor in tradition, of any such Sacramental remedy; nor do any of the Fathers (as he saith) mention it, before Austin. And Austin (as he also acknowledges) speaks of it doubtingly, & what he speaks by way of conjecture, is not consistent (as he observes) with his own doctrine elsewhere: In which the modesty of that Father is fare to be preferred before the Jesuits boldness in it; who concludes there was such a Sacramental remedy though not instituted of God, but left to the Parents liberty to make use of some one, according to their own will, when this assertion of his is as inconsistent with his own doctrine as Augustine's can be; & that upon a manifold account, as might be shown. 1. He scarce knows how to make it out, that Circumcision was any remedy at all against Original sin: seeing that Sacrament did not confer grace by the work done, but by the merit, or disposition of the doer; which is not found in infants. 2. He himself confesses, that many infants die in their mother's womb; and yet have no remedy provided, either in the law of nature, or the old Law, or Law of grace; that is, neither before the Law, under the Law, or in Gospel-times. 3. Water is not always at hand (as he not absurdly hints, though a Minister with them is scarce wanting, who set up Midwives for the work) and then the infant dies remediless: All this he thinks to help with a distinction. 
c Quanquam enim non de singulis in particulari provideret, ut eis efficaciter applicaretur romedium generaliter omnibus provisum: tamen quantum in ipso est omnibus providet.  Though (saith he) God hath not provided for each one in particular, that the remedy provided in general for all should be applied to them: yet he hath provided such a remedy as far as in him lies. But foreseeing, that there would be some impediment to hinder the application of this Sacramental remedy to some, this he permits. This is a speech beseeming a Jesuit, that God provided (quantum in se) a remedy, as though it had been above him to have avoided these impediments. If the Jesuits position must stand, that God is so tied up with these limits, that he cannot take away Original sin from infants, without application of somewhat that is sensible: He could have made such provision as he forbade Sampsons' mother, whilst with child the drinking of wine, or strong drink, or eating any unclean thing, and that respective to the infant; because he should be a Nazarite to God from the womb, to the day of his death, Judg. 13.7. so he could have enjoined the mother to have taken that, which might through grace annexed, have had that efficacy in the infant in the womb, to take away Original sin, as they conceive water hath on an infant newborn; yea, God is so far from doing, what in him lies, respective to many infants, for provision of a remedy of this nature, that he orders that such a supposed remedy, shall not be applied. He with much ado, makes Circumcision a remedy to deliver from Original sin, Pag. 51. Yet God took order in his Law, that it should not be administered before the eighth day, and in that interim, between the birth, and the eighth day, it must needs be, that many died: and so by the law of Heaven, they were debarred of a remedy through grace provided.  
But here he is opposed by divers of his own party, who hold that the faith of the Parent, is sufficient to take away Original sin from the infant: for which opinion he quotes Bonaventure, Dist. 1. Art. 2. Quest. 2. Rich. art. 1. 5. 9 1. & 2. And Chamier, lib. 1. cap. 8. de Sacramentis in genere, Sect. 6. quotes also Vasquez for the same opinion. These place merit in the Parent's faith to work to the justification of the infant; a merit not ex condiguo, but ex congruo: and for merit of this nature, a faith informed, void of Charity is sufficient say they: Here our Author takes two exceptions against his friends. 1. saith he, 
d Sed hi authores in hoc, & falsum supponunt, quia revera ad meritum de congruo non sufficit fides informis, & praesertim ad merendam alteri gratiam & sanctitatem, & praeterea non satis explicant vim, & radicem hujus remedii; quia ut esset infallibile, quod necessarium est, ut esset verum remedium, non satis erat meritum de congruo, quia non semper & infallibiliter effectum habet, sed necessaria erat divina promiscio, & hanc oportet ostendere.  They argue from a false ground, for faith informed will not serve for this kind of merits especially to merit grace for another. And secondly, they do not (as he saith) sufficiently set forth the force and efficacy of this remedy. To make it infallible (as it must be, if it be a true remedy) merit de congruo is not sufficient, seeing it hath not always infallibly its effects: But a Divine promise is necessary, and this promise (saith he) they ought to show that maintain it. So that one part gives too much to the application of a sensible sign to the infant, and the other over much to the merit of the Parent. Abuleusis on Matth. 25. Quest. 677. comes nearer to Bonaventure, Richard, Vasquez, then to Suarez; holding, that infants before Circumcision were delivered from Original sin, in that they were born of believers, not requiring (as Rivet observes, Exer. 88 in Genes.) any application of faith in the Parents to the infants in any Sacrament for that work, who might be dead before the Sacrament was administered to them. The same opinion is undertaken of late, in behalf of the infants of Christians, to prove the infallibility of their salvation, whether dying before or after Baptism. I have enough on my hands already, and am not willing to launch out into this controversy: I only say. 1. I find infants of believers, not only of the faith of the Elect, but of visible profession in Covenant; the Scripture is clear for a Covenant in this latitude. 2. That salvation, according to Scripture ways, is within the verge of the Covenant, and doth not go beyond it. The Scripture leaves men out of Covenant, in an hopeless condition. 3. As there is salvation for all sorts and degrees of persons of age in Covenant, but not to be extended to all of those sorts, and degrees, to reach every individual person; so in a parallel way we may think of infants; I know no text giving us universal assurance of their happiness; in case there were, I suppose there were much mare cause for believers, to beg of God their infant's death, then with David in prayer to seek their life: there being full assurance of their happiness dying, and so much fear of their condemnation, living to see the temptations to which in their growth they are subject. We find salvation entailed upon qualifications of grace, but not upon any age or period of life. 4. There is as much found in Scripture giving us hopes of the salvation of the infants of all in Covenant (as to their infant-state) as to the infants of those that are most exact in keeping of Covenant: As much is said for the honour of infants of Parents of a faith barely dogmatical, as of the infants of those that are actually in grace, and justified by faith; The infants of all such (yea, of the worst of such) are the servants of God, Levit. 25.42. they are born unto God, Ezek. 16.20. they are the children of God, Ezek. 16.21. they are holy, Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. Either then we must carry it out to all the infants of the visible Church, or else we cannot assure it to the infants of invisible members. And therefore the Schoolmen afore mentioned, justly ascribe as much to a faith informed, as to that which is form; respective to the good of the issue of such believers. 5. All that is spoken in Scripture of the blessedness of the seed of the righteous, may as fairly be extended to them through the whole course of their lives, as to the times of their infancy, promises being not put with any such restraint, as to have an end when their infancy is expired. The most ample of promises which we find, is in Esay 59.21. There it is promised, that the Spirit shall not departed out of the mouth of thy seed or thy seeds seed; but this rather belongs to them of years, then of an infant-condition. If it be said, that many infants of the righteous persevere not, but cast off the seed of grace received; I answer, the grace of perseverance is necessarily required to make blessed, and blessedness is promised; we know temporal blessings are made over by promise to the seed of such. His seed shall be mighty upon earth, wealth and riches shall be in his house, Psal. 112.2, 3. Psal. 37.25, 26. I have been young, and now am old, yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. He is ever merciful and dareth, and his seed is blessed. The opposition that is found between the letter of promises, of this nature, and the event which the experience of every age observes, hath wrought a great conflict in men's spirits, how to reconcile them. And this hath been the result of all, that they are not to be understood without their due limits; and several have been put. I shall not stand to enter into the dispute, only I say, experience doth as much oppose the literal meaning of true blessedness to all the seed of the righteous, as of temporal prosperity; one must therefore have its due limits, as well as the other. To wind up this whole discourse concerning Sacraments in that juncture of time: God then had his Church in which there was salvation. Henoch walked with God, and yet without faith it was impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith, Heb. 11.7. a righteousness in which the Apostle desired to be found for salvation, Phil. 3.8. yet in all that juncture of time, there was no written Word, in which the succeeding ages have everlasting life, Joh. 5.39. God had other ways of discovery of himself to his people for life. So the Church might answerably be without Sacraments: howsoever we judge salvation to be thereby either conveyed or sealed. God that ties us to Ordinances, is himself free, and in what way he pleases, may communicate bliss, and give assurance of it. The likest conjecture that we can make of Gods ordering by providence, that in this juncture of time (from the fall to the time of Abraham's call) there should be no Sacrament, nor any such supposed remedy known, to acquit infants from Orinal sin, is, ●o declare the freedom of God, that as he pleases to ordain Sacramental signs, so he is not tied to them, or his hands bound up by them: but as he saved without Sacraments before the flood, and after, to the time of Abraham, and infants under the Law dying before the eighth day; so he still saves in the want, though not in the sinful neglect, much less in the contempt of these Ordinances.   

CHAP. IU. Of the definition of a Sacrament.  
THe next consideration of Sacraments in man's fallen condition is, from Abraham unto Christ, in the time of the dispensation of the Old Covenant; In which those known Sacraments, Circumcision, and the Passeover were of force, and given in charge of God to his people: and together with those Sacraments extraordinary (or such as come near up to the nature of Sacraments,) The Cloud, the Red-Sea, Manna, and the Rock, 
Sacraments under the old & new Covenant of one and the same nature.  1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. But intending to speak of Sacraments in general, and there being no essential difference between the Sacraments, under the Old and New Covenant: One and the same definition, containing whatsoever is essential to a Sacrament in any of them, as many ways might be made manifest. Their names are promiscuously used, the cloud that Israel was under, and the sea that they passed through, is called by the name of Baptism, 1 Cor. 10.2. and so also is Circumcision, Collos. 2.11, 12. The thing signified, and benefit received, is in every one the same. The Apostle comparing those that did eat of Manna, and drank of the Rock in the Wilderness, with believers in Gospel-times, that partake of the Lords Supper saith, They all eaten the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, 1 Corrinthians. 10.3, 4. And, we may say the same of those that did eat of the Passeover, As Christ was that bread that Manna did typify, Joh. 6.49.50. so it was he that was held out, and his death shown forth in the Passeover, 1 Cor.. 5.7. I shall therefore wave this different consideration of them, and make it my business to inquire what a Sacramen is, and to make discovery of the general nature of it which in case out of Scripture I can reach, that will serve for a bottom on which all that I intent to speak may be grounded. Bellarmine spends a whole Chap. in enquiry, whether a Sacrament can properly be defined? quoting several Schoolmen for the negative; That it cannot be defined, because a Sacrament is not one of itself, but an aggregatum; one by accident, or at least not ens real, no real being; and those things that are but one accidentally, or not really, are below a definition. He quotes others in the affirmative; Some, that it may be defined imperfectly; others, that it admits of a perfect definition. After a distinction laid down very little to the purpose, (one member of the distinction being by his own confession not considerable by Divines) he concludes that a Sacrament morally considered (as it ought to be considered by Divines) may be defined, having a real being, and according to its own way of being, it is one. Moral Philosophers define (saith he) a Kingdom, a City, a Family, though they be not one physically, but by aggregation; so do Divines define a Church, a Council, or Sacrament, which are one in being no other way. Suarez agrees with him, Disput. 1a. de Sacramentis, Sect. 4 ta. which Whitaker, praelect. de Sacr. pag. 4. acknowledges to be true. 
A Sacrament may be defined.  So that he observes, it is agreed that they may be defined, and I wish we could as well agree upon a definition. It would be an endless work to reckon up, and it would no less then tire the Reader, to read all the definitions of a Sacrament, which may be found among those that treat of this subject. Bellarmine reckons up six several definitions of those that either really are, or at least he would have to be of his party. Two of which, he says, are gathered out of Austin, the third is from Hugo, de Sancto Victore, the fourth is from the Master of the sentences, the fifth is the definition of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the last, he says, is found with Gratian. Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere Cap. 11. And Cap. 13. he names two others, one of Scotus, and the other of Occam. which he says, Chemnitius blames with the other; yet Cap. 14. observing a great difference among us (as he saith) in our definitions of a Sacrament, saith it is an evident argument that we are departed from the truth which is one, when his own party can keep the truth, and differences with it. Whitaker confesseth, that Luther, Melanccton, Chemnitius, Martyr, do differently define a Sacrament, but all their definitions (he saith) come to one. He rests in the definition that Calvin gives, lib. 4. Institut. Cap. 14. which he defends against the objections of Bellarmine who spends the whole sixteenth chap. of his book against it. And a definition indeed singularly exact. But seeing the Spirit of God himself hath furnished us with a definition of a Sacrament, which either explicitly expresseth, or virtually compriseth all, that according to Scriptures can be required in a Sacrament, I suppose that will carry most authority, and this the Apostle delivers, Rom. 4.11. And he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith. This Whitaker says, 
a Haec br●vis ac perspicua definitio Sacramenti est, ut mihi videtur. Primo enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro genere ponitur, hoc est, Signum externum aut ceremonia. Deinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, sigillum just●t●ae, quae ex fide scilicet est, rem Sacramenti & finem & usum d clarat; Ut si possemus esse Scripturis contenti non meliorem definitionem desideraremus.  is a plain and brief definition of a Sacrament, and if we could be content with the Scriptures we should not desire a better. Praelect. de Sacram. Cap. 2. pag. 3. See Parcus on the words, The adversaries quarrels (he saith) hath forced Divines to look out further; but I think we shall best stop their mouths, in holding fast to the letter of Scripture; And this is therefore my Resolution. And Peter Martyr on Rom. 4. says, I Scarce think there is any place, in which the nature of Sacraments is so briefly and explicitly laid down, as in those words of Paul, in which Circumcision is called a seal. But before I come to the opening of this definition, (which may seem scarce full, in case we look only to that which is explicitly delivered; I must take out of the way some objections made against it.  
First, It is plausibly objected, that this is a definition of Circumcision only in particular, 
Vix puto ullum extare locum, quo tam breviter, tam explicite natura S●cramentorum proponitur, quam his Pauli verbis quibus circumcisio vocatur signatum.  and therefore can be no definition of a Sacrament in general. The collection is not sound from the species to the Genus; If man be defined by reason, or risibility, it will not follow, that Animal, every creature with life may be so defined.  
First, 
Objections against this definition.  To this Pareus in his answer to the sixth doubt on Rom. 4 says, 
b Quod omni Spec●ei inest toti generi recte tribuitur. Sicut igitur valet: Homo, Equus, & quodv●s animal sentit, movetur: & sensus ac motus differentia sy statica generis recte d●citur: sic valet: Circumcisio Pascha & quod vis signum foederis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi, obsignation is causa, Ergo omne signum foederis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justitiae fidei: & hoc pro generica differentia Sacramentorum recte habetur.  That which belongs to every species, is rightly applied to the Genus; that which belongs to every particular, is justly applied to all universally, A man, A horse, and every other Creature of an animal life is sensible, moves, etc. and therefore it is rightly said that every animal is sensible and moves: so it is rightly said that the Passeover, the Lords Supper, and every other Sacrament is as a sign, (which adversaries confess) so a seal of this righteousness, and therefore that which is said by the Apostle of this Sacrament in particular, is true of all in general.  
Secondly, I say, the Apostle mentions there nothing properly to Circumcision, as distinguishing it from other Sacraments, all that is in the definition, with equal reason belongs to all Sacraments, as well as to Circumcision, and distinguishes them only from other Ordinances; what is said of Abraham in this text, might be applied to the Eunuch, or the Jailor, changing alone the name of Circumcision into Baptism. He received the sign of Baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, that he had being unbaptised.  
Secondly, It is further objected by Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis, Cap 17. and after him by others, that Circumcision is not here said to be a seal universally to any faith, but only a seal of the individual faith of Abraham, and then it can neither be a definition of a Sacrament in the general, nor yet a definition of Circumcision, the distinct species of it, which is clear in that it is expressly said, that it was a seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had being yet uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe. But only Abraham could be such a father, and therefore Abraham's Circumcision, not every man's is here held forth.  
This I have fully answered, Treatise of the Covenant, Chap. 26. pag. 187, 188. in my assertion of the purity of the Old Covenant, and therefore I shall not now stand to repeat.  
Thirdly, It is objected, this will ill agree to the Circumcision of others, that after Abraham did receive this Sacrament; It cannot be fairly said, that Isaac received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised, seeing he was not in the faith till after Circumcision; and that is no definition of Circumcision, that agrees not to all men's Circumcision; that is no definition of the species, that agrees not to every individuum.  
Answ. Neither is it needful that that additional particle which is proper to Abraham, as a leading person in the Covenant, to enter into it, should agree to all men's Circumcision: He was in the faith, and had it sealed; Isaac was confederate with him in Covenant, and was upon that account to be circumcised, which engaged to actual faith; and upon actual believing it sealed this righteousness of faith to him: This precedency of faith is a separable adjunct, and comes not into the definition. To make the definition full and clear, the whole text of the Apostle is to be taken into consideration with the context, and all that in the History, Gen. 17. to which it relates, hath relation to it, all which is virtually in the words comprised; where we may observe, 

1. The Person receiving, or by right interessed.  
2. The thing received.  
3. The end or use.  
4. The thing signified or sealed,    
The Person receiving, or by right interessed is Abraham, and giving, and receiving being relatives (as Pareus on the words observes) if Abraham received it, it is necessarily employed, that there is some one that gave it; Christ says, Joh. 7.22. Moses gave Circumcision to the Jews, because he delivered unto them a Law concerning it, Levit. 12.3. but God gave it in charge to Moses, as we may see there, vers. 1. as, Gen. 17.9, 10. he had before given it in charge to Abraham; And therefore Christ saith, that Circumcision was of the Fathers. God is then the author, as Abraham the receiver of Circumcision.  
Abraham that thus received Circumcision from the hand of God may be considered,  
1. As a man, so he stood in no other relation to God, then barely as his creature, and with others in the world was without God, and not within the verge of his Covenant, and for seventy and five years he thus continued,  
2. As a professor of the faith, and worshipper of the true God, renouncing the gods that he had worshipped in Charran, and professedly serving the Lord Jehovah only.  
3. As a man upright, and sincere in the Covenant, coming up to the terms proposed of God, and walking perfect before him. In all of these capacities Abraham may be considered, as any other of the sons of Abraham that are sincere and faithful. In the first capacity he had no right to Circumcision; all that are in that condition, are called by the Apostle Circumcision: yet it was not of necessity to his interest in the Covenant, or Circumcision, the sign and seal of it, to be sincere in Covenant; though it be necessary to the attainment of the grace of the Covenant, and mercy sealed in the Sacrament. As others came into Covenant, and were entitled to the initiating sign and seal, so might Abraham, but others came in upon a bare profession: as those multitudes of Proselytes that joined themselves to Israel: One of which was Doeg an Edomite, 1 Sam. 21.9. had he not been of Israel by profession, he had not been detained in the Sanctuary before the Lord, upon any religious account, as we find he was, ver. 7. And had he been right in the Covenant, he had not had so many things in charge against him, neither had the Psalmist spoken in that language that we read of him. The Eunuch, as we have cause to think, had an heart right with God, but it was not so with Simon Magus, as Peter expressly tells him, Act. 8.21. Abraham then is considered as a man professedly in Covenant, when he received this sign of Circumcision.  
The thing received is here Circumcision, which I shall speak to only, as of a Sacramental kind; and not consider it in the individual nature of it, as the initiating Sacrament of the Old Covenant, held out under that external rite of cutting off the foreskin of the flesh.  
The use of it is, to be a sign and seal for signification, and ratification to those that received it.  
The thing signified and sealed is, the righteousness of faith, so it is also called, Heb. 11. Elsewhere it is called the righteousness of God, Rom. 10.3. being freely given to us of God, and only able to justify us in his sight; but chief, because it is wrought by Christ, who was not mere man, nor barely a creature, but the true God, as St. John styles him, 1 Joh. 5.20. This righteousness of God is applied to us, and made ours by faith, Phil. 3.9. and therefore as it is called, the righteousness of God, so also here and elsewhere, the righteousness of faith. This text being thus cleared, a full and complete definition of a Sacrament may be found.  

The definition of a Sacrament.  A Sacrament is a sign appointed of God, to be received of his Covenant-people, to seal the righteousness of faith unto them.  
I know there is somewhat put into the definition of a Sacrament by some that treat of this subject, which is not here in words expressed, and therefore upon that account, this definition may be challenged as defective; as 1. The Minister by whom it is to be dispensed from God to man. But whether this be essential in a Sacrament or otherwise, (as afterwards is to be enquired into,) it is sufficiently employed. In case it must be received from God by his people in that way, and from that hand that he himself in his Word hath appointed. 2. The Sacraments contain as well a profession of our duty towards God, as Gods tender and seal to man, of which here is nothing said. But this we shall find, both in the sign and seal (which are both mentioned) necessarily included, and as it appears that it is comprised, so to make it more clear and explicit, it may by the Reader be added.   

CHAP. V.  

Sect. I. Of Sacramental signs.  
I shall here purposely wave several Schoole-niceties, as in what predicament a Sacrament is to be placed: Taking it in the whole nature of it (as consisting of a twofold matter, the one outward and earthly, which is the visible sign; the other inward and heavenly, which is the thing signified: and of a twofold form; one outward, which is the due participation of it, according to the way prescribed of God; the other inward, consisting in the analogy between the sign, and the thing signified) it must needs be an Ens aggregatum, and so not capable of any place in that series of being: And sign, and seal, being clearly relatives; I shall leave the Reader to inform himself from learned Keckerman, in the third Book and eighth Chapter of his Systeme of Philosophy: what is the Relatum, the Correlatum, the relation itself, the foundation, and the terminus in this Sacramental consideration; and shall go on to lay open the several parts of this definition. The whole of it being comprised in this text of the Apostle, every part affords some doctrinal Observation. In the first place I shall observe that,  
Sacraments are signs,  
The truth of this observation is so clear of itself, that it needs no proof; Taking the word Sacrament in the largest sense that we can speak of it (in which it falls short of these Gospel-Ordinances known by that name) it is yet Sacrae rei Signum, the sign of an holy thing: And might be made good by a particular induction, not only in those that we receive as Sacraments, whether extraordinary as the Cloud, the Red-Sea, Manna, and the Rock, which the Apostle parallels with Baptism, and the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. But also in the ordinary stated Sacraments, by a standing law to be observed. In Circumcision there was a foreskin to be cut off, in the Passeover a Lamb to be eaten: In Baptism there is water to be applied, and in the Lord's Supper bread and wine to be taken, eaten, and drunk; God condescending in mercy to our weakness, by earthly things to inform our judgements, and strengthen our faith in that which is heavenly. Though Papists are much put to it, to find an outward sign in some of their Sacraments, (as indeed in some of them there is none at all) yet they yield to this truth; that Sacraments have their signs, knowing that to be a true, though not a full definition, tnat a Sacrament is an outward visibie sign of an inward spiritual grace. That we may come to a right understanding of Sacramental signs, we must  
First, know what a sign in general is.  
Secondly, the several sorts and kinds of signs, so fare at least as will conduce to a right understanding of the point in hand; and Lastly inquire what Sacramental signs are, and their properties.  

What is meant by a sign.  A sign Austin hath long since defined to be, that which shows itself to the senses, and somewhat more besides itself to the understanding; and in other words, 
a Signum estres praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex sefaciens in cogitationem venire.  A sign is a thing which brings to men's thoughts another thing, besides that which it offers to the senses. As the Rainbow offers itself to the eyes (we see the shape of it, and the colours in it) and brings the promise of God into our minds, that the Flood shall no more return to destroy the earth. It were an endless labour to undertake to lay down the several kinds of signs, with all their sub-divisions: I never saw such a Scheme of them, but I have thought many more might be added to them; 
Neque enim hujus generis quisquam enmeravit omnia, nascuntur enim nova pro homi num arbitrio. Pulling. Deca. 5. Ser. 6. A distribution of signs. Natural signs.  yet those at least that are notable may be reduced to certain heads. Some are natural, some are prodigious, and some are signs by institution. Natural signs are those that of themselves, and of their own nature are apt to signify somewhat beyond themselves; As smoke signifies fire, a Rainbow showers, palenese sickness, Tears trouble, and grief of mind; of these Christ speaks, Matth. 16.2, 3. When it is evening ye say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red; and in the morning, It will be foul weather to day, for the sky is red and lowering. Now these signs are sometimes (as signs so also) causes of the thing signified; As the Sun beams in the dawning are a sign, and also a cause of the day approaching. The interposition of the Moon between us and the Sun, and of the earth between the Sun and Moon (foreseen in their motions) are signs, and causes of Eclipses. Sometimes they are effects of the thing that they signify; As smoke is the effect of fire, and paleness of diseases. Some are barely signs, and neither causes nor effects; as the colour of the sky is no cause of rain, but barely an indication that there are those watery vapours in the air that will dissolve themselves on the earth: They may be effects of that which is the, cause of the thing signified, but not the effects of that which is a sign. The Rainbow is an effect of that which is a cause of rain; 
Rules for the right understanding of natural signs. Remote causes are not signs.  Here we might lay down some rules or observations.  
First, Remote causes (which have their effects at a great distance, so that many things may interpose themselves as remoraes, cannot be looked upon by any as signs. When that book of common-prayer was imposed by authority upon Scotland, upon counsel then overmuch heeded; it might have been easily concluded upon, as a sign of troubles and dissensions in present there; But no rational man could then have made it a prognostic of all those tragical stirs, which in three Nations have already happened, and we yet know not upon the flame kindled what may follow: The spark then kindled, might in probability have been quenched. The Stars say our Stargazers, have their influence upon men's bodies, and by consequence indirectly upon the operations of their souls. Hereupon by the posture of the Stars at men's birth, they will conclude the trade of life in which men shall be employed, the Arts that they shall profess, the fortunes (as the world calls them) to which they shall be advanced, and the very last period of their days. But here so many things may interpose, that the child's Genius supposedly thus disposed, cannot sway all these things, Parents, friends, ways of Education, thousands of obstacles, and diversifications so intervene, that no judgement can be given. If more were granted then ever will be proved of the heaven's influence on men's minds and bodies to incline, or dispose them; yet that of the Wise man would utterly spoil all Predictions, Eccles. 9.11. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.  
Seeondly, Partial causes in nature cannot be looked upon as signs, 
Patrial causes are no signs  but all must concur that have any influence. This (if I do not mis-remember) good Mr. Perkins doth set down in a similitude to this purpose. The heat of an Hen sitting upon Eggs is the cause of a brood of young ones; but suppose an Hen should sit on Eggs of divers kinds, some of a Dove, some of a Partridge, some of a Pheasant, some of a Hawk, some of a Kite; who could now from the heat of the Hen, give his judgement of what kind, the birds should be, that this heat would hatch? would they not be different in kind according to the variety of subjects that this heat works upon? If we see flint before us, this is no sign of fire to be kindled, unless we see steel with it; nor yet flint and steel without tinder; nor yet flint, steel and tinder, without a hand employed to strike fire: all put together make up a sign, and not otherwise. To apply this to our purpose.  
First, Let it be granted, that the heavens have their operations on men's bodies on earth, no otherwise then the heat of the Hen hath for procreation of such a kind, or the flint to the working of fire, yet the heavens have their influence upon divers, and diversified objects: not diversified by their influence only, but done to their hands, we derive our being from Parents, not only in our essentials, and integrals, but in a great measure in our temperature of body and mind. Who sees not virtues and defects of body and mind to be hereditary, and that from either sex, Children do patrizare, follow their Parent's inclination without any imitation? now the heavens were not in the same posture, Mars, Jupiter, etc. were not in the same ascendent, in their birth as in ours. A beggar is delivered under the same posture of the heavens with a Noble-woman, shall the children of both be of the same trade and way?  
Secondly, If the Stars and their influences were universal causes of what is done in, and shall befall our persons, yet these men profess acquaintance only with some few, and those almost only the Planets; The Stars of an unfixt motion. Those innumerable Stars, which we call fixed, and have been said to be in the eighth (which we call the starry) sphere, are not observed nor known in their various postures, what some may incline to, others will thwart and destroy.  
For a third rule, 
Natural signs when causes unless an extraordi●a y power intervene w●rk avoidable.  those signs which fairly may be looked upon as causes in nature, have their effects, and produce the thing signified unavoidable, irresistible; so that is a labour in vain to use any ways, a tempting of God to make any addresses to him for prevention; who ever prayed that the day and night should not be of an equal length, at such a day in the Spring and Autumn, which are known to us by the name of the aequinoctial; or, that the Sun shall not be eclipsed at such a time when it is known that the body of the Moon will interpose itself in that season? If the heavens are alike causes of man's vicious ways, & of the ruin and bane of Nations, endeavours for prevention will be equally vain; whether it be by prayer, or repentance. He that cannot make the Sun to stand still, or to return backwards by prayer, let him not think to stand in the gap for a land, or turn away God's fiery indignation, seeing the course of nature appointed of God, brings it about above resistance. I have heard of some Rabbins that pray every night that the Sun may rise again, and the earth enjoy a new morning, as though it were not otherwise in nature by the God of nature ordered, and settled, but it lay in them to hinder it; but Christians have learned better, then to think by their prayers to impose a new course on the way of nature. And knowing that prayer and repentance are ways appointed of God, and by experience successful for reversal of judgements, and prevention of National desolations, they know that Stars in a way of nature cannot effect it, nor yet the sons or disciples of nature foresee or foretell it.  
Secondly, There are prodigious signs, 
2. Prodigious sign.  such that are, either miraculous, exceeding all power of nature; or else wounds and monsters in nature; And I know not the reason why Chamier, lib. 1. Cap. 11. de Sacramentis in genere, should exclude them from the number of signs; certainly the return of the Sun in Hezekiahs' time, was to him a sign of his recovery from sickness, and of his deliverance from the Assyrian, Isay. 3 S. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears, behold, I will add unto thy days, fifteen years; And I will deliver thee and this City out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this City; And this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing, that he hath spoken; Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees which is gone down in the sun-dyal of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. The like may be said of gideon's fleece, that had dew on it when all the earth was dry besides; and again the fleece dry when upon all the ground else it was dew; This was to signify that the Lord would deliver Israel by his hand; Those eclipses of the lights of heaven to the Egyptians when there was light in Goshen to the Israelites, Exod. 10.21, 22. and at Christ's death, when from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth unto the ninth hour, Matth. 27.45. was no other. I will show wonders in the heavens, and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke, the Sun shall be turned into darkness, and the Moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord, Joel 2.30, 31. There shall be signs in the Sun, and in the Moon, and in the Stars, and upon the earth distress of Nations, and perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth, for the powers of heaven shall be shaken, which Zanchius understands of those Comets, which as wonders in nature, in several ages have appeared. He that pleases may consult the Author himself treating the Cometarum prognosticis, lib. 3. de operibus Dei, Cap. 2. Thes. 12.  

Signs by Instition.  Thirdly, There are signs by institution: not so in nature, or by way of prodigy, but as they are designed to signify: These are, 1. Of man, some by imposition, man putting at pleasure such a signification upon them; words in this sense are signs; no other reason of primitive names of things can be given, but his pleasure that gave them; Some by custom, as an Ivy bush is a sign of wine; Sometimes by covenant, or agreement, so the arrows that Jonathan shot, with the words that he agreed to utter, were a sign to David that there was peace, or that there was harm intended to him, 1 Sam. 20.20, etc. So the Scarlet thread was a sign between Rahab and the spies, Joshua 2.18. A Soldier's Colours, or the word that is given on his guard, or in fight is such a sign. 2. There are signs by institution from God, such was the rainbow; It may be a natural sign of showers; but it is by institution, that it signifies, that there shall not be any more a flood to destroy the earth, Gen. 9.11. These instituted signs, whether of God, or man, admit of other distinctions, which will be touched upon in the next place, in opening the nature, and showing the properties of Sacramental signs. There are signs of a fourth sort which might have been spoken to, namely those that are Diabolical or superstitious; But I shall not trouble myself or the Reader with them.   

SECT. II. The properties of Sacramental signs.  
FIrst, Sacramental signs are external, and sensible, 
Sacramental signs are, 1. Exte●nal and sensible.  such that do not immediately, but by the help of the senses, affect the understanding. There are indeed such signs that immediately offer themselves to the mind, which some call mental, or intellectual Signs; These are either notions framed in the understanding, or actions that are past, and called into the thoughts, Matth. 12.39. An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet Ionas. Though some Popish Writers have affirmed, that this sensibility of the outward signs, is not of the essence of the Sacraments; seeing God might if he had pleased have instituted Sacraments with signs merely spiritual, yet they are disliked in this by their own party; and themselves also confess, that the signs that God hath instituted, are external and sensible; and we inquire not after such as God might have given, had he pleased; but such that he hath pleased to give to his people.  
Secondly, They are visible signs. 
2. Visible.  It is not enough that they are the objects of other senses, as such that may be heard, felt, tasted; but Sacramental signs must be the object of sight; This is clear by the induction of particulars. The foreskin in Circumcision, the lamb in the Passeover, water in Baptism, bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, with all the actions of each of these are visible; And thus a Sacrament by the Ancients hath still been defined, An outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual grace, which hath never been excepted against as unsound; but only as insufficient. It is too short, but in no part erroneous. And Austin, lib. 19 Contra Faust. Cap. 25. as he is quoted by Bellarmine, demands, what are all corporal Sacraments but certain visible words? Other senses may accompany the sight, but nothing can be a Sacramental sign that excludes the sight, nothing that is not in nature visible. And therefore sounds or words, are no Sacramental signs, which being no object of sight, nor of any other sense, but of that of hearing, they are not in any such capacity. Here a man might think that Bellarmine and we were agreed, Seeing he so often gives Sacramental signs that Epithet of visible; and, lib. 1. de Sacramen. Cap. 18. putting it to the question, whether Sacraments consist of things as their matter, and words as their form? he determines affirmatively, and lays this down for his second proposition, that, 
b In Sacramentis omnibus novae legis inveniuntur res ut materia, & verba ut forma.  In all Sacraments of the New Testament, things are found as the matter, and words as the form, and none can doubt but things put in opposition to words as the matter of Sacraments are visible. But he hath his art to come off by distinction, or rather contradiction. To the first he says, that 
c Prima particula, vel accipit elementum visibile & tractabile, pro qualibet re sensibili, ut accipiant Catholicic &,  Catholics take the word visible, and tractable element, for any thing that is any way sensible, that may be perceived by the ear, and not for that only, which by the sight and touch only can be perceived, lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere, Cap. 14. And so a sound will make up his visible, and tractable sign, which is of necessity in Sacraments; And he can explain that second proposition with a fourth, which is, 
* Ut Sacramenta constare dicantur rebus, & verbis, non est necesse, ut res non sint verba, & verba non sint res, sed sat est, si a●quid funga●ur vice rei, aliud vice verbi.  That Sacraments may be said to consist of things and words, but it is not necessary that things be not words, nor words be not things; But it is enough that somewhat supply the place of things or words, Cap. 18. And all this wild stuff, which scarce I think can be parallelled in the most unlearned Writer, to make it good that their Penance and Marriage are Sacraments; in both which we must take words (which he says are the form of those Sacraments) for visible signs, which also constitute the matter of them, or else we have no visible sign at all, and consequently no Sacrament. Some here question the case of blind people, by whom no sign can be seen; but it is one thing to be visible, and the proper object of sight, and another thing to be actually seen visible and visum differre one from another; It is in itself visible, though through defect in the organ, it is not seen of some. Such are at a loss in receiving, though not equal to the loss of deaf people in the Word, which is to be heard, seeing when the Word is not heard, it affects no other of the senses; but when bread and wine are not seen they are touched, and tasted; and where blindness is not from the birth, there is some supply from the memory likewise  
Thirdly, they are Analogical signs, 
3. Analogical.  such as carry Analogy and proportion with the thing signified; they have ever an aptness in them for resemblance. That of Austin is famous, If 
d Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sunt Sacramenta, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent.  Sacraments carry no resemblance of the things whereof they are Sacraments, they are no Sacraments at all. Gerrard. de Sacramentis, Cap. 3. Sect. 3. in the name of the Lutherane party doth confess 
e Non negamus signa Sacramentalia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandam cum fructu Sacramenti habere. Sed analogia illa significativa est secundarium rei terrenae sive elementi in Sacramentis Novi T. officium; primarium officium est ut sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vehiculum & medium per quod res coelestis exhibetur,  that there is such Analogy in Sacraments, but he saith, that this Analogy in the Sacraments of the New Testament, is but the secondary office of it. The primary and chief office is to be a medium or vehicalum, a means for exhibition of the grace of the Sacrament to the person; But gives us no reason. And Suarez (as Chamier observes) denies this Analogy between sign and thing signified to be necessary, yet confesses that in all Sacraments there is such Analogy found; But, as Chamier demands, how shall an universal necessity be concluded, but by particular experiments? and what is found in every one, we conclude to be of necessity in all; finding upon observation this Analogy in every Sacrament, we conclude it necessary in all Sacraments. There are some signs have their signification wholly from their institution, and of themselves carry no proportion. As the sound of a trumpet which is the sign of a troop of horse, the sound of a Bell which is the sign of an Assembly, whether for civil, or for sacred things; An Ivy bush the sign of wine to be fold. 
Distribution of Analogical signs.  There are other signs that of themselves declare their own signification as the print of the foot on the ground whether of horse or man, is a sign of the foot that made the impression; A shadow is a sign of a body that darkens the place near to it. There are a third sort of signs of a middle nature, that have their resemblance of the thing signified, but in that indeterminate confused manner, that they may rather be said to be fit to signify that whereof they are signs, then that of themselves without further declaration added they do signify. And such are the signs in Sacraments, as Thomas Aquinas observes, part. 3. quaest. 60. artic. 6. and after him Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere; and Chamier gives his assent to both, lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere, Cap. 11. Water hath a faculty to wash, as also to refresh, and cool; when water is set apart for Baptism, though there be a fitness in it to signify washing; yet there must be a word to explain that it is to signify washing, and with it the thing that is cleansed.  

4. Ritual.  Fourthly, They are not barely substantial signs, but ritual also. The outward elements do not barely signify, but the instituted actions likewise are significant. In Circumcision the foreskin alone was not a sign, but the cutting of it off, in the way appointed of God, seems the chief in signification. In the Passeover there is not only a lamb, but roasting, eating, etc. all which are significant. In Baptism there is not only water, but the application of the person to the water in dipping, or the water to the person by infusion, or sprinkling. The word in Scripture use comprizes any washing; and therefore in Baptism it is of itself indifferent. In the Lord's Supper there is not only bread and wine, but the bread is broke, the bread and cup delivered, receiving, eating, and drinking. Some indeed question, whether the breaking of the bread be any Sacramental rite; or at all of the integrality of the Sacrament? but all confess that in case it be within an institution, it is then necessary. About the beginning of the reformation, some that stood for the ejection of Ceremonies, pleaded for sitting at the Lords Supper, as an instituted Sacramental rite, signifying our coheireship with Christ; But others that in after times did manage the same cause, saw that mistake, and therefore urged not the necessity of sitting upon that account, but only did except against kneeling, either as Idolatrous, or carrying too great an appearance of it.  
Fifthly, They are distinguishing and differencing signs, separating a people that receive them, 
5. Distinguishing.  from all others that are not interessed in them; so they have the nature of badges, or cognisances; Calvin justly rejects those that make the Sacraments no more but bare testimonies of our profession, or distinguishing marks. That as a Roman was known by his gown from a Grecian in his cloak; and in Rome the several orders had their distinctions. The Senator was distinguished from the Knight by his Purple, and the Knight from one of the Commonalty by his ring; as with us a Knight of the Garter is distinguished by his blue Ribbon, and a Knight of the Bath by the red; yet they cannot be denied, but that they have this distinguishing use. By these Sacramental signs the people of God are known from others, which is herein plain, in that they are signs of the Covenant, and by an usual metonymy called by the name of the Covenant, Gen. 17.20. Act. 7.8. And therefore distinguished those that received them from all that are out of Covenant. So Circumcision distinguished a Jew from all others. A man in uncircumcision was an heathen. Circumcision in the flesh did denominate a Jew outwardly, as Circumcision of the heart (which is that to which Circumcision in the letter did engage) did denominate a man a Jew inwardly. That which Circumcision was in this respect, Baptism is: As soon as any joined himself to Abraham's family, and afterwards to the seed of Abraham in Covenant, he was to be circumcised, Gen. 17.13. Exod. 12.48. None were to be as one born in the land, but a circumcised man. As soon as any joined himself to the body and society of Christians, he was baptised, so was Christ's Commission, Disciple all Nations, baptising them. No sooner was Paul, the Eunuch, the Jailer, Lydia, yea, Simon Magus made disciples, but they were forthwith baptised, The Passeover as well as Circumcision, the Lords Supper, as well as Baptism are distinguishing signs. But these find men beforehand distinguished. The preceding Sacraments whereby men are initiated and first enroled, are more properly distinguishing.  
Sixthly, They are congregating, uniting and closing signs; 
6. Congregating  this may seem contradictory to the former, which makes them distinguishing, and differencing. To unite and difference are evidently contrary, but these well enough agree, the contradiction being not ad idem. They are not the same that they unite and difference; They distinguish men in Covenant from strangers, and they unite men in Covenant as one among themselves. A Soldier's Colours difference him from all other companies, and unite him to those of that body into which he is received. As Philosophers say of heat, that it doth congregare homogenea, and dissipare heterogenea, gather together those things that are of a like, and separate those that are of a different quality; so it is with Sacraments. This the Apostle takes for granted, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. His business there is to take Christians off from joining with heathens in their Idol-sacrifices, because such joining makes them one body with those Idolaters. Which is clear in the 19, 20, 21. v. What say I then? that the Idol is any thing? or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing? but I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Deulls, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils; ye cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and of the Cup of Devils; ye cannot he partakers of the Lords Table, and of the table of Devils. And this he had also argued against, Chap. 8. Vers. 10. And he proves that this makes them one Idolatrous body with Gentiles, in their sacrifices to Deuls, by way of an analogy with Christian and Jewish worship. Because joining in the Lord's Supper to partake of one bread, makes men one body Christian, and partaking with Jews after the flesh, eating of their sacrifices, made partakers of the Altar of the Jews and one body Jewish, vers. 17, 18. therefore joining with heathens in their worship makes one body heathenish. A text which some weakly enough have brought against mixed communions, to prove, that none must join with a bad man in a Christian Sacrament, when it only serves to prove that Christians may not join with Idolaters in the Devil's Sacraments. They difference us from all those that want, and join us unto all those that enjoy these badges of a Christian profession.  

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

8. Remembrancing,  Eighthly, They ace remonstrative, and remembrancing signs; sometimes of mercy conferred: The Passeover was a sign of Israel's freedom out of the land of Egypt, Exod. 12.26, 27. The Lord's Supper shows forth the Lords death until he come, 1 Cor. 11.26. being appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ, Matth. 26.26. Mar. 14, 20. Luk. 22.29. 1 Cor. 11.24. of Christ dying, giving his body and blood for us. As those twelve stones taken out of Jordan by twelve men, out of every Tribe a man, were for a sign in ages following, a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever, that the waters of Jordan were cut off before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, when it passed over Jordan, Josh. 4.6, 7. So these Sacramental signs are memorials of the mercy mentioned: They are always memorials of the Covenant that we have entered, the duty in which we stand engaged. The Apostle having showed, that Baptism doth signify a death to sin, and a life in righteousness, Rom. 6.4. presently thence gives warning, he that is dead is free from sin, vers. 6.  
Ninethly, I might show that they are ratifying and confirming signs, but this is distinctly mentioned. 
9, Ratifying.  They are seals as well as signs which remains to be handled.   

SECT. III. Corollaries from the former Doctrine.  
SEveral consectaries follow from this observation, which contains one part of the definition of a Sacrament.  
First, 
The sign and thing signified are analogically one.  That the sign and the thing signified in every Sacrament are one, not properly and really one, but in that manner one; as all those things that remain distinct in nature one from other, yet bear proportion and resemblance one with other are one; One, as Christ and a door, Christ and a vine are one; They are so one, that one may be said to be the other; when yet one distinct thing from other cannot be said to be the other in a sense that is proper, my hand is not my writing, my writing is not my hand, but my hand is that which writes, and writing is written with my hand; and so my writing is usually called my hand: and these speeches are in all mouths vulgar, & common; and are so far from being hard to understand, that indeed they help the understanding. A woman shows a written piece of parchment, and says, Here is my Dower or Jointure; when Dower, or Jointure is in Lands, not in Papers. Every one knows, that this speech means, that it is that, which vests her in it; we show a paper, and say, This is my will, not meaning that faculty of the soul itself, but a manifestation of what our desire is should be done with our estate after our decease; such a man lives on my trencher, that is on the meat which is laid on the trencher at my table: so that men should bless God for that he condescends to speak in such perspicuity, and not complain in such speeches of difficulty. Upon account of this oneness between the sign and the thing signified, sometimes the sign is said to be the thing signified, as that Bread is the body of Christ, and the Cup the blood of Christ, Matth. 26.26, 27, So that that of Austin is famous, that Christ said, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. Circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. Ast. 7.8. The Lamb is called the Passeover, Exod. 12.11, 21. Matth. 26.28. And the trees before spoken to, are called the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil; see Ezek. 5.5. 1 Cor. 10.4. In all of these places, the sign hath the name of the thing signified; by reason of Analogy and representation, and all by institution: sometimes on the other hand, the thing signified is called by the name of, and is said to be the sign, as, 1 Cor. 5.7. Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us; so, Joh. 6.55. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; fitly resembled by meat and drink. Joh. 15.1. I am the true vine, fitly resembled by a vine, see Joh. 10.10, 11. Sometimes the effect which the thing signified doth produce, is called by the name of the sign, so in that speech of Ananias related by Paul, Act. 22.16. Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord; when it was not the water that he was then to use, but the blood of Christ, that could take away sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. so Baptism saves, 1 Pet. 3.21. when as the Apostle there (as may be further shown) explains his own meaning: so the putting off the sins of the flesh, is called by the name of Circumcision, and of Baptism, Colos. 2.11, 12. Sometimes that which is the proper work of the sign, is attributed to the thing signified, Deut. 10.16. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be not stiff necked. These, and such like speeches as these, would be familiar with us, and we should be able to give an account of them, in case we understood Sacramental relations, and other resemblances frequent in Scriptures.  
Secondly, Than it further follows, 
There is no such things as transubstantiation.  that there can be no such thing as transubstantiation: The sign and the thing signified remain distinct, and cannot properly be the same in any Sacraments. Of all Scripture-Sacraments, and all those additional forged Sacraments of the Church of Rome, one only is by them thus honoured. The Paschal Lamb was not turned into the body of Christ, nor is water turned into the blood of Christ in Baptism; Nor do any other of their supposed signs lose their nature, only in the Lord's Supper bread is not bread, (though it be still called bread) but flesh; wine is not wine, (though called the fruit of the vine) but blood; we see bread, we taste bread, we handle bread; and yet we must not give credit either to our eyes, ears, taste, or touch, but we must believe it is no bread. It hath the natural properties of bread and wine; it gives natural nourishment as bread and wine; the bread, if eaten in excess, and the wine drunken will cause surfeit, and intoxicate as bread and wine. As the natural force, so the natural defects of bread and wine, still remain after consecration. The bread breeds worms, and the wine turns to vinegar; yet we must believe. that God by miracle hath taken away bread and wine, given blood and flesh, turned bread into flesh, wine into blood, and yet still by miracles keeps up the natural shape, properties and defects of these outward Elements. When God in Scripture wrought miracles, the miracles were seen and known. There have been transubstantiations, but those were never hidden; Moses his rod was turned into a Serpent, and it was seen to be a Serpent; so that Moses on sight fled from it, Exod. 4.3. It was turned again into a rod, and known to be a rod, vers. 4. Christ turns water into wine. Joh. 2.9. that was not judged to be still water, or called by that name, but by the taste known to be of the most precious wine, vers. 10. But our senses having thus deceived us, and made us believe that there is still bread and wine, when by miracle bread and wine is gone, where shall we find any Word to ground our faith to believe this delusion? The words of the institution or nothing must carry it.  
This is my body, this Cup is my blood in the New Testament: But such an interpretation, 1. Destroys the outward sign, and makes it no Sacrament. 2. Makes the speech wholly not Sacramental. No Sacramental speech can be proper, and we have enough from out adversaries to excuse our faith from the acknowledgement of any such a change. If we look no further than three testimonies quoted by learned Mr. Gataker, from three Romish Cardinals in his discourse of transubstantiation, Pag. 2. 3. Cardinal Bellarmine (saith he) granteth that these words, This is my body, may imply either such a real change of the bread as the Catholics hold, or such a figurative change as the Calvinists hold; but will not bear that sense that the Lutherans give it. And Cardinal Cajetan acknowledgeth, and freely confesseth, that there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce us to understand those words. This is my body properly. And he addeth, that nothing in the text hindereth, but that those words may as well be taken in a metaphorical sense, as those words of the Apostle, the Rock was Christ; and that the words of either proposition may well be true, though the thing there spoken be not understood in a proper sense, but in a metaphorical sense only. And he further q saith, he finds alleged out of Bishop Fisher (whom Bellar. lib. de Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Pag. 209. makes both a Cardinal, and a Martyr) that there is not one word in St. Matthewes Gospel from which the true presence of Christ's flesh and blood in our Mass may be proved; out of Scripture it cannot be proved.  
And being traduced for this quotation by an adversary, as taking king it out of a nameless Author, ignorant, and unsincere in his assertions; In his defence of the said discourse, Pag. 44. he tells his adversary, that his Author whom he thus brands, as ignorant and unsincere, is Bishop Andrew's, in his answer to the Apology of Card. Bellar. against King James his admonitory preface, Chap. 1. and I find Musculus in his common places de Coena Domin. Pag. 365. quoting the same words out of the same Author, and much more to the same purpose.— He that would be further furnished against this monster of transubstantiation, in our own language; let him read the  discourse of Mr. Gatakers, together with the defence, as also Bishop morton's his Treatise divided into eight parts of the institution of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.  

God's goodness seen in his condescension to our weakness.  Thirdly, We may see the goodness of God, in this way of condescension by earthly things, carnal, sensible, and suitable to our natures, to help our understandings, and strengthen our faith in things heavenly. If we were mere incorporeal substances, and had spirits not shut up, and imprisoned in bodies, than (saith chrysostom) we should have had spiritual things in an answerable way, nakedly in themselves held out unto us; then Parables had not been used, nor similitudes borrowed, nor Sacramental signs instituted. But having souls affixed to bodies, that which our spirits should learn, these things of earth are employed of God to teach; God looked not at himself, when he chose this method, It is fare below him to fill up his sacred Oracles with these things, but at our imbecility. In case he should speak as God, that is, in a language answering the Majesty of God, we must be as gods to comprehend his words, and understand his speech; but dealing with us that have bodies made up of earth, and minds over eagerly addicted to earth, he is pleased in his transactions not to deal (if I may so say) as God, but as with man, seeking glory only in manifestation of his goodness, and tender regard of our weakness. Christ saw a necessity of this way of dealing, not only as God, by his omniscience, but as man, by his practical experience. He taught Nicodemus the nature of regeneration by similitudes borrowed from water, and from the wind, Except a man be borne of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; So is every one that is born of the Spirit. Joh. 3.5, 8. Notwithstanding all this endeavour of Christ to clear this truth, Nicodemus still remains ignorant, he answers and says to Christ, How can these things be? Christ after a sharp reproof, ver. 10. (Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? not only a Scholar, but a Teacher, and that not in any place of darkness, but in Israel that valley of vision) adds, ver. 12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? Christ had not read a Lecture to Nicodemus of the water, or of the wind, neither had Nicodemus questioned either of those assertions, The wind bloweth where it listeth, thou knowest not whence it comes, nor whither it goes; that he should on this account charge Nicedemus with not believing doctrine of this kind; But the meaning is, If I speak of regeneration by earthly similitudes, and expressions, obvious to the senses, and you are not able to apprehend, and understand them; how than if I speak to you of heavenly things in an heavenly manner, without any such sensible representation at all, would you then understand? This interpretation of these words Maldonate doth give, notwithstanding Bullinger, Decad. 5 Ser. 6. had gone before him in it. Ravanellus in his Thesaurus, and Mr. Burges in his Ser. 35. pag. 211. give the same. In which we see our need of help this way, and the singular condescension of Christ Jesus in dealing this way for our help, which place in my thoughts serves to clear that speech of the Evangelist, Mar. 4.33. And with many such parables spoke he the word unto them, as they were able to bear it; many are there reckoned up, and more by Matthew, Matth. 13. many more perhaps were uttered, then either Matthew or Mark relate; as they were able to bear, saith the text, according to their capacities, say the larger Annotations. And so Jansenius upon the words, 
f Quo significat Dominum voluisse aptare suum sermonem ad captum auditorum, & ob id locutum in parabolis, quod nudi sermonis nondum essent capaces; at parabolas suas desumsiffe a rebus vulgaribus, per quas idiotae utcunque induci & parari possunt ad mysteriorum captum.  Hereby he signifies that Christ would fit his speech to the capacity of the hearers, because they were not capable of naked truths, and he borrowed his speeches from vulgar things, by which the most unlearned might be fitted for the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Though some understand the words as they were worthy to hear, and not to understand, parables being above the common capacities, and put for hard and difficult speeches; As, Matth. 13.10. Christ being demanded, Why speakest thou in parables? he answers, ver. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given: for whosoever hath, to him it shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away, even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables, because they seeing see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. But these texts may be reconciled; A parable or Similitude, when men stay in the outward bark of it, is as a riddle, nothing can be more obscure; Some mystery men know is hid under it, but they know not what. Therefore Christ having uttered a parable to the multitude, Matth. 15.11. and Peter requesting, Declare unto us this parable, ver. 15. saith, Are ye also yet without understanding? Parables explained are the plainest way of teaching, showing the face of heavenly things in earthly glasses; and therefore the Lord to set out his dealing with his own people faith, I have also spoken by the Prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the Ministry of the Prophets, Hos. 12.10. But the scope be not discerned, only that which is said of earthly things, and no more is known. Now what words are to the ears in similitudes and comparisons, that Sacramental signs are to the eyes; by both the understanding is helped, the memory refreshed, and as may (God willing) be unfolded, faith strengthened. The cleansing from sin, we find in Scripture held forth under the metaphor of pouring out water, Ezek. 36.25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you. To which the Apostle alludes, Ephes. 5.26. where he saith, Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water, by the word. Which was typified also in those divers washings mentioned by the Apostle, Heb. 9.10. which the blood of Christ doth really work, Purging our consciences from dead works, to serve the living God, cleansing us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. and therefore it is called the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, 1 Pet. 1.2. In Baptism, in a standing Ordinance, this is held out, The party interessed in Covenant is dipped in, or washed with water, and the reason of it given, Acts 22.16. Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord. Christ promises to his Church living bread, and water whereof whosoever drinketh shall never thirst. He further explains himself: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, Joh. 6.51. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, Joh. 6.55. Christ being to die, holds this out in outward signs, and with his own Comment upon them, Taking and breaking bread, he saith, This is my body; Taking the cup; he saith, This is the cup in the New Testament in my blood shed for them, and for many, for the remission of sins. In elements of frequent use, ordinary, easy to be compassed, these high mysteries and singular mercies are shadowed.   

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

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

Explicatory Propositions.  

A word of institution necessary.  First, That an institution from God, and words from his mouth, that hold out such an institution of every Sacrament, is of absolute necessity, even to the very being of a Sacrament; It were a dumb element, and a superstitious, Ceremonious, observation without it, if we can find no institution for water-baptism: our men that stand for a pure spirit-Baptisme, will have the upper hand in that particular. But here our adversaries and we are at an agreement.  

Consecration respects not the elements but participants.  Secondly, That consecration, (if we may so call it) that is used in the public solemnisation of any Sacrament, is not in respect of the elements or outward signs themselves, whose essence remains entire and unchanged: But it is for their sakes that use these signs, and unto whom in their use, only they suffer a change from common to sacred: And therefore being not for the elements, 
Nam Catholici omnes docent, verbum Sacramenti esse pauca quaedum verba â Deo praescripta quae super materiam a ministro pronuntianda sunt.  but for believers sakes, a magical incantation is not of use, but verbal instruction. Therefore that of Bellarmine in the name of all the Catholics (as he calls them) ⁱ That the word which makes a Sacrament, is only a few words prescribed of God, to be pronounced by the Priest, over the matter of the Sacrament, is not to be suffered. Those words might as well be concealed, as thus muttered, the elements do not hear them, neither do they suffer any change by them: That speech of Austin we willingly grant, that the word is added to the element, and it is made a Sacrament: But not with a Romish Gloss upon it, that by the word there should be understood, barely the uttering, or (as they would rather have it) the muttering of a few words; But the word of institution, holding forth a Divine designation of it to that end and use, which is not to be concealed from those for whose use it is ordained (as though it did work by way of a secret change) but in the plainest way to be made known to them. So that those bare words in Baptism, I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, etc. are not that which makes it up into a Sacrament: But the command of Jesus Christ, by the application of water to baptise in that Name. Neither is the uttering of those words, This is my body, This Cup in the New Testament is my blood, sufficient, but the whole series of the institution, in the words and actions of Christ Jesus.  
Thirdly, For an orderly administration of the Sacrament, 
Repetition and explanation of the words of institution singularly useful.  it is of singular use, that the institution be repeated, and that in Scripture-language (which Bellarmine confesses we do always in Baptism, and many of us at least out of 1 Cor. 11. at the Lords Supper,) and much for edification, to have them briefly explained. This adds authority, and honour to the administration, and the understanding of many deploredly ignorant is hereby benefited. If Parents must teach their children, when they saw the rite of the Passeover, a reason of it, Exod. 12. then much, more should Ministers of the Gospel teach it their people. Christian's should act nothing in way of worship of God, but they should see and know reason for their actings.  
Fourthly, It is not essential to a Sacrament, 
A precise form of words not essential in a Sacrament.  that a precise form of words be observed in the administration of it, so that the being of a Sacrament is lost if a word be changed; But it is sufficient, that the sum and substance of the institution be held out, and repeated; and the signs accordingly in the administration applied to the end for which, they are ordained, to illustrate and seal the thing signified to those that partake of it, (though a licentious freedom of variation of the words is to be avoided, so the sense and meaning of the institution may be, if not lost, yet at least obscured) there being no secret force in the syllables themselves, uttered with all the consecrating intention that the Priest can imagine, to create a new Sacrament.  
Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Sacram. in genere, cap. 21. hath a proposition to the contrary, 
k Non solum ses, sed etiam verba in Sacramentis novae legis is à Deo determinata sunt, ut non liceat quickquam immutate.  Not only the things themselves, (saith he) in the Sacraments under the New Covenant, (of which he saith, there is little difference between them and us) but the words are so determinate, that they may not anything be changed; yet when he hath done, he is put to it, to limit his own proposition, and shows there may be a variation six ways; in some of which the essence of a Sacrament is lost, the substantial form being taken away; in others the accidental form only, so that the essence continues notwithstanding such variation; so that he doth not only approve of the determination of Pope Zachary, who in an Epistle to Bonifacius resolves, that when some out of ignorance of the Latin tongue did baptise in nomine Patria, filia, & speritua sancta, that the substantial form was not altered; But also acknowledges that the Baptism of the Greeks was valid, and the substance not changed when they baptised in this way, Let the servant of Christ be baptised in the Name, etc. yet allowing of it, only upon that account, because the Church of Rome did tolerate it; so that their toleration, or prohibition can give, or take away the very substantial form of Sacraments: 
Arguments evincing the truth of the proposition.  the essence of them is at their courtesy. The truth of this proposition is clear. 1. No prescribed form of words is laid down in the Old Testament, as is confessed; and therefore Bellarmine puts it into his proposition, That in the Sacraments of the New Law, the words are so determinate, that nothing is to be changed: And that the Apostles did use any such prescript form in so precise a way, cannot be proved; yea, the contrary is more than probable, considering the multitudes in so short a space baptised, Act. 2. Act. 8. Peter exhorts his converts, to be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, Act. 2.38. And those mentioned, Act. 19.5. were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And Bonaventure (as he is quoted by Whitaker) says that the Apostles baptised in the name of Christ. And Scotus (as the same Author affirms) says, that if any should baptise in that manner, he durst not say it were no Baptism, and this with good reason; seeing Baptism in the Name of Christ, virtually comprizes the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and holy Ghost, His work being to reconcile man unto God, essentially, and not personally considered. 2. Either the very syllables themselves, in which the institution is set down, is the form, and contains the essence of Baptism, or else the sense and meaning: But it is not the very words and syllables themselves. This is clear in reason, and confessed by the adversary. First, it is clear in reason, than the same words and syllables must be used in which they were pronounced, when they were first instituted; That was the Syriack Tongue, (as is believed) being the language in Judea at that time, or at least the Greek, in which Tongue the words of the institution were committed to writing. But the form of the Sacraments is never tied to those Tongues, to neither of them. Papists officiate in Latin, Orthodox Churches in their own language, in which the same thing in other syllables is held forth. This is confessed by the adversary. Bellarmine approves (as we have heard) the ratification of that Baptism, where scarce ever a word was aright uttered, and that upon this account, that it might be easily understood what he would have said, as well by the act of baptising as by the word, In nomine, In the name, for that was aright pronounced. It is not then the words, but that which ought to be intended in the words that holds forth the institution, which may be further from the Jesuit cleared, in that he confesses, Scripture to be too short, to hold out the form of Baptisme-institution, which 
l Nos respondemus, illud (hoc facite) refer ad totam actionem Christi, ita ut comprehendat etiam verba, Id quod (ut omittam nunc alia argumenta) discimus ex traditione, & usu Catholicae Ecclesiae quae traditio si non recipiatur in dubium revocabitur etiàm forma baptismi, nam unde, quaeso, colligitur, dum aqua aspergitur, dicenda esse illa verba: Baptizo te in nomine Patris & filii & Spiritus sancti?  non aliunde quam ex illis verbis Matth. ult. Docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris & Filii & Spiritus sancti. At ex hoc loco id non potest certe colligi nisi recipiatur Ecclesiae traditio. Non enim Dominus ait, dicite Baptizo te in nomine Patris, etc. Satis igitur erit si aspergentes aquam dicanus, innomine Patris, & Filii, etc.  can be gathered from no place, he saith, but that of Matth. 28.19. Go teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. But there it is not said, I baptise, (as he observes) nor doth Christ command to say, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and holy Ghost; but to baptise in the Name of the Father, etc. If it be done in that Name by that authority, it were (saith he) sufficient, had we not tradition to the contrary, De Sacramentis in Genere, cap. 19 All which makes it appear, that an institution is necessary, and not a certain number of words of absolute necessity.  
Fifthly, A Sermon formally so called, 
A Sermon formally so called is not essential to a Sacrament.  to be preached at the same time, as the Sacrament is administered, is no way of the essence of Sacraments. This Chamier worthily rejects, as a calumny put upon protestant Writers: No protestant Writer ever did affirm it: Bellarmine would fain fasten it upon Calvin, and Beza, but confesses that Calvin speaks doubtfully in it; And sometimes seems to speak of a Sermon, as distinct from the Sacrament. They that hold this opinion, must not only conclude it to be the greatest of profanations to administer the elements when no Sermon is preached; But whensoever they administer any Sacrament, their Sermon must ever be of that subject; for to make a Sermon essential to Sacraments, which treats nothing about Sacraments, is to make the body of a bird essential to a beast. That which we say, is, that every word in the institutions of Sacraments is for instruction of communicants, and without such instruction, they can make no actual improvement of them to any spiritual benefit, either of justification, or sanctification; which yet is not of absolute necessity to be pressed, as oft as ever the Sacrament is taken; And words about the Sacrament teaching, and consecrating are not (as they make them) of an opposite kind. All words tending to consecration as [I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, etc. This is my body, This Cup, etc.] are words as well to instruct, as to consecrate; are Concionatoria as well, as Consecratoria: so that all words of consecration are words for instruction (though all for instruction are not for consecration) as might many ways be evidenced. 1. They are significant words, to be uttered by the voice of a public teacher. 2. They are Scripture words, and whatsoever is there written, is for our learning, Rom. 15.4. why is it wrote if not for reading? Why do we read if not for learning? 3. The Apostles to whom Christ gave charge concerning the Sacrament, were to understand themselves what they did, and to instruct those to whom they did commend it likewise. But they had no other way to know the Sacraments, either of Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, but from the words of institution, which they call by the name of consecration. 4. The Apostle going about to reform the abuses about the Lords Supper, and to teach the Corinthians a right way of celebration, repeats the whole institution, and lays down exactly that which they say is of the essence of consecration, and that to instruct, & not to consecrate. The words of consecration are his words of instruction. 5. To this we may add that of Austin, not barely his Authority, but the strength of his reason, Tract. 80. in Jo. Commenting upon his own words, The word is added to the element, and it is made a Sacrawent. 
m Unde ista tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat & cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo? non quia dicitur sed quia creditur. Name & in ipso verbo, aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens. Hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicumus ait Apostolus.  Whence is there that power (saith he) that water should touch the body, and the heart should be made clean, but the word working it, not upon that account because it is spoken, but because it is believed? For in the word itself the sound that passes is one thing, and the efficacy that remains is another; and this (saith he) is the word that is Preached. There is none can deny, but that the words of the Sacrament are to be believed, and in case they are to be believed, they are to be preached and heard, for who can believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a Teacher? Rom. 10.15. This place of Austin, 
n Locus hic mire torquere solet non nullos.  Bellarmine saith, hath troubled many, and Whitaker saith, they have as much troubled him as any other. He rejects calvin's Interpretation of it, and then rejects several Interpretations of his own party, and at last produces his own, which Whitaker says, is wholly borrowed out of Allen, 
o Dico igitur, Augustinum hoc loco, non semper loqui de eodem verbo, sed nunc de Sacramentali, nunc de concionali.  that Austin sometimes speaks of the Sacramental word, and sometimes of the Word as Preached, which two with him are altogether different; and yet Austin must by all means be acquit from Equivocation; we willingly yield that he doth not equivocate, and therefore the Sacramental word is a branch of that word that is Preached. He that pleases may read Suarez and Bellarmine's arguments answered by Chamier, lib. 1. de Sacra. in genere, cap. 17, 18.     

CHAP. VI  

SECT. I. God is the Author of all Sacraments, and Sacramental rites.  
THese Sacramental signs have God for their Author, as it follows in the definition, and is employed (as we have heard) in the text of the Apostle, Abraham receiving it, God appointed it, Gen. 17.10. So that the Observation is, God is the Author of all Sacraments, and Sacramental rites.  
This is clear of itself, and hath scarce any adversary. Look through all Sacraments, whether ordinary, or extraordinary, whether taken in the largest signification for holy signs, or in the strictest sense, as here defined; we shall still find that they were by Divine appointment; The Cloud, the Passage through the Red-Sea, Exod. 13. Manna, Exod. 16. The Rock, Exod. 17. The Rainbow, Genes. 9 gideon's fleece, Judg. 6. The shadow on Ahaz his dyal, Isa. 38. Circumcision, Gen. 17. The Passeover, Exod. 12. Levit. 12. Baptism, Matth. 28. The Lord's Supper, Matth. 26.1 Cor. 11. All of them are of Divine institution; And though Popish Writers are much put to it, to find any Divine institution for some of their Sacraments, (as may God willing be shown) yet with a joint consent they acknowledge this that we say, and give their reasons of it. Thomas Aquinas puts the question, part. 3. quaest. 64. art. 2. Whether Sacraments be alone of Divine institution? and determines it in the affirmative. Bellarmine spends the whole 23. Cap. of his first book, de Sacra. in genere, to assert, that only Christ is the author of the Sacraments. And Suarez, Quaest. 64. disput. 12. Sect. 1. lays down this conclusion, 
a Christus Dominus immediate ac per se institut omnia Sacramenta novae legis. Dico se cundo, Sacramenta veteris legis omnia fuere ab ipso Deo immediate inst●tuta.  that the Lord Christ immediately, and by himself, did institute all the Sacraments of the New Covenant; And adds a second conclusion, that all the Sacraments of the old law were immediately instituted of God himself; either of them both quote Canon. 1. sess. 7. of the Council of Trent, that thus determines, 
b Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia a Jesus Christo Demino nostro institua, Anthema sit.  If any shall say that the Sacraments of the New Covenant, were not in stituted by Christ, let him be accursed; which Canon they both understand to thunder out an ana thema against Protestants; seeing we hold that their extreme unction, and confirmation were never instituted of Christ, (to which thiey may add matrimony; for though the God of nature did ordain it, yet not Christ the Mediator of the Covenant) which they affirm to be Sacraments, and I think they did not mistake the meaning of the Council, seeing the Canon lays a curse, not only on those that shall deny that Christ was the author of all the Sacraments, but also on those that shall say there were more or less than seven, reckoning up their seven in order. But we may retort this curse upon them, as well as they fling it at us, 
Baptismus Johannis ab ipso Johanne institutus erat. Baptism of John of Divine institution.  seeing they deny the Baptism of John to be of Divine institution, and make it merely humane, as Bellar. lib. 1. de Baptis. Cap. 20. which yet we know to be a Sacrament, and able sufficiently to clear it, that God himself, and not John was the Author of it; Let John himself speak whether he went on his own head, on this work; He that sent me to baptise with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost, Joh. 1.33. The people of the Jews certainly had another opinion of his Baptism, as appears by their reasoning, when Christ demanded, The Baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? and they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say from heaven, he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say of men, we fear the people; for all hold John as a Prophet, Matth. 21.25.26. When the opinion among the people was so general, that the Chief Priests and Elders were afraid to oppose it, had it been an error doubtless Christ would not in that way have nourished them in it; And to say with Bellarmine that 
Deus solum in genere inspiravit, & inspiratione, illa mandavit ut baptizaret: sed ritum in particulari quo baptizandum esset, ipse Johannes instituit, non a Deo prae scriptum accepit.  God did command him to baptise, but the particular rite was left unto John himself, is nothing. When Christ demanded of the Baptism of John, whether it were from heaven, or of men? the Priests and Elders to whom he spoke, understood the whole work, and to conceit that the work was commanded, and the way of doing concealed, is an ungrounded fancy. All that are confessed to be Sacraments, are (we see) yielded to be of Divine institution, which is further plain in reason.  
First Sacraments are parts of worship, a piece of the homage that is due from man to God; And it is God, and not man that is to prescribe in his own worship; here God hath declared himself to be jealous, Exod. 20.5. that not any thing of the invention of man come within that worship that is Divine. And if Nadab and Abihu fell for adulterating the worship of God, bringing in strange fire, when fire from heaven was provided to their hands; How shall they stand that coin a worship itself, as do our adversaries, or put a new stamp upon it, when it is set up of God, which is their way likewise? Marriage which is an Ordinance without the Church, they make a Sacrament in the Church; Of duties they make ordination, and repentance Sacraments; and in case Pharisees made the Commandments of God void by their tradition, when they imposed a necessity of washing of hands before meat, when yet they did not raise it to the honour of a Sacrament; How much more had John offended, if out of his own fancy he had set up such an Ordinance as Baptism? David hath been charged that he appointed singers, and other officers in the house of God, without any command or direction from heaven; but the contrary to this appears, 2 Chron. 29.25. where in the life of Hezekiah it is said, He set the Levites in the house of the Lord, with Cymbals, with Psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the King's Seer, and Nathan the Prophet; for so was the Commandment of the Lord by his Prophets.  
Secondly, Sacraments are notes of distinction between the people of God and others that bear not that relation to him, as we have heard Circumcision and uncircumcision divided the world. The Circumcised were a people of God, when all others were children of a strange god, so we may say of all Sacraments; And as men of place alone have power to give liveries to their own servants, to distinguish them from those that have their dependence on others, so God hath alone power to give differencing Cognisances to his servants likewise.  
Thirdly, God only can give strength and efficacy to the Sacraments; what that is rests to be enquired, and is not a little controverted; but whatsoever it is, that it is wholly of God was never doubted; and he only that can give efficacy to them, is to ordain them. This is Thomas Aquinas his reason in the place mentioned.  
Fourthly, Sacraments are teaching signs, visible words, whereby man is instructed in Divine mysteries; but God alone is the author of the Word; It is given by inspiration of God, 1 Timothy 3.15. God alone therefore is the author of Sacraments.  
Fifthly, Sacraments are seals put to promise, annexed for confirmation of Covenants, as shall be further shown. But he only that makes the promise and appoints the Covenant, can give the seal. The Schoolman then (quoted by Bullinger, de Sacr. Decad. 5. Ser. 6.) hath well minded the Church, that she is no Lady over the Sacraments, but barely a servant, and can no more appoint a Sacrament, then abrogate a Divine Commandment. And Bellarmine puts this for the first reason, that Ministers are Stewards of the Mysteries of God; therefore they are not to institute them, but being instituted of God, are only to administer them.  
This holds true not only of Sacraments in their essence, that none may add any to the number of those that God hath instituted; But of all that is of the integrality of Sacraments likewise there is not the least Sacramental rite, that is to be of humane, but all of Divine institution. There is the same reason of the whole, and of every part. He that may not appoint a Sacrament, may appoint no piece of a Sacrament. A worship made up of Divine and humane Commandments, stands in the Church like Nebuchadnezars image, the head of Gold, but the feet of earth. The Poet's device of a man's neck joined to a horses head is not so great a solecism. Thomas Aquinas saw that this might be objected against much in the Sacraments in the Church of Rome, and therefore when he had put the question, Whether Sacraments have their institution from God? in the first place objecteth, 
c Ea quae sunt divinitus instituta, t aduntur nobis in sacra Scriptura, sed quaedam aguntur in Sacramentis, de quibus nulla fit mentio in sacra Scriptura, puta de Chrismate, quo homines confirmantur, & oleo quo Sacerdotes inunguntur, & de multis aliis tam verbis quam factis quibus utimur in Sacramentis. Illa quae aguntur in Sacramentis, per homines instituta, non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, sed ad quandam solennitatem, quae adhibetur Sacramentis ad excitandam devotionem & reverentiam in his qui Sacramenta suscipiunt. Ea vero quae sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, ab ipso Christo instituta sunt, qui est Deus & homo.  that there are some things done in the Church of which there is no mention in Scripture, as Chrism wherewith men are confirmed, and oil wherewith Priests are ordained, and much else, as well words as actions (saith he) which we use in Sacraments; and answers, that those things which are done in Sacraments instituted by man are not of the necessity of the Sacrament, but are used for solemnity, and to beget devotion, and reverence in those that receive them. But those things that are of necessity to Sacraments, are instituted of Christ, who is God-man. But how the Angelical Doctor can be reconciled to himself, I cannot see; when, part. 3. quaest. 72. art. 2. he concludes, that Chrism (which with him is oil mixed with Balsam,) is the matter of this Sacrament; as also Bellarmine de Scramento Confirmationis, Cap. 8. prop. 1. which he says is certain among Catholics from the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent. and gallantly proves it out of 2 Cor. 1.21. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; And certainly the matter of a Sacrament is of necessity to a Sacrament. And secondly, what devotion or reverence the things that are instituted of man can beget in the Sacrament appointed of God, can hardly be shown. It is as an addition of Tin, to silver in our common coin; As Ahaz his Altar fetched from Damascus to the worship at Jerusalem. It is true that a reverend way of solemnising these Ordinances in order, and decency, keeps up their honour, and adds to their honour comparative, to that  from some hands they had, and much is variable about them in those things that are mere matter of order, in which Scripture gives no precept; But no device of man adds any thing to the honour of an institution of heaven; God writes no imperfect work to leave it to man to add his supplement.   

SECT. II. Corollaries from the former Doctrine.  

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

The contempt, or neglect of Baptismo censured.  First, The Sacrament of Baptism, that door of entrance into the Church of Christ, our matriculation into the society of Saints; when other Ordinances are over in the Congregation, and that entered upon, we see the way of a great party immediately to post out: The Apostles thought it too low a business for the Lord Christ to have to deal with infants that had not legs to carry them, but must be brought in the arms of others; and therefore rebuked those that brought them. These think it below them, to wait upon a business where such only are concerned: Infant Ordinances are below their attendance. These are of two sorts. 1. Those who out of judgement leave, and are so principled, that they think they must leave, and declare their dissent from that practice. 2. Those that out of neglect leave: They judge that infants of right aught to be baptised: It is the Ministers duty to do it, and Parents and near friends and neighbours are to see it done, but it might be done in a corner, with more or fewer, it doth not matter: when they are gone, it will be baptised, and what is it to them to wait on the Baptism of it? The first of these that in departing, act out of principles that they have laid, (and therefore in case they were better principled, there is hope that they might act better) are of two sorts. 1. Those that protest against all title of infants to this Ordinance; and therefore upon that account refuse to honour it with their presence: And their very departure from it speaks this language, Here is one that is to be dedicated to God in an Ordinance that is of God, (For I speak not of those that go above water-baptism, they hardly come into us, and therefore do not on this account leave) but one that God will not own, being within no Covenant of his, and therefore no member of that society that appertains to him, to whom we say, in case God will not, who then must receive him: If he be no member of this society, nor in capacity of it, than he is also in an uncapacity to be saved? Act. 2.47. But they will not so determine, they say; but leave him to his own Master; But denying him a Covenant interest, and all title to Church-fellowship, they deny that Christ is his Master, (though that expressly affirm it, Levit. 25.42. yet they peremptorily deny it) and so thrust him from all interest in his redemption. Papists were the first in this cruel infant-damning principle, That they are out of Covenant with God; Anabaptists taking it from them, fight for it with their weapons. May we not think that Papists laugh in their sleeves, to see these men of new light, dispute for them, reform for them, separate with them? And do they not very well know, that if by these men's help, they can bring into the Protestant Church their premises, we shall never be able to avoid their conclusions. Others are not so rigid against all infants, but appear more tender to some; Infants of believers they judge to have their interest; when parents make good their part in the Covenant, and are steady in it, than they judge the children to be in Covenant; and this their charity (as well as it can) must determine. These might do well, 1. To examine those texts that themselves produce for the interest of such infants, of whose Parents their charity thus hopefully determines, and see whether those texts will not carry it for all the infants of professing Parents. I am sure I know none but carry it as clear for all, as they do for any. 2. Let them consider, whether children of God are not to be baptised? These infants of whose Parents they have saddest thoughts, are children of God, Ezek. 16.21. Whether servants of God ought not to be baptised? These children of such Parents are servants of God. Levit. 25.42. Whether Saints are not to be baptised? Such children are Saints, where one Parent is removed from an infidel, 1 Cor. 7.14.  
But the greatest part leave us not out of error, but neglect; not as being misled in judgement, but profane: Let these seriously take to heart these Queries. 1. Why did you join in any Ordinance in public, as that of praying, hearing, singing? was it not upon that account, as of God, by his appointment? Why then are those attended, and this (which you allow also to be of God) neglected? 2. Is this the closing duty, doth not a blessing follow upon this Ordinance? quitting this you quit both; you will join with others in the duty: but you will give them leave to be alone in receiving a blessing upon it. 3. Is not he, she, or they, that now are to be received a fellow-member, or members? must not thou, and they, make up one body? are not they a part of Christ mystical, as thou? It is but a little honour that thou givest them, when thou hast not patience to abide a few minutes, to be a witness of their happy initiation. 4. Doth not their case, upon this account call for thy prayers? the Church's prayers.? It would scarce please that thy own child should be offered to God in this Ordinance, without a word of prayer to God. They that consider the great business that lies upon the hands of a Christian, that high engagement to which this Ordinance ties, the manifold temptations that accompany a Christian course cannot but confess, that their case calls for all men's prayers. 5. Note the scandal, and offence that thou givest; the censure that thou leavest behind thee upon others that join in the duty; and on the other hand, the censure that thou bearest from them, in thus forsaking of them; either Minister, and people do manifest their trifling folly, and so a taking of God's Name in vain in the open Congregation on the Lord's day in his presence, to wait upon such an Ordinance that is unworthy of the honour of thy presence; or else thou manifest much sinful neglect in thy refusal, or with drawing of thyself. Thou canst not but think their continuance is vain, or else must conclude thy own departure to be wicked. 6. Is there nothing of edification in this Ordinance? no Word to be heard, by which thou mayest profit? dost not thou here see God's engagement to thy soul, and thy souls engagement unto God? Doth Baptism save, as the Ark of Noah, and is there nothing in it, whereby thou mayest be benefited?  
But here is objected, weakness of body, or haste of business, that lies upon them in that they can bear no longer.  
Answer, 1. How is it, that these reasons do not send thee away from other Ordinances, as well as barely from this? that thy weakness can bear, and thy business stay just to this time, that thy patience is bespoke for this work: when the Minister entreats to stay this Sacrament, a man might think men's ears mistake, and they thought he said. Turn your backs, clap to your pew-doores, tumble down the stayrs, haste, be gone, give your Amen to no more prayers, stay for no blessing; If these were the words, many could make no more haste to be gone, than they do on request to stay. 2. Let that text be well weighed, Ezek. 46.9, 10. where order is given, both for the coming in, and going out of the public assembly. The Prince may ordinarily speak of as much business-intanglements to hinder as any other, by reason of the burden of his heavy employments, and yet he is to go in with the first, and stay in with the last; and his example is pressed, that it may be a precedent to others. Some are slow to come in, and as hasty to be gone; come as a Bear to the stake, and fly away as an Ape from a whip. They are for Ordinances, and from Ordinances, as a truantly boy is for school, and from school. These have none of jacob's thoughts, Surely God is in this place, Gen. 28.16. or that they have to deal with God in all the Ordinances of the day, otherwise they would rise up early (as Job to his sacrifices) to partake of them, and would not make any such forward haste to be quit of them.  
And this respect, that it hath God for the Author, should move us not barely to vouchsafe our presence in the occasional administration, which may be done gazingly, carelessly, sleepily; 
An improvement is to be made of Baptism.  But we should make use of our own Baptism; being instituted of God as a standing Ordinance of his Church; we should have other thoughts, then that as soon as it is passed in the act, it is over in the use: we should eye it all our days as our inlet into the society of Saints, which is a greater honour than a King's Coronation, and as a high engagement unto duty: to faith in the blood of Christ, to a death to sin, and a resurrection to righteousness by power of the Spirit of Christ. Though it be low in the Ceremony, it is high in the obligation, tying us fast to him whose name we bear by virtue of our baptism, our whole business should be, that our conscience may answer this obligation; as a seal put to, the promise for pardon of our sin, and salvation. If Baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ (as the Apostle tells us, 1 Pet. 3.21.) there should be other improvement of it; were it aright considered, and duly improved, it would neither suffer sin nor doubtings, it would not suffer any way of sin, nor any prevalency of doubtings concerning our spiritual state and condition.  

Parents should look above civil decency and compliment.  It should quicken Parents to think of more than bare Ceremony, civil decency, and compliment in the work: which is almost the whole of all that is regarded: If friends in due order be invited, and in a way suitable to their place entertained, that is the great care; any blessing on the Ordinance is but little mattered. When they give a child in marriage, they do not neglect a wedding-feast, and such civil appurtenances that usually attend: but their great care, is about assurance for their livelihood: on this account counsel is retained, friends consulted: But this being as the day of their espousal for visible communion with Jesus Christ, little thought is taken of the weight of that work, few prayers sent up, or sought for that purpose: did they think they were dedicated to God, they would be at care, and would not grudge pains to seek a blessing from God.  
For the Lords Supper, that seems often to have a little honour, when that of Baptism hath none at all, being administered in times of men's growth, when the other was over in men's infancy, carrying terror in the face of it by reason of those explicit words of the Apostle upon the Corinthians profanation of it: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eateth and drinketh his own judgement. The examination called for upon address unto it, and those lists of judgements that are upon record upon the profanation of it, many weak, and many sick, and many sleeping: And perhaps some relics of superstition not yet wholly outed, since that time that a corporal presence was believed, and the bread worshipped: As is said of some, that they receive so devoutly, as though God were in the bread; and they live as though there were no God in heaven. But if the Author and nature of this Sacrament were aright weighed, another reverence, a reverence beseeming the glory of it, would be given it, which is not my business now to prosecute, being to speak here of the general nature only of Sacraments. Men would then be content, that the whole of the Administration should be carried on so as becomes the honour of the Ordinance, and would make it their business to promote a way that a due preparation might be made in fitting the communicants, and taking cognizance of them that come, that they may be able to discern the Lords body, and so honour, and not profane it. They would then take care to avoid unworthiness, lest the Author of this Feast should detect them, as the Master of the Feast did detect the man that came without his wedding-garment; we should see more reverence in the duty, more careful conscientious waiting upon the duty.    

CHAP. VII.  

SECT. I. The adequate subject of Sacraments.  
THe next thing here to be considered in this definition of a Sacrament laid down by the Apostle, is the subject of it, grounded upon the person that here received this sign of Circumcision and considered, as accepting of the Covenant of God, as we have heard: He entered the Covenant in his own name, and in the name of all them that were confederates with him: And he received Circumcision the sign of it: and they in their time respectively were also circumcised: and from hence these Conclusions may be drawn.  
1. The Covenant-people of God, are the adequate subject of the Sacraments; They, and they only, have their right and interest in them  
2. Sacraments are not arbitrary, but necessary; they are not only privileges, but duties: The Covenant-people of God may, and they must receive them.  
3. Their efficacy depends upon their use; They are no Sacraments to those that do not partake of them. Of these in their order.  

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

Propositions evincing the truth of the Point.  First, It is upon the account of the Covenant, that any among the sons of men are of the people of God; that they have any relation to him in order and tendency to their everlasting welfare. Where the Covenant is not, all relation-interest in God is wanting; these are without God, Ephes. 2.12. Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your Captains of your tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Israel; your little ones, your wives, and the stranger that is in thy Camp, from the hewer of wood, unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may establish thee to day for a people to himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. They that were no people, by Covenant are made a people, as he that was no servant, by Covenant is made a servant; and she that was no wife, made a wife: These are nigh, when others are afar off, Ephes. 2.17. Hereupon the Jews to whom the Covenants pertained, Rom. 9.4. have this glory, Psal. 148.14. A people near unto the Lord. A wife is called by the name of her husband, Esay 4.1. And the whole of the family, by the name of the Master of the family, so all of the people of God in Covenant, are called by the Name of God. He owns them as his, Ephes. 3.15. God mentions it as a motive taking with him, to hear prayers, 2 Chron. 7.14. If my people that are called by my Name, do humble themselves and pray, I will hear: And the people of God urge it, as a motive to prevail that they may be heard, Jer. 14.8, 9 O the hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night? why shouldest thou be as a man astonished, as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, we are called by thy Name, leave us not, Esay 64.18, 19 Our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary: we are thine: thou barest not rule over them, they were never called by thy Name; upon terms of Covenant only they are the Lords.  
Secondly, It is upon the same account that they have any interest in the Sacraments, which are the badges and marks of a people of God in profession. When the Covenant was entered with Abraham, and his seed, Gen. 17. Circumcision was forthwith instituted; These therefore were called the Circumcision, & all others the Uncircumcision, Ephes. 2.11. The title Jew did denote the people of God, Thou art called a Jew, (saith the Apostle) and restest in the law and makest thy boast of God, Rom. 2.17. and Jew and Circumcision are the same, Rom. 2.25, 26, 27. Rom. 3.1. And hereupon, as Abraham entering Covenant was circumcised, and his seed: so proselytes joining to them and their seed, were circumcised. And the self same that had their title to Circumcision, had their interest in the Passeover, and only these, as to males, Exod. 2.43, 44, 45. This is the ordinance of the Passeover, there shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof; A Foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. Rivet on the words concludes the 
Ergo Ben necar est homo alterius populi qui neque in populo Dei natus est neque ascitus.  stranger to be every one that was not borne among the people of God, nor taken in into them, Exod. 12.48, 49. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passeover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near, and he shall be as one born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you; whence we see that as the Covenant did entitle to Circumcision, which is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. Acts 7.8. so Circumcision did entitle to the Passeover. Hereupon there were ordinances enacted in Israel, for observation of it through Israel; as, Levit. 23. Numb. 28. may be seen. After a long time of intermission of it, we see a proclamation by Hezekiah throughout all Israel, to invite to it not only those of his own subjects, but all the rest of the revolted tribes, 2 Chron. 30.5. The invitation reached to all in Covenant, and only to those in Covenant, clearly showing that all Covenanters, and Covenanters alone, are inrighted in the privilege of Sacraments. In New Testament times, it is as clear, discipling and baptising go together in Christ's commission: Disciple Nations, and baptise them, Matth. 28.19. as it did before the enlargement of that commission, Joh. 4.1. When the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made, and baptised more disciples then John. Being made disciples, we see they were baptised. And a disciple of Christ, converted to the faith, and in profession a Saint, was never doubted to be in Covenant with Christ, being of those that belong to Christ and bear his Name, as the thing itself speaks, and the Evangelists compared show, Matth. 10.42. Mar. 9.41. Upon conversion there was no delay of Baptism, as appears through the history of the Acts, Chap. 2.41. Chap. 8. ver. 12, 13.38. Chap. 9.18. Chap. 10.48. Chap. 16. ver. 15, 33. Chap. 18.8. Baptism inheriting the room and honour of Circumcision. As the Covenant gave immediate title to Circumcision in the former dispensation: Now it gives the like title to Baptism. For the Lords Supper, it was never doubted but Christians made up into Churches by this Ordinance of Baptism, were inrighted in it; and the Apostle plainly shows it, 1 Cor. 10.17. For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are partakers of that one bread. And therefore Ravanellus in verbum Sacramentum, enquiring into the terminus cui, and cujus, for which they are appointed, says, The terminus cui, the end for whom they serve, is soli foederati, alone persons in Covenant; and then explains himself, that 
b Inter foederatos autem Dei censentur omnes illi quisunt in externa Ecclesiae Communione, et profitentur se in Christum credere: are vero, cum inter nos quidem possunt esse Hypocritae et impii, ideo Sacramenta in Ecclesia communia sunt piis et impiis, ita tamen ut impii pro piis probabiliter habeantur.  All these are reckoned within the Covenant, that are in the external Communion of the Church; and profess to believe in Christ. And seeing that among those there may be many hypocrites and ungodly, therefore the Sacraments in the Church are common to the godly, and ungodly; quoting 1 Cor. 1.27, 29. and giving instance, that Circumcision was thus conferred on Ishmael, Gen. 17.23. on Hemor, Shichem, and the men of their Cities, Gen. 34.24. Baptism on Simon Magus, Acts 8.15. and the Lords Supper on Judas the traitor, Luke 22.21. When he says that the Sacraments are common to the godly and wicked, he presently inserts indeed by way of parenthesis [So that the wicked are probably judged to be godly;] In which he seems to mean no other, but that their very profession is the probability, (as some say none can conclude any professor of Christinity to be ungodly; there may (say they) be some sparks of grace under ashes, and seed in due time to sprout out, yet lying under the clods, and not appearing) else he contradicts himself in distinguishing ungodly and hypocrites asunder, and the text also that he quotes; There was but little outward probability of godliness in those that so profaned the Lords Supper, as in that chap. is held forth. And though few in their Treatises of the Sacraments in general, stand much on this particular, who they be that have their interest in these privileges, nor do explicitly put it into the definition; yet we have it almost from every pen, and sounding out of every pulpit; Are not Sacraments called seals, and that of God's Covenant? are not arguments drawn in behalf of those, that some would exclude from Sacrament privileges, that they are Foederati, and therefore should be Signati? They are in Covenant, and therefore are entitled to the seals of the Covenant, which is an argument of undeniable strength. So fare as a man is vested in a grant, so far he is entitled to the seal, for ratification of it, and may require it; why is there a phrase borrowed from these proceed among men, in case it be not so here as it is in their proceed? Look into all Grants, Patents, Charters, Deeds, Leases, Bonds, Testaments, you shall still see the Covenant, and seal of equal latitude.  
Here indeed is somewhat objected which hath over and over been answered.  
First, That servants bought with money, and taken into Abraham's family, were to be circumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13. and so also into the family of others in Israel, Exod. 12.44.  
Answ. 1. This is strangely brought to prove that men out of Covenant, should be circumcised, when the text says, even of them, My Covenant shall be in their flesh. Is the Covenant of God in the flesh of those that are out of Covenant?  
Secondly, It is not where enjoined to compel them to Circumcision, nor yet is there any Example of such compulsion.  
Thirdly, Every Master's duty was (as Abraham's practice) to Catechise their families, and so, not to compel them, but to invite them into Covenant. Cajetan, 
c Cajetanus ergo qui necessitatem hanc supposuit, cum videret non convenire Sacramento qua tali, ut ab in vito susciperetur, existimavit invitos qu●dem fuisse circumcisos servos, sed ad fidei professionem non fuisse adactos: notam vero istam fuisse, istis, etiam in vitis impressam quatenus erat signum Reipub. politicum seu externum, quo Israelitae ab aliis gentibus discernebantur.  as he is quoted by Rivet on Exod. 12.43, 44. (supposing that the words sound towards a compulsion) understands, that servants were compelled to receive Circumcision, but only as a mark to distinguish them in a political way from other Nations; seeing it agrees not with a Sacrament as a Sacrament to be received against heart. Rivets own thoughts about it may be brought into four heads. 1. That as to the cutting off the foreskin, and the smart suffered in it, it was no injustice in Masters to compel them, seeing they were their Money. 2. That he best approves of their opinion, That hold that the Law of circumcising of Proselytes was on that condition, that they were willing to be circumcised. 3. That Masters ought to make it their business to persuade them; but not against heart to circumcise them. 4. If that any think that a necessity lay upon Masters to circumcise all servants, it is safest to be of Cajetans' mind, to deny it to be any note of profession of the Jewish Religion.  
Secondly, It is objected on the other hand, that some in Covenant were denied Circumcision; as, 1. Infants before the 8th. day: But that is unworthy of any answer. A stated day for it, is not any denial of it. 2. Females were not to be circumcised, seeing the institution is only for the males. To which three things may be answered. 1. For those that make use of this objection, they have authors of their own, namely, Walafridus Strabo de rebus Ecclesiasticis (as he is cited by à Lapide on Genes. 17.) affirming that they were circumcised. 2. The reason of their exclusion from any actual participation, was their incapacity of it. And thirdly, they were circumcised virtually, and so reputed of that number, as appears in that they were admitted to the Passeover, when the law was express, no uncircumcised person must eat of it, Exod. 12.48. And Samson was charged that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines, Judg. 14.3. So that I say, a Covenanting people of God, and they only are entitled to the right of Sacraments; when they are given to a people out of Covenant, a seal is put to a blank, which must needs be an horrid profanation of the seals of the Covenant of God. And when they are denied to those in Covenant, (as not their right) they are injured from whom they are thus detained.   

SECT. II.  
FOr further explanation of this point, several Propositions must be laid down. 
Explicatory Propositions.   
Proposition. 1.  
First, 
A Covenant properly so called is entered between God and his people.  God enters a Covenant exactly and properly so called with his people. A Covenant in the true nature of it, passeth between God and man: I took this for granted in the introduction into the Treatise of the Covenant of God entered with mankind, where in its proper place it might have been handled, supposing that there had been none that had denied it; But since that time I have seen my mistake, and among the many questions that have been moved and agitated about the Covenant, it is questioned whether there be any such thing as a Covenant entered between God and any of the sons of men upon earth? Commands and promises are confessed, but a Covenant is disputed. The way to make it good, is, to prove from Scripture the name, and the thing; when these are proved, all is clear. 
The word Covenant proved.  The word we find in places above number, Deut. 29.12. They stood that they might enter into Covenant with the Lord God. God is often put in mind by his people of his Covenant, Psal. 74.20. and he promises, Levit. 26.42. to remember his Covenant. These are then such transactions between God and his people that are called by the name of a Covenant; when this cannot be denied, the impropriety of the word is objected, that the word of command given of God out of Sovereignty, and the word of promise given out of mercy; they are called by the name of a Covenant, when strictly so called they are (as is objected) no Covenant at all. But to avoid this, the thing itself may be as easily proved as the word, 
The th●ng itself proved  and when we have nomen and nominis rationem, than we have a Covenant not aequivocally, but truly so called. And here I may deal liberally with any adversary, and undertake to make proof not only of all the essentials of a Covenant, but the usual adjuncts: not only all that makes up the nature, but all accessories usually added to the solemnity of Covenants. For the essentials of a Covenant, or real properties, they are (as Mr. Burges saith) A mutual consent and stipulation on both sides. 
In the essentials of it.  Parties, consent, and mutual engagement is all that is required to the being of a Covenant; when two parties agree, and either of them both have their conditions to make good, there is a Covenant or bargain; see it exemplified in several instances given, Treatise of the Covenant, Pag. 3. All of these we find in that one place, Deut. 26.17, 18, 19 in the Covenant that God enters with his people, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his Statutes, and his Commandments, and his Judgements, and to hearken to his voice: And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his Commandments; And to make thee high above all Nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken. There are the Covenanters, God and his people. There is consent on both parties. Thou hast avouched, the Lord hath avouched. And there is a stipulation on both sides; On God's part, to make them high above all Nations, which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour: On the people's part, to keep all his Commandments, to be an holy people. There are Covenant-mercies from God to his people, unto which of grace he engages himself; and there are Covenant-duties unto which man stands engaged, Psal. 103.17, 18. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his Covenant, and to those that remember his Commandments. Let none say that this was a legal Covenant, in which man had his conditions, but is freed from all in the Covenant Evangelical. Not to mention what I have elsewhere said, Mr. Ball, Treatise of the Covenant, Pag. 102, 103, 104. Mr. Burges, Vindiciae legis, Pag. 224, 225. have abundantly manifested the contrary, and most amply of all others (that I have read) Mr. Cobbet in his Vindication, Pag. 60, to Pag. 70. where he delivers this conclusion, that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace, making it good with twelve arguments, and answering as many objections. God's engagements in Gospel-times none deny, man's restipulation is all the question. And this is as clear in New Testament-times, as it was in the days of the Law; that of Christ fully holds it out, Joh. 8.51. If any man keep my say, he shall never see death. Christ's engagement there, is to keep from death; and upon these terms, that man keep his say: Here is a full tender of a Covenant, and Covenant-termes on Christ's part, he that accepts of Christ as his Lord, and professes to keep his say, enters Covenant: he that hath in him such an heart as God wished in Israel, To fear him, and keep all his Commandments always, Deut. 5.29. keeps Covenant. Gospel-Preachers hold out Christ in Covenant, and they do not only tender mercies, but engage to duties: Act. 5.31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince, and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins: and this duty of repentance is in order to the privilege of remission of sins, as we find from Peter, Act. 3.19. Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out: when the duty of the Covenant is neglected, the mercy of the Covenant is lost. This caused them in their Ministry, to be so zealous to urge men to it: Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Christ.  
For the usual solemnities of a Covenant, 
In the usual accessories on solemnities.  These are found in the transactions between God and his people, as well as the essentials of it. 1. Covenants used to be written for memorial for posterity, and so is the Covenant between God and man, as in Old, so in New Testament-times. These things are written that you might believe, and that believing you may have everlasting life, Joh. 20.31. 2. Covenants used to be confirmed with outward visible signs, as the kill of beasts, Jo. 15. Jer. 34 This was done in the old administration, Exod. 24. Half of the blood was sprinkled upon the Altar, to denote Gods entering of Covenant, vers. 6. The people also were sprinkled with blood, to show their voluntary entering into Covenant, vers. 8. And in the new dispensation, a new and unheard of ratification was used, the blood of the Mediator of the Covenant, Matth. 26.27, 28. This Cup is my blood in the New Testament which was shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins. This latter is a plain allusion to the former, in which you may find, 1. A threefold agreement. Either of both these were Covenants. 2. Either of both these had their ratifications and confirmations. 3. Either of both were confirmed with blood. 2. A threefold difference. 1. The former was the Old Covenant, which was antiquated; This is the New. 2. The former was ratified, and sanctified with the blood of beasts: This is ratified and sanctified in the blood of Christ. 3. That blood could never take away sin, Heb. 10. This was shed many, for remission of sins.  
Thirdly, Covenants use to be confirmed by seal: so is this Covenant between God and his people, as remains to be spoken to. As the being of a Covenant is thus plentifully proved by Scripture-testimony, so we might as amply prove it by arguments drawn from thence. 
Arguments evincing a Covenant in the proper nature of it.  The Churches of Christ are espoused unto Christ, Hos. 2.19, 20. And I will betrothe thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betrothe thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in loving kindness, and in mercies; I will even betrothe thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord. 2 Cor. 11.2. I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you to Christ; and Spouses are in Covenant with their Bridegroom. The Churches of Christ are married to Christ: Esay 54.5. Thy maker is thine Husband, the Lord of hosts is his Name, and thy Redeemer the holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called. And wives are in Covenant with their husbands. Their sins against God are branded with the names of Adulteries, Whoredoms; and these are not barely disobedience of a Command, or neglect of a favour, but breaches of Covenant. The Churches of Christ are servants of Christ, Levit. 25. household servants, Ephes. 2.19. and servants are their Masters by Covenant. Their sins in this relation are not barely obstinacy, stubbornness, or ingratitude, but they are charged with treachery, falsehood, dealing falsely in Covenant, and their hearts being not steadfast in Covenant. It is above me to conceive, how man can be a Covenant-breaker, not alone respective to man, but God as he is frequently charged, when there hath passed no Covenant between God and man. They may question whether there were ever any such thing as a Covenant in the world.   

SECT. III. Proposition. 2.  
SEcondly, Whereas there is an usual distinction (almost in all that writ or speak of the Covenant) of a double Covenant between God and his people; one external, and the other internal; one passing outwardly, and the other inwardly kept and observed. Or (as Doctor Preston expresseth it) a single and a double Covenant, which I shall forbear to examine, seeing I know there is a right meaning; though I much doubt whether there be in the Reader a right understanding. My second Proposition shall be, that it is the external Covenant, not the inward, that exactly and properly is called by the name of a Covenant: and to which privileges of Ordinances and title to Sacraments are annexed. This Proposition (occasioned by this received distinction) is of three heads, which in case the Reader please, he may subdivide into three distinct Positions.  
1. The outward and not the inward Covenant is most exactly and properly called by the name of a Covenant, 
The outward and not the inward Covenant, is properly a Covenant.  which I thus make good: That Covenant to which the definition of a Covenant doth belong, hath exactly and properly the nature of a Covenant, this none can deny: The definition sets out the nature of the thing defined; But the definition most actly belongs to the outward Covenant, not to the inward, this is plain; An agreement of parties on terms and Propositions is the definition of a Covenant: Now the outward Covenant, is an agreement on terms and Propositions, as elsewhere I have abundantly declared. In that Covenant God engages himself to man for his happiness; and man engages to faith and obedience. The inward Covenant hath no terms or Propositions at all for man to make good upon account of his Covenanting: seeing the performance of the conditions of the Scripture-Covenant, is his very entrance into the inward Covenant. He that believes and reputes keeps Covenant, nothing more is expected of God, or promised by man: But believing and repenting is the first closing with God in Covenant according to them that speak of an inward Covenant. A Covenant to perform conditions is a Covenant properly so called; But the outward Covenant, not the inward, is a Covenant to perform conditions, is plain: The conditions in the inward Covenant are the Covenant. That which confounds entrance into Covenant and keeping of Covenant, is no Covenant properly so called; In a Covenant properly so called these are distinct: But the inward Covenant confounds entrance into Covenant and keeping of Covenant, and therefore in exact propriety of speech is no Covenant.  

The outward Covenant is most usually in Scripture called by the name of Covenant.  2. The outward and not the inward Covenant is most usually in Scripture called by the name of a Covenant; which is plain, in that they that have no part or portion in the inward Covenant, are still spoken of in Scripture as a people of Covenant; God calls all Israel his people, and that upon Covenant terms; see the place quoted, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. All of those that there thus Covenanted with God, were not in the inward Covenant. This people at their worst, and the worst among them, are called the people of God, as by those that were strangers to this Covenant: These are the people of the Lord, (say the men of Babylon) and are gonc forth out of his land, Ezek. 36.20. so also by the Lord himself, Jer. 2.32. Can a Bride forget her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number. How often doth God own Israel as his people, when he yet brands them as a rebellious, revolting, stiffnecked, treacherous, and adulterous people. They that forsake the Covenant of God, that break Covenant, that deal falsely in it, upon whom God brings a sword to avenge the quarrel of his Covenant, are in the outward, not in the inward Covenant: But such there be among God's Covenant-people, as he frequently complains, that break Covenant, etc. These are not then in his inward, but outward Covenant.  
The great objection is, (and all that carries colour against this) Jer. 31.32, 33. where the Lord differencing the Old and New Covenant, saith, This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah: not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my Covenant they broke, although I was an husband to them, saith ●he Lord: But this shall be my Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. That is alone the inward Covenant, and the elect regenerate are alone within it. The inward Covenant than is called in Scripture a Covenant, and is in exact propriety of speech a Covenant.  
For answer, I shall refer the Reader to what I have said, scil. Treatise of the Covenant, Pag. 64, 65. 66. In this place only putting these Queries.  
1. Whether those that carry this text to an unconditionate Covenant, and restrain it to that which they call the inward Covenant, do not make the Covenant in the time of the Law, and that in Gospel-times essentially different, and consequently either make two Covenants of grace, distinct in kind; or thrust those under the Old Covenant out of all hope of salvation, contrary to all Interpreters, who make these Covenants one in substance? See the last larger Annotations on the words.  
2. Whether such an Interpretation do not utterly contradict New-Testament-light, which holds out the New Covenant in like latitude with the former, in which many are called, but few are chosen; and where conditions are as explicitly, and fully required, as in Old-Testament-dispensations?  
3. Whether when Scripture speaks of things in opposition to men's erroneous conceits, and for a further explanation of them, and rectifying men's judgements in them, it do usually lay down a full complete and formal definition, to which nothing is to be added? or whether it doth not usually supply that, in which men through mistake were defective and short? And whether those texts, Esay 58.6, 7. Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to lose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out into thy house, when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hid not thyself from thy own flesh? Jer. 22.15, 16. Did not thy father eat and drink, and do justice and judgement, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy, and then it was well with him; was not this to know me, saith the Lord? Jam. 1.27. Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world, are not parallel to this text in their way of delivery. And in case we cannot find a full definition of a religious Fast in that of Esay, nor the whole of it that makes up saving knowledge in that of Jeremy, nor the whole that makes religion complete in that of James; why is it that we should earnestly contend, that the full nature of a Covenant is in this text expressed, being fully parallel in the way of delivery to those other texts.  

Men enjoy privileges of ordinances and interest in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant.  Thirdly, It is upon the account of the outward Covenant, and not the inward, that men enjoy privileges of Ordinances, and interest in Sacraments; men that are so fare honoured as to an outward Covenant, have just title to these privileges. It is in behalf of the Jew outwardly that the Apostle, Rom. 3.1. puts the question; having so decried his condition, respective to the approbation of God, he objects, What advantage hath the Jew? what profit is there of Circumcision? The Jew and Circumcision are there one; A Jew outwardly, and Circumcision in the flesh go there in equal latitude. He that by nature is a Jew (as Paul speaks, Gal. 2.15.) is of the Circumcision; And to these the oracles of God are committed; The instruments, deeds and evidencos of the Covenants, say the last Annotations. It was the privilege of Israel, Psal. 147.19. Rom. 3. and then the privilege of no other Nation; now it is the privilege of all engrafted in their stead. This is confessed even by a great part of those that understand the inward Covenant (or Covenant keeping to acceptation,) almost whensoever they mention a Covenant, in that they baptise infants upon Covenant grounds, all their infants that make a Covenant profession, and that upon just warranty: Scripture honouring them (as I have shown) with the name of children, and servants of God. It is further plain in reason. The outward Covenant must have privileges suitable to it, otherwise there is no manner of benefit or advantage of it. This privilege of the Sacrament is suitable, being outward as the Covenant is outward; And it was sufficiently cleared in the proof of the main observation, where the Covenant people of God are affirmed to be the adequate subject of the Sacraments, and all the Scriptures there urged, lead us to an outward Covenant, or (as some speak) to the interest of an outward administration of it; So that in case any will contend still, that it is an inward Covenant that Scripture usually mentions and honours with that title, yet being here in (as for a great part we seem) agreed, that privileges of Sacraments are annexed to the outward Covenant or outward administration, we have what we desire.  
When this was almost ready for the Press, Mr. Baxters' Apology came forth, in which, pag 103. I am challenged for this distinction of an outward and inward Covenant, as though I had been the Author of it, when all know that it is a distinction, that of a long time among Divines hath been in common use; and in case it had not been commonly received, I should have forborn the use of it. As I heard Mr. Ball once in discourse say, that he denied any such distinction of an outward and an inward call to the Ministry, all calling being external, unless the man called were a Prophet. That which men term an inward call, being only qualifications fitting for the work: so I deny in exact propriety of speech, that the inward Covenant is any Covenant, but the answer of the soul unto that which the Covenant requires. And whereas Mr. Baxter saith, It is apparent that Mr. Blake distinguisheth, ex parte Dei, between the outward and the inward Covenant; It is probable that he thus distributes them, from the blessings promised, whereof some are inward, and some outward; for though he explain not himself fully, yet I know no other sense that it will bear. I thus distinguish them, to apply myself to the Readers understanding, that hath been accustomed so to call them; and I say indeed, that men that barely Covenant, and keep not Covenant, have only priulledges that are outward, they are visible Church-members, and they have visible Church-priviledges. And those who answer to Covenant engagements (which usually is called the inward Covenant) have privileges both outward and inward. A Jew outwardly had outward privileges, A Jew inwardly (that is, he that answered to his outward profession, that worshipped God in his spirit) hath both those that were outward and inward. It is there said, It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no seal; for it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis; If therefore it have a seal, it is either the same which is promised, or some other. What he means, when he says, it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis, I am to learn; If he mean that the seal follows the Covenant, and is put to after the Covenant, so it is in all Covenants whatsoever. He says, they no where tell us what is the seal of their outward Covenant; me thinks we had no need to tell what the seal of that Covenant was, that the Jew entered; was it not Circumcision? and did there not another follow, viz. the Passeover? Now I tell him, that Circumcision and the Passeover were, and Baptism and the Lords Supper are seals of this Covenant. The Nation of the Jews were in Covenant, as Mr. Baxter (though he would, yet) must not deny they were in no inward Covenant; and yet they had these seals. Mr. Baxter says, we are bound to give the seals to such, Apolo. 88 Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith, is larger than election, and makes men such, whom we are bound to baptise; And such we say have right to Baptism. And to help Mr. Baxter, those men that he says the Church must baptise, though without right, we say are truly in Covenant, and have right; when he knows what child he is to baptise, he knows who we say are in Covenant, and have Covenant right to Baptism; so that a second Covenant of which he speaks to give right to a first, is a strange fancy. But of this I shall have further occasion.   

SECT. iv Proposition. 3.  

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

SECT. V Proposition. 4.  
AS the fundamental right to Sacraments must be grounded on the written Word of God; so the bar to actual admission must be written likewise. 
Fundamental right and bar to actual admission must be both written.  None may be admitted without known right, their visible Covenant-title must appear; in such case a seal would be put to a blank, and the Ordinance profaned. It was therefore provided that no uncircumcised person must eat of the Passeover, Exod. 12.48. and none in Covenant in right, that stand in any visible relation to God, without a known bar may be kept back. There must be a reason seen of their admission, and a reason seen of their suspension. The sin of those of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulon was; that they eaten of the Passeover otherwise then was written. There was that bar upon them, that according to the written Word they were not in present to eat of it. He that gives warranty to his people to come, must also put in the exception against those that are to be denied. No Person, no Church must take in, or refuse by their own power; this were to Lord it over God's heritage, and an high usurpation of a power not put into their hands. Stewards in great houses are to take in, and hold back from the family, not at their own will, but according to their Master's pleasure   

SECT. VI Proposition. 5.  
THis right unto, or bar put to detain from Sacramental participation, is not always explicit, and express, 
Right unto, or bar to detain from Sacramental participation, is not always and explicit.  it is sufficient that by a clear and full consequence from Scripture it may be deduced. The fundamental title is clear, and before cleared. It is the Covenant that gives a title, the outward Covenant is a sufficient title to all outward privileges, prove a Covenant made, (kept or not kept, if not renounced) and then a right stands. The right unto, or bar put to present acceptance, is often more disputable, which the written Word in express terms or by necessary consequence must also determine. When those were kept back by reason of a touch of a dead body, from eating the Passeover, Num. 9 there was no express precept in the Law for such prohibition of them; but seeing such were to be kept out of the Camp, Num. 5.2. and they must be clean that eat of the offerings of the Lord, they were evidently included, and it appears that they saw it. And when the Lord himself names those bars, which in after times should withhold an Israelite from the Passeover; the instances which he gives are no sufficient explicit enumeration: It is there said, that he that is in a journey could not eat of the Passeover, neither could he that was in prison, or employed in war, or under sickness: One legal uncleanness is there named, which did defile; there were other defilements as well as that, which disabled an Israelite actual participation, Num. 5.2. Only those that infer such consequences, must be able to make good their consequences, and take heed of framing principles of their own, and then deduce consequences from them: were this heeded, the door would not be set so wide open, as many complain, not yet kept too narrow, as perhaps there may be cause of complaint, according to many men's rules, though according to their practice, perhaps there is no such great cause of grievance; perhaps the grievance may be found on the other hand.   

SECT. VII. Proposition. 6.  

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

SECT. VIII. Proposition. 7.  

Admission unto the Sacrament of initiation is facile.  THere being a double Sacrament in the Church, both in the Old and New Testament: one for initiation into the Church visible, the other for confirmation: one in which it is sufficient having a due title to be passive, and the other such in which we must be active. Admission unto the Sacrament of initiation, seems more facile, whether it be of grown persons in the first plantation of Churches, upon conversion from Gentilism, Judaisme, or any other way distinct from Christianity, or of infants that are confederate with their parents; and though some lay it down as a Maxim, Adultorum eadem est ratio utriusque, There is the same reason for admission of men of years to either Sacrament; yet it is but gratis dictum. Neither any Scripture text, nor solid argument drawn from thence doth evince it. Less is expected in a child's entry into the School, or a youth's matriculation into the University, then in the time of growth and further proficiency. Professed Disciples are taken into the Church by Baptism to learn; but they must be proficients as shall appear, before they are able to make improvement of the Supper.  
For infants there can be no bar at all for their initiation. 
There is no bar to the initiation of infants in confederation on with their Parents.  They that hold that Sacraments confer grace non ponenti obicem, that is, upon all such that put no bar or obstacle to it, do withal conclude (and undeniably if they can make good their Position) that all infants in Baptism, are regenerate, seeing, they put no actual bar, either by sin or unbelief, to the working of it for regeneration; so we that hold that infants are confederate with their Parents, do conclude likewise, that they put no obstacle or bar to their admission to the sign or seal. As there was no further qualification required in an infant for title to Circumcision, then to be the son of an Israelite, or one by Circumcision joined to Israel: so there was no bar by reason of uncleanness, or want of previous purification mentioned either in the command given to Abraham, Gen. 17. or in the Law given by Moses, Levit. 12. There is mention made of the uncleanness of the Mother, that hath born a man child, Levit. 12.1, 2, 3. she was to continue in the blood of her purifying thirty three days, and to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sactuary until the days of her purifying be fulfilled: but nothing said of the uncleanness of the child, but on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin was to be circumcised; without mention either of uncleanness, or purification. Those that can find no bar in the child tendered to Baptism, but seek for one in the Parent, to withhold it from this initiating Ordinance, may here see that when the Parent was personally polluted, the child was clean; when the Parent might touch no hollowed thing, the child was yet to be circumcised. And moral uncleanness in the Parent can have no more influence on the child, to indispose for this privilege, then legal, when according to themselves Original sin (though transfused by the Parent into the child) is no bar. In vain do they make the Parents actual sins an obstacle, which is terminated in the Parent as defiling the person, but transmitting no blot to posterity. It is a most un-Scriptural way in those, that in their judgement are for Paedo baptism, to inhibit the tender of infants, upon pretence of either their Parents sin, or their want of Congregational membership. And here that supposed great argument, to debar the infants of ignorant and scandalous persons from Baptism, may have an easy answer; Such Parents, if they were now to be Baptised, ought not to be Baptised; Ergo they cannot challenge it for their children; Baptism belongs primarily to the Parent. The consequence is here manifestly false, seeing such Parents have unquestionably a fundamental first right, both to Baptism and the Lords Supper, in their respective order, by virtue of their profession of the worship of God in Christ as their God, in opposition to all false gods; and their profession of the ways of Christianity, in opposition to all other ways; though their ignorance and scandal do prove a bar to their present admission to either, and having this right, and being to be Baptised, their children with them are enrighted; and children putting in no bar, may be actually admitted. Privileges in Church, and Commonwealth, are ex traduce, and so are not crimes. In this I have delivered myself, Treatise of the Covenant, chap. 46. as also in my Birth-priviledge, making good this position by several arguments, That the children of all that by profession are Christian, are by virtue f Covenant-interest to be received into the Church by Baptism; Enlarging myself in several particular instances, in such whose seed some would debar, which yet according to Scripture rules we ought to receive; Examining Mr. Firmins' grounds to the contrary in his serious question stated; 
Mr. Firmins' appendix as to the latitude of infant-Baptisme examined.  And answering his arguments, he hath been pleased in one day to read, and undertake to refute what I have spoke. He must therefore give his Reader leave, from his own mouth, to believe that it is a very hasty birth, and what need there is that he should yet lick it over, the work itself will speak. I little expected (I confess) so unfair dealing from a man of his candour, he might easily have seen that all that I speak to him in this thing there, is by way of Corollary or inference drawn from that which by Scripture-testimony, and arguments in several foregoing Chapters I had made good. Which (as it appears from his own hand) when his refutation came out, he had never read, and therefore (by his own acknowledgement) hath taken my conclusion into consideration, having never seen the premises, and so must judge according to his own reason, only having never had any sight of mine. Before I come to give answer to his exceptions against that which this Position affirms, I must clear myself from some imputations of his, touching my dealing with him. 
The Author cleared from some imputations.  I observe sometimes (saith he) you dress my argument in such a fashion, that I cannot know it to be mine but, disclaim it, than you find fault.  
To give the Reader here an account, Mr. Firmin had framed this argument against the power of mediate Parents to confer Baptism on posterity; If that promise doth give this power to predecessors, then though there were none to educate this child (for the ignorant and profane Parents will not, but teach them how to breaks Covenant; predecssours cannot, they are dead, and are not) yet we must seal to the child. Having explained myself to avoid mistake, I first answer, that Mr. Firmin himself here concludes such a child's interest. In case he can be brought to break Covenant, he is interessed in the privileges of the Covenant; to which he says nothing at all, but either in haste or prudence passeth it by, and dealing with Mr. Caudrey speaks fully to confirm the strength of it: Interest in the Covenant of the Gospel (he saith, Pag. 4.) gives first right to Baptism. This child hath this interest, otherwise he can be in no capacity to break Covenant, he hath therefore this first right, and let Mr. F. see how he can deny an infant the second. I add in the second place, let him make it up into a formal argument, and then it runs thus: That child whose immediate Parents will not bring it up to the power of Godliness, hath no right to Baptism. Here his exception lies, and therefore he demands, Where have I mentioned the power of Godliness, as a requisite in him who claims Baptism? but to bring up a child in it, is harder matter. To which I reply, 1. That here is a strange question, seeing we were not speaking to any prerequisite for Baptism, but after education, which was his exception. 2. Though he mentions not education in the power of godliness in words; yet in case his meaning be not so, his argument answers itself; For the child of such a parent that he mentions, shall infallibly (so fare as man can judge) have education in a away of Christianity, so fare as to be of the Society of professed Christians, under the dispensation of those Ordinances that are able to save the soul, and are called by the Apostle the power of God to salvation, Rom. 1.16. He further adds, Sometimes your answer is a bare laying down your own judgement, with a similitude added for illustration, quoting pag. 441. He adds, we call for Scripture and reason, Similia ad pompam non ad pugnam. This that he relates unto was thus occasioned: In his serious Question stated, pag. 8. he saith, If the predecessor may by this promise give right to Baptism without the immediate parent, than I pray tell us how fare we may go for this predecessor? how many generations? where hath God's Word limited Ministers? you may go to this predecessor, and no further. After that I had replied, that I knew but few that say the predecessor gives right, without the immediate parent, but all concur in a joint way to communicate a Covenant interest; I there for further satisfaction of his Question demand, in titles of honour and inheritance of Lands which men claim by descent from their Ancestors, where is it that they will stay? adding that it will soon be answered, that they stay, when they can go no higher, to find out any other predecessor vested in such honour, or inheritance; and then I bring it home by applicatian of Scripture instances, full to our purpose. Some can make no claim at all from parents, they are the first of their house in honour or inheritance; and this was the case of Abraham, he had no interest in Covenant from Terah; such was the case of the primitive converts; and such is the case of the Indians, that now by a gracious providence are converted by the English. Some can go no further than their immediate parents, they were the first in honour, or that gained an inheritance to their house; This was the case of Isaac and those children called by the Apostle, holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and will be the case of the children of Indian converts. Others can rise to the third or fourth generation; others can go as high as the conquest; some can claim beyond the conquest, by Deeds without date: so it is with Christians, they may go as high as Ancestors have been in Christianity. I here demand, whether there be not reason in this parallel, seeing Christian privileges (as I have proved at large, and he never denied) are descendable from parent to child, as are honours and inheritances, and whether Scripture be wanting in that answer? I had proved at large, pag. 436. that mediate parents give this right: and I appeal now to the Reader, whether that question of his, Where we may stay? hath not a sufficient answer both from Scripture and reason, so that he might have spared his call for it?  
I tell Mr. F. that his first argument brought for the exclusion of infants of ignorant and scaudalous persons from Baptism managed in the way that he doth, was Mr. Blackwoods' argument before him, to debar all Infants from Baptism, putting his own Medium into Syllogistical form against him, with equal force concluding against all Infant Baptism, which he says, Sir, is no clever way of disputation, pag. 53. Then I am to learn how to dispute cleverly, if I may not deal by retortion against a man, with his own weapon: did not Christ dispute in a clever way with the Pharisees, when they charged him to cast out devils by Beelzebub? answering them, By whom then do your children cast them out? Matth. 12.27. He answers for himself, that he never saw any thing of Mr. Blackwoods, and I never had it in my thoughts to charge him with borrowing from him, but only to show him that either his arguments might have an answer, or else he must deny Baptism to all Infants, which is against both his own judgement, and practice. He tells me that Mr. Johnson hath answered the argument before me, and I in his words, though he says, it may be I saw him not, which to me is strange, that we should so hit in one, I having seen no more of Mr. Johnson then he hath done of Mr. Blackwood; but it is worth the observing how he goes about to avoid it, as turned against himself; For he knew well that I brought it not as an argument ad rem, (for he says, I have answered it) but ad hominem. His argument is this, pag. 18. of his Serious question, Such persons as de jure ought, and de facto are excluded by godly Ministers from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their children's Baptism: But such persons as the question mentions, de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper: Ergo. The Major he proves thus, If Baptism doth seal to the same Covenant, which the Lords Supper doth, and doth signify and seal as great blessings and privileges, as the Lords Supper doth, than those who are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their children's Baptism: But the antecedent is true: Ergo the consequent is true. This in Mr. Blackwoods' behalf I thus urge against him, If Baptism doth seal to the same Covenant, which the Lords Supper doth, and doth signify and seal, as great blessings, and privileges as the Lords Supper doth, than those that are excluded from the Lords Supper ought also to be excluded from Baptism: But all Infants are excluded from the Lords Supper eo nomine because they are Infants; and therefore they are to be excluded from Baptism. Further adding, when Mr. Firmin hath given a fair, and a full answer to this Syllogism, he may easily fit it to his own, to give like satisfaction.  
All his answer is, My argument is not hurt at all, though the parent may be suspended for a time, what is this to the suspension of three parts of a Church, six or ten years together, and never proceed further? And I say, what is this to the purpose? Though parents be suspended all their days, whether justly, or injuriously, root and branch are not therefore under suspension.  
Words of mine, pag. 426, 424. he challenges: Infants of parents that are nomine tenus Christians have right to Baptism, if they profess the worship of the true God, though nothing more of a Christian be in them. In which how much my words are curtailed, for haste, I leave to the Reader, by comparing to find out.  
For answer, He speaks first by way of concession, I make no question but many such nominal ones a Minister may baptise, and their children, though they have not truth of grace in them; and goes on, But I perceive your scope is to spread the Word very large, and that directly opposite to my question; If they will say they are Christians, bear the Name of Christ, own his worship (though it be but from the custom of the Nation, others do so, and so do they) though their course and frame of conversation be like the infidels, or worse, yet they are Christians nomine tenus, hence we must baptise if they have but fides, no matter for observation. The great fault is, it seems, that I presume to go opposite to his question, which I must ingenuously acknowledge; but seeing I am allowed to baptise both parent and child, where there is no truth of grace in the parent, and yet am chidden for being too large, I demand when I must stay? in what latitude I may walk? Men of the Congregational way are wont to limit me to parents one or both of the truth of grace, and will allow none but believers children; If justifying faith be not in the parent, no baptismal water shall come on the child. All other Christians from the beginning of Christianity (those excepted that as of yesterday have opposed infant Baptism) look upon them under what notion you will, have allowed to go as fare as profession of Christianity. Mr. Firmin that will be larger than the one, and narrower than the other, must tell us where we must fix. He hath my rule to except against, I have not his to challenge. To let me understand my error in being too large, he demands, But, Sir, I pray what if they be heretical about the natures of Christ, as of old some deny the humanity of Christ, and some the Deity of Christ? and than proceeds to further instances. To which I first answer, Perhaps he may find some called Christians, that it is a contradiction in adjecto to name them so, such that receive not the Gospel at all, but professedly abhor it. If any such are intended, I shall say my meaning is known. They that are no Turks, Infidels, Pagans, but in opposition to them of the faith, worship, and way, that is Christian. Secondly, For the Heretics instanced in, such as were of old, Mr. Firmin being so well versed in the way of antiquity, I wish him to inquire what the Orthodox thought in those times of their Baptism? Did they rebaptize those that had received their Baptism? Did they deny their infant's Baptism? They were to be trained to hear that Word that was able to convince this error: And how much worse, respective to salvation, were these tenants then that of the denial of the resurrection? yet the Infants of some such were circumcised, (as I have shown) and of others baptised. He goes on: What if they think Christ was a Woman? as (he says) he hath given instance in one; And indeed a wild one, of one who had a prayer where this was often repeated, that Jesus was her name; perhaps he was a Welshman, and then (according to their dialect) her is the Masculine gender. This indeed were an error, full of folly, but not of such danger, for two reasons. 1. Christ were yet of mankind, and had taken our nature, had he been of that sex. 2. It were not likely that he should make over such an opinion to his posterity: He leaves heresy, (which he might have spared, such shun our Congregations) and falls to instance in ignorance What if he knew not whether he was God or man, as before? what: if ten Gods? with abundance such stuff. I say, the case of such is sad, & more sad in the degree, than I have met with any of the use of reason, and in capacity for marriage society. I wish from my soul that all means were sought that these blind might see; yet as long as God is not hereby provoked to remove our Candlestick, but light still shines in our Horizon, the Kingdom of God being not yet removed; so that when the parent is blind, the child may see, as I have known many happy experiences, yea, the ignorant parents glorying in it. There is not cause that we should be more severe than the Lord himself, as to thrust out their posterity from the society of the Lords people. This were to provoke them to shut their eyes, and not to open them to receive the light that shines about them; I think it were to exceed in our zeal against ignorance, as fare as the disciples did against the Samaritans, when they would have fire to come down from heaven to consume them, Luke. 9.54. I had instanced in ignorance in Church-members, not only among the Jews, but Christians, as the H●brewes, Heb. 5.12. the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15.34. That of the Hebrews, he says, he thinks hurts him not; That of the 1 Cor. 15.34. (he says) is most likely, when I know not whether of these two is more likely. To that concerning the Corinthians, some have not the knowledge of God, I speak this to your shame, (which he only thinks is worthy of an answer) he says, 1. Sir, do you think it was such gross ignorance as I have given instance? To which I answer, 1. That I know no more than the Apostle tells me, and he says it was want of the knowledge of God. 2. I demand, will you allow me to baptise the children of those that I find not equalling such in ignorance that you mention, viz. the children of all that know that God is one, and the Commandments ten? 2. He demands, Was not Paul as true to his work as Abraham or the Jews were to be in admitting to Circumcision? which I mention, pag. 445. To which I say, I do not think that the admission of all was Paul's work, and that many were admitted, after he left them, before he wrote this Epistle to them. 2. I know he admitted few among them, their admission was by Baptism; and how many, or (if you will) how few he baptised in Corinth, you may learn from himself, 1 Cor. 1.14, 16. 3. He says, I have found so much ignorance that the persons deserved shame, but yet dared not to keep them from the Lords Supper, because I found such a work on their heart, though they could not express it in a definition. To which I say, that I find so much ignorance in myself that deserves shame, and such that may not be able to express the thing that might be in question, might pass with me, for knowing men; Periti est artificis definire; But were they such that you could say to their shame, that they had not the knowledge of God? and yet durst you not exclude them from the Lords Supper? He tells us of many sad instances of ignorance in fathers, upon which he refuseth to give admission to infants; But were it granted that such, as to all privileges were mere heathens, as it was with those in Corinth mentioned by the Apostle that were joined in marriage with believers, and their ignorance not only gross, but total, and in all respects to be reckoned among those that were without God in the world (as I shall not yield as long as the candlestick is not removed,) yet I do not hear that he makes any enquiry after the mothers of those infants; that he takes the pains to go to them in Childbed, to demand any account of their proficiency: perhaps they might give as good an account, as some that he says he durst not keep from the Lords Table. And then as in the Apostles judgement, they sanctify their husbands in unbelief, as to the producing of an holy seed, being no professed infidels, but in name Christians: So according to his own judgement, as to that end, they sanctify their husbands in ignorance, being so far knowing Christians.   

SECT. IX. The seventh Proposition enlarged.  
AS for those that are of years, 
Admission of men of years examined.  though we are not much concerned, scarce one unbaptized Person in an age, being tendered to us, yet it is not meet wholly to omit it; when any in the Primitive times upon the Preaching of the Apostles was ready to profess, and willing to engage in a way of Christianity, he was straight (according to the order of Christ) to be admitted by Baptism: the Commission itself speaks thus much: Disciple all Nations, baptising them is the charge; being discipled there needs no further enquiry, and accordingly was the practice; the Eunuch upon profession of faith, and water at hand was presently baptised by Philip, Act. 8. and the Jailor the self same hour that he was converted, was baptised by Paul and Silas, Act. 16. Those that limit Baptism to years of discretion, appear to be wholly of this mind; Mr. Tombs, Examen. Pag. 159. is clear, that profession of faith, and holiness is sufficient warrant to baptise. And for their practice, let their Proselytes wheresoever they prevail speak, when such as we see are admitted, we may well conclude, that in their judgement none are to be refused. There are others that set up a new Church-door, having discipled any in their way, they do not (as Christ enjoined concerning unbaptized Heathens, or as others, concerning baptised Christians) baptise them, but they tender a Covenant of Church-fellowship unto them, and that is their way of Church entrance, when yet their infants keep the old road of Baptism.  
These at least some of them, are exceeding strict, and will have none admitted but those that the quickest sighthed, 
Admission unto a Church-Covenant and membership looked into.  Eagle-eyed Christians judge (so fare as they are able to apprehend) to have both name, and thing of Christianity. And to add honour to this way, the world must be born in hand, and that with attestation of no mean ones, that the conversion of the Gentiles, and Jews, in that infinite number as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, was all in reality, and that the whole Church of Jerusalem, (consisting at least of eight thousand members) was an homogeneal body, under the same light, conscience and tenderness; Of a more noble homogeneity, and more pure constitution sure then ever came into Christ's thoughts, to see his Kingdom attain unto upon earth: He compares it to a field made up of a mixture of Tares and Wheat, Matth. 13.24. to a Draw-net cast into the Sea, which taketh fishes of all kinds, both good and bad, Matth. 13.47. And in the close o● two other Parables infers, that many are called but few are chosen, Matth. 20.16. Matth. 22.14. This he spoke in the ears of his Disciples; and we may wonder if they should live to see it contradicted. He tells his hearers, Luk. 9.27. Matth. 16.18. There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God. And can we think, that he understood a Kingdom in that resplendent glory, which he had ever denied, when he made it his business to decipher and hold it forth unto them? When they hear of it, they hear of a field with tares and wheat, of a draw-net with fish of all sorts; They live to see flourishing fields of pure wheat, full nets of fishes that are only good; being told that many are called but few chosen, they yet see myriads of thousands called and all chosen. Yea, Paul after he had seen the contrary, and gained fellowship (according to these men in such an homogeneal pure body) still symbolizes in like Parables, of a great house that had vessels, some to honour, and some to dishonour, 2 Tim. 2.20. applying it to the Elect and Reprobate in the Church of God. We are told that the complexion of a visible Church under the Gospel is conversion; the constituted matter, converted one's; and that this soul-complexion is the same in the whole body, members having received the same Spirit of Adoption, owning and experiencing the same grace of God. But it is plain that Christ did neither see, nor foresee any such purity of complexion, nor can they that look upon Primitive Churches in the glass of Scriptures see any more than Christ did discover. Those words of Luke, Act. 15.3. And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy unto all the brethren, is made a fundamental groundwork of this building of such glory, as though all conversion by the Word were attended by the changing work of the Spirit; which happy gloss (in case it would hold) would turn all the grounds in the parable into good ground, and a connvert or proselyte in an historical narrative, would ever be the same with elect or regenerate. But the words going before, and following these (if they may be but taken in) will serve to spoil all this supposed glory and purity. A sect riseth up and teacheth the Brethren, that except they be circumcised after the manner of Moses they cannot be saved, and what manner of men they were, and how their Doctrine took, we may read in Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and especially in that to the Churches of Galatia; it almost wrought to the apostatising of those Churches from the faith of Christ to another Gospel, If ever these were one homogeneal body, respective to soul complexion; an abundant proof is given in against the Saint's perseverance and for their falling from grace, Paul was not so enamoured with their beauty, when he tells them that he is afraid of them, and travels again in birth of them. And whether he had such high thoughts of the Corinthians, let sundry passages in his Epistles to them witness. Great complexion spots may be seen, 1 Cor. Chap. 3.3. Chap. 6.8. Chap. 11.18, 19, 21. Chap. 15.12, 34. 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. So that it is plain, that in primitive times Jews and Pagans, being wrought upon (by the Word heard, and miracles seen) to make profession of, and engage to a Christian faith and life, were upon that account received: of which, as some had hearts sincere towards Christ, so many were otherwise. Through the whole Scripture there is no demur put to the Baptism of any who made profession of the Name of Christ, save Saul, concerning whom Ananias, (being warned of God to go to him, and confer sight upon him, being struck blind) objects, the evil that he had done to the Saints at Jerusalem; and that he had at present, authority from the Chief Priests, to bind all that called on the Name of Christ, Acts 9.13, 14. And when he afterwards assayed to join himself to the disciples that were at Jerusalem, they were all (upon that account) afraid of him. Neither Ananias at Damascus, nor the Church at Jerusalem, did put his sincerity in grace to the question, upon that account they might have challenged thousands of others; But they feared, that he only pretended conversion, upon a design to advance his way of persecution. Let Mr. Cobbet from New England in this particular be heard, who lays down this conclusion, That the Church in dispensing an enjoined initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace, looketh into visibility of interest in the Covenant to guide her in the application thereof, nor is the saving interest of the persons her rule by which she is to proceed. There, we find in the affirmative, what that is that must lead, viz. visibility of interest in the Covenant, and in the negative, what must not lead, and that is, saving interest in the Covenant. And visibility of interest is certainly theirs, who profess Christ, engage for Christ, and avouch themselves to be for him, unless we will utterly confound Covenant entering, and Covenant keeping, which Scripture so carefully distinguishes. I know Mr. Firmin in his reply to Mr. Caudry speaking of Scandalous persons, 
Mr. F. appendix as to the admission of men of years examined.  pag. 4. saith, According to our Congregational principles, that which gives a man the first right to a Sacrament, viz. his interest in the Covenant of the Gospel, this man hath not; for he doth visibly declare to the Churches, that he hath no interest in the Covenant. That interest in the Covenant of the Gospel gives a man the first right to a Sacrament, we willingly embrace; but that censure of scandalous persons, that they visibly declare to the Churches, that they have no interest in the Covenant, we must reject, as evidently contrary to Scripture principles. Israel, of whom Moses gave that testimony, that the Lord had not given them an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, or ears to hear, speaking of the generality of them, had some that might have been judged scandalous, yet they all of them even then entered Covenant with God, Captains of their tribes, Elders, Officers, even all the men of Israel, from the hewer of wood, to the drawer of water, Deut. 29.10, 11. Those that God owns as his people in Covenant, and calls by the name of his people, I shall take to have interest in the Covenant, though thousands say the contrary: But God owns these as his people, respective to Covenant interest; they that did steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to other gods, and walk after other gods, all men would judge to be scandalous, yet such come, and stand before the Lord in his house, and profess themselves to be his people in Covenant, and whether or no God doth not so esteem them, let his own mouth speak, Jer. 7.12. Chap. 6.26. Chap. 8.11. The Vineyard of the Lord consists of a people in visible Covenant, yet with these we find not a few scandals and scandalous ones, as Isay 5. is manifest; see, Hos. 4.6, 12. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: my people ask counsel at their stocks and their staff, declareth unto them, for the spirit of whoredom hath caused them to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God. Shall we say they were not God's people, or shall we say that these were no scandals? to put all out of question, the Apostle tells us, Rom. 9.2, 3. that interest in the Covenant pertains to all Israel after the flesh, neither is it any otherwise in Gospel times, 1 Cor. 5.11. If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, etc. he that is called a brother is visibly in Covenant, but such a one (we see) may be scandalous. The seven Golden Candlesticks are the seven Churches, amidst which Christ walks, and whether there were not scandals among these, read the Epistles to them. If visible interest in Covenant give a first right, than these undoubtedly may claim it, their first right (according to the forementioned principle) is undoubted; and for actual admission (as well as the first right) to the Sacrament of initiation, let the same Mr. Cobbet speak; John Baptist did, and lawfully might baptise those multitudes, albeit in the general he knew that many, yea, most of them would prove false, and frothy quoting, Matth. 3.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. and afterward, Albeit, we may think in the general that to be sure in all visible Churches there will be some vessels of dishonour sometimes, yet Ministers which are the Churches as well as Christ's servants, are not therefore to refuse to dispense Church ordinances since, they are in the face of the Church such utensils as the Lord may have and hath need of. Hence the Apostles (which are extraordinary persons knew the guile of persons secret from the Church, witness, that act against Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5.1; etc.) yet in administering the Church seal of Baptism they refused not Ananias and Sapphira no, nor Simon Magnus, Acts 8. Nor thousands of other of the Jews, amongst whom how many proved false? Acts 2.41. and 4.1, 2, 3, 4. compared. 21.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 36. and 22.20, 22 and 23.12, 13. witness. So that we see Scripture gives precedents (if we judge them safe to follow) of a very facile admission of those that profess and manifest their willingness to engage in Christian ways.  
Mr. Firmin says, If a bare profession of faith in Christ be sufficient to make a member of a Church, than no person can be justly excommunicated out of a Church, for the vilest sins or heresies, provided he doth but hold this profession of his faith: The consequence is clear, the person is the same now, which he was when you took him into the Church. To this I have answered, pag. 449. The consequence is clearly erroneous, for he made a profession of his faith and not of his sin. To this Mr. Firmin replies, Than it seems the man must profess his sin with his own mouth, as his faith, though Mr. Blake knows he is a ranter, etc. The members of the Church witness it, yet because the man's own mouth doth not profess it, you admit him. I desire to know where witnesses were called in for this purpose to speak what they had to say against such and such a man's admission to Baptism, as now by an instrument affixed on the door of the public place of meeting men are called to except, (in case they have any thing to speak) against Minister's ordination. Had Paul and Silas nothing against the Jailor at Philippi? who was so serviceable to those in power, that he thrust them into the inward prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks, Acts 16.24. And whereas our author says elsewhere, that there was a legal work on his conscience, so there is many a time on mariners in a sea storm, which a calm will suddenly quiet. Can he imagine that the lives of all the people, even the Publicans and harlots that John baptised (Matth. 21.31. Luke 7.29. compared) were so inoffensive, that none could say black to their eye? whatsoever John knew (in case they had been called in and heard,) some could have said somewhat against these Publicans and harlots, and yet even these were admitted. As to that which follows, Then, Sir, though you know the same abominations afterwards, and your members testify it, witnesses come in you must not cast him out, unless he will profess it. Though he is pleased to say that this argument will cost me more than two lines, before it be answered, yet a few words will show that it is a mere non sequitur. If a man make it his request, upon the fame that he hath heard, and the good that he hath seen in Mr. Firmins' Family, to be admitted to serve him in it, confessing his ways to have been bad, but now professes that he is resolved upon a new way, and in order to it, desires to be received into such a Society, where godliness may be learned, may not he now admit him? and may he not afterwards upon breach of this engagement dismiss him? I will aver my similitude to be fit, yet I confess it is not full; for when Mr. Firmin hath dismissed this servant, and put him out of doors, he hath now no more relation to him. But when a man upon profession to be for God, is once in Covenant, though his wickedness deserves that the privileges of the family should be denied, yet he is still in Covenant, though under breach of Covenant, and stands related to the Church of God in title, otherwise, upon his repentance he must have a new admission by Baptism. The Church, I say, may receive a man upon engagement of amendment, (which must be done in baptism) to be baptised, and upon his return to wickedness Excommunicate him: His profession gives him right to Baptism, and his sin deserves excommunication. He tells us, Though we read not that Philip required repentance, yet others did: But did they so require it, as in reality to precede baptism? Or were they satisfied with a profession of it? If they so required it as in reality to precede, they then must give a day over to give evidence of it; and whether this was the manner in John's baptism, in Philip's, or the Apostles, let adversaries be Judges.  
I cannot tell what should move Mr. F. when he had given me thanks, pag. 54. for my courteous handling of him without scorn, to add in the next page, Sir, I thought Christianity had taken in the heart, and outward conversation as well as the head; a real Christian is one united to Christ, sound in the doctrine concerning Christ, and walking as Christ did [we suppose an old Adam]. Let him who is a nominal Christian appear like one, though he be not real. And I do think that it is little below a scorn, to bear the world in hand that I think otherwise; what have I said for him to Sir me in this particular? perhaps because I somewhere speak of a profession of faith, not mentioning repentance; so he may challenge Philip to be defective, who when the Eunuch demanded, What doth hinder me to be baptised? answered, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest, Act. 8.37. And Paul and Silas likewise, who when the Jailor asked, What shall I do to be saved? answered as we know, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thine household; Nay, will not the same charge fall upon the head of our Saviour himself, who in his Commission to the Apostles, saith, He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved? None of these mention repentance; what can be said for them, will excuse me: I am so far from being against repentance in a Christian, that I expect some will think that I have said too much for the necessity of it, and put too high an honour upon it. He proceeds farther, and saith, Let us view the Scripture in administration of Baptism, Mar. 4. Baptism of Repentance, that is more than Faith. More explicitly, but no more implicitly. Faith takes Christ to give repentance, as well as a Saviour to give remission of sins. They confessed their sins, saith he. 1. Some will have it to imply no verbal confession, but virtual, coming for baptism for remission of sins, it was an acknowledgement that they were guilty; which gloss carries strong probability with it, in regard of the multitude, that in so short a space were baptised. 2. I require more, an engagement to leave sin, which their taking upon them the Name of Christ doth imply, 2 Tim. 2.19. Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity. He goes on, Acts 2.37, 38. First Jew's so had knowledge not so ignorant as ours I believe. The Reader may believe the contrary, till he see some proof. Secondly, having a legal work by the power of the Word: They that had crucified Christ as a blasphemer, deceiver, must needs have some work upon them before they would take him professedly for a Saviour. Thirdly, Receiving the Word; That implies no more than giving credit to what the Apostle spoke, that Jesus whom they had crucified was Lord and Christ. Fourthly, Repenting they are baptised, this is more still. And more than is expressed in the Text. Baptism in his Name doth indeed imply, that now they repent that they had crucified him, otherwise, we read not of their repentance: Acts 8. (saith he) though there is not mention made of the Samaritans repentance, who were apostatised from the Jews, but laid claim to the Patriarches, Joh. 4.20. expected Christ, verse 25. worshipped God, Ezra 4.2. yet that Philip should know them to be so abominable in conversation, and yet baptise them, that is to be proved, since that others required repentance. He may add to these Eulogies of the Samaritans, that they worshipped they knew not what, Joh 4.22. and that they bore that good will to the people of the Jews, that when they perceived Christ with his Disciples to be for Jerusalem at the time of the Passeover, they would not let them have meat for money, Luk. 9.51, 52. And I confess, as much of repentance in them, as was required in any to the acceptation of Baptism, namely, a renuntiation of their false way, and a professed acceptation of the tender of the Gospel. There yet follows, If this be not a giving of holy things to dogs, (which Tertullian and Austin give warning of even in baptising) I know not what is; Let a man be a notorious Ranter, Sodomite, Scoffer at godliness, drunkard, no matter what; this is known and proved, yet a Christian nomine tenus, therefore you must baptise him. Where I pray do I speak of baptising any that is nomine tenus a Christian? My opinion is, that such that have the name Christian, are baptised already, I hope such contradictions seldom come from my pen. That these are no words of mine, my adversary will acknowledge, and that any such consequence can be gathered from any thing that I have said, that I must baptise persons of this quality already baptised, the Reader can scarce imagine; this I impute to haste or passion preventing or obstructing the use of reason. He must then blot out Christian nomine tenus, and insert instead of it, an Heathen, Jew or Pagan (otherwise he is already a baptised person, and in incapacity for baptism) by the power of the Word preached, brought to renounce his way of Paganism, Judaisme: and to profess and engage to a Christian faith and conversation. These are the men that I would have baptised, and if we must account them to be dogs, and swine, all Scripture-baptizers are within the lash, they have given baptism to them. That repentance as well as faith was required in baptism, appears (saith he) by the ages following the Apostles, yea, and in the Apostles time likewise. A profession of both was indeed required, they that renounced heathen worship, renounced heathen conversation with it; They engaged to a Christian faith, and they engaged to a Christian conversation. Mr. F. adds, For those who would live in their lusts, they deferred their baptism, knowing what that required. I have read of the deferring of baptism in those times, and the reasons assigned, why they put it off: But I have not met with this reason. Mr. Marshal in his defence of Infant-Baptisme hath given many reasons, why some put off baptism. Some to be baptised at the age that Christ was baptised; Some to be baptised in the river where he was baptised; Some to be baptised by some special Bishop of eminent place; Some, (which it seems was most common) because they conceived, that it takes away all sin, and therefore they would have it delayed, till sin was well over, for which he quotes many authorities: Tertullian (it appears) would have it delayed upon this ground, seeing he would not have unmarried persons baptised, but to stay till lust were extinguished; and dissuading from baptism in younger years, he hath these words, Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? de baptis. cap. 18. Yet perhaps some might delay it upon the account that he mentions, though he quotes no authority for it, but that Tertullian and Nazianzen intimate it, one of whom was for delaying of baptism in the place quoted, the other against it, as I find him cited. But in case any did delay it upon the grounds by him mentioned, might it not be their fault that did administer it? in keeping the door too narrow, as well as their sin who put off the time of it, seeing Mr. F. himself complains of the rigour of some in New-England, in holding men off from entrance into Church-fellowship, by that door which is set up in the room and place of baptism.  
Mr. Firmin, as well in his Serious question stated, as in his Appendix against me, vouches many authorities, first Presbyterians, instancing in his margin Lond. Min. Jus Div pag. 115. But in my book that page hath no such thing; Gillespies Aaron's Rod quoting many pages, I can recompense him in setting up some of the Congregational way against him. Mr. Gillesp. will not have a known unregenerate man baptised; But Mr. Cobbet saith, John did and might lawfully baptise those multitudes, albeit in the general he knew that many, yea, most of them would prove false and frothy; And makes visibility of interest in the Covenant the Churches guide in application of Baptism, pag. 52. And how large a visibility of interest is, is clear, and I have already shown, Let his words before quoted be considered; and to these add that which he hath, pag. 54, 55. The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of man's faith, or repentance, or obedience, but of God's Covenant rather: The seal is to the Covenant, even Abraham's Circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousness; but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and offered in the Covenant; yea, to the Covenant itself, or promise, which he had believed unto righteousness: hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. Hence, Acts 2.38, 39 the seal of baptism is put to the promise, as the choice matter and foundation in view, and as that was a ground of repentance itself, Repent and be baptised, for the promise is to you: Not, for you have repent, as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism, but the promise rather.  
Appendix, pag. 57 Mr. Firmin quotes in the Lump the Fathers, Counsels, Schoolmen, out of Gregory de Val. as if all were of that mind. In his Serious question he quotes, Austin, Alexander Hales, Aquinas, Gregory de Valen. In his appendix, Justin Martyr, Concil. Naeocesar. Concil. Nic. Concil. Elib. as strict in admission of their Catechumeni, concerning which I might have much to say.  
First, How would he like it in other things, to leave the clear road and tract of Scriptures, to hunt after humane authorities? If we can but say, From the beginning it was not so, In case the authorities were more in number, more eminent in honour, we have sufficient. The Scripture-way taking in those that the Word had brought to a profession of Christianity upon engagement to it, is as clear as though it were written with a ray of the Sun.  
Secondly, For Fathers and Schoolmen, their opinion about Baptism, on which they ground the necessity of praerequisites to it, is known; and as he may quote them against me, so I can quote them against him, and those of his party. They maintain (and as unanimously as they do the thing in debate) that Sacraments confer grace on the receiver, in case he put no obstacle, on which account they expect not grace in the person for baptism, (which they believe not to be possible, seeing the Sacrament is to work it) but a convenient disposition to grace, which they call merit ex congruo. Let Suarez speak in the name of the rest, having laid down this Proposition, 
d Ut alicui digne detur baptismus, praeter voluntatem suscipiendi Sacramentum necessaria est dispositio conveniens sanctitati Sacramenti.  That Baptism may be worthily administered; besides a willingness to receive the Sacrament, a disposition suitable to the holiness of the Sacrament is required. And then answering the question, What this disposition is, he answers, 
e Resp. Eam sufficere & necessariam esse quae ad consequendum effectum Baptismi fuerit sufficiens ac necessaria: quia cum per baptismum detur gratia, si aliquis est recte dispositus ad effectum baptismi consequendum in instanti, quo receperit baptismum perfectum, recipiet gratiam: Ergo cum sufficienti dignitate & sanctitate recipit Sacramentum: Quia cum hoc sit Sacramentum mortuorum non est ad illud digne suscipi●ndum prae exigenda gratia ad quam conferendam ipsum est constitutum: Ergo sufficiet illa dispositio, cum qua Sacramentum conferet talem effectum.  That is necessary and sufficient, which is necessary and sufficient to attain the effect of the Sacrament, and gives his reason, seeing by baptism grace is given; If any one be rightly disposed to receive the effect of baptism, in the instant that he receives perfect Baptism, he shall receive grace; therefore he receives the Sacrament with sufficient dignity and sanctity; further adding, Seeing this is a Sacrament of the dead, grace is not praerequired for the receiving of it, being ordained to confer grace, that disposition is sufficient upon which the Sacrament confers such an effect, Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. Tom. 3. Q. 68 Dis. 24. art. 4. Sec. 2. p. 250. Our opinion being otherwise of the work of baptism, it is otherwise concerning admission to baptism, when men are willing to be received into the number of Christians, and will engage for Christian ways, (which necessarily implies a profession of repentance of all unchristian practices) we judge them to have right of admission.  
Thirdly, How far rules laid down by some Fathers, and Councils for the way of discipline did exceed in rigour, hath been the complaint of many; not admitting those that had been overtaken by temptation, to Church-fellowship: notwithstanding any evidence of repentance, till after many years' space of humiliation; In which time how much advantage might be given to Satan, let men of experience judge. Mr. F. himself dislikes their long deferring of their Catechumeni from baptism, and may not others have liberty to manifest their dislike as well as he?  
Fourthly, Let it be taken into due consideration, whether such rigour in holding converts off so long a space; and requiring such an height in preparatory graces, were not a great remora to the progress of the Gospel? and gaining in men to Christian profession? How speedy a progress the Gospel made in the Apostles times we may see in the Acts of the Apostles, and Ecclesiastical Story. Dr. Andrew's in his Preface to his Work on the Commandments, quotes a testimony of Egesippus, That by the diligent instructing of the Church, there was no known Commonwealth of any part of the world inhabited, but within 40 years after Christ's Passion received a great shaking off of heathenish Religion. But how slowly it proceeded after some time, is over-plain: May not the difference of their way, that thus swerved from the Apostles, and men in Apostolic times, be assigned as a great reason? We find them facile in admission, but in the mean time exceeding plain in making known what was required of them in order to the end of their professed faith, their everlasting salvation that were admitted.  
Fifthly, If it may be granted, (which according to Scripture rules can never be denied) that men wrought off from Turkism, Paganism, Judaisme, and brought to a profession of Christianity, and a professed engagement to Christian ways, have their right, and stand in title to baptism; If then upon observation of inconveniences arising, (as jealousies conceived that they may offer themselves out of design to work themselves into a fairer opportunity of persecution, as was suspected in Paul) the Church in Prudence, for some space shall delay their admission, I shall not contend; Only I assert their right, and justify their practice, that proceed accordingly, and unless some great cause appear to the Church's prejudice, tendering themselves they are actually to be received.  

A Digression for Vindication of Chap. 32. of the Treatise of the Covenant, from Mr. Baxters' Exceptions touching the Faith that entitles to Baptism.  
HEre I am put upon it to take into consideration, 
The occasion of this Digression.  that which Learned Mr. Baxter in his Apology hath been pleased to oppose against me. Though he be large, I shall make it my business (if it may be) to be more brief. I entitled the two and thirtieth Chapter of my Treatise of the Covenant, in this manner, A dogmatical Faith entitles to Baptism: being a Corollary, naturally (as I yet think) inferred from the Doctrine, that I had before delivered, of the latitude of the Covenant; explaining myself, that I meant such a faith, that assents to Gospel-truths, though not affecting the heart, to a full choice of Christ, and therefore short of that Faith which is justifying, and saving; ratifying it with several arguments. In which I might well have thought, that I should have found my ancient friend, my Second, rather than an Adversary, considering what he had delivered, pag. 224. of his Treatise of Infant's Church-Membership. This opinion, 
Mr. Baxter's concession.  that the Covenant of grace which Baptism sealeth, is only to the Elect, and is not conditional, is one of the two master pillars in the Antinomian fabric: and afterwards, If any shall think that this affirming [that Christ hath brought the reprobate also into a Covenant of grace conditional] be any part of the Arminian errors, as the whole scope of Scriptures is against them, so Mr. Blake hath said enough to satisfy: He that will deny reprobates to be so fare within the Covenant of grace, must not only deny infant Baptism, but all Sacraments, till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be Elect. I did never rise so high in words for my opinion as the Reader may here see my adversary hath done for me, and I shall have more occasion to observe his concessions in this thing. But how to reconcile all, with that which, pag 327. of the same Treatise he delivers, I know not. If men be taught once that it is a Faith short of justifying, and saving faith, which admitteth men to Baptism, as having true right in foro Dei, it will make foul work in the Church. This he asserts with five several arguments, to which in the Chapter quoted I gave a brief answer, not once naming the Author, that (if it might be) such contests with a man that I so much honour, might not have been observed, and yet the truth not deserted. Before he enters upon any refutation of my arguments, or vindication of his own, he is pleased to spend nine full pages, to show how fare he takes unregenerate men to be in Covenant, and to discover (as he says) my mind in this point. near to the close of that discourse, he says, that what I mean by Covenanting, he despairs to know; which surely will be the Readers wonder, that knows what he hath said, pag. 224. before mentioned, I speak impartially, according to my judgement, I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening of the Covenant, then in all, etc. And as he despairs to know my meaning, so I as much despair ever to make it known to him. He quotes very many expressions of mine, and knows my meaning in none of them, and some that I borrow from others, as Dr. Preston and Pareus, and he knows neither my meaning nor theirs in them. And in case I should make attempt, if it might be, to make it further clear, he hath still an art, to render it obscure. He observes, that I say, (that which I think all say) that the accepting of the word [preached is the note of the Church] and gives his censure that that is a more lax, and ambiguous term, than the former. And seeing that I am not able to satisfy him with any notions that I can reach, I shall endeavour at present to help his sight, in pointing out to him, men in Covenant with God; that when he looks upon the men, and the character given of God himself, of them, he may (if he please) guess at the Covenant itself. 
Scripture-characters of men in Covenant.  Does Mr. Baxter know what Covenant that was, that the Captains of tribes, Elders, Officers, with all the men of Israel, little ones, wives, strangers, from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water entered into? Deut. 29. and what kind of men they were that avouched the Lord to be their God, and whom God avouched to be his peculiar people? Deut. 26.17, 18. Does he know who those be, that throughout the Old Testament-Scriptures, the Lord calls his people, his inheritance, his portion, his sons and daughters? And who those kinsmen of Paul according to the flesh were, to whom pertained the Adoption, the glory, and the Covenants? Rom. 9.4. Does he know who those were in New Testament-times, that were converted by thousands, myriads of thousands? then he knows who God looks upon, as his in Covenant, and to whom Covenant privileges appertain. And doubtless those hearers that Isaiah describes (and from him all the Evangelists) of fat hearts, dim eyes, heavy ears, whilst God had not removed his Candlestick, were included: They were in Covenrnt with God. If it be said that these are said to be in Covenant equivocally; I answer, 1. I dare not charge the constant language of the Spirit of God in Scripture with equivocation. 2. I am sure that they upon that account, really enjoyed the privileges under dispute, were called by the name of a Church, Acts 7.38. and had that elegy, a people near unto the Lord. And to say that these were in Covenant with a quatenus, aliquo modo sic, aliquo modo non, when God testifies that they avouch him to be their God, I think is too great boldness. That those that risen no higher, than these mentioned, have no right to the great blessings of the Covenant, as Christ, pardon, Justification, Adoption, glory, upon that account, that they come not up to the faith called for in Covenant, I freely with Mr. Baxter grant; Those are too high Favours for Covenant breakers, yet I say, as all Israel did the facto enjoy, so all of the like faith in foro Dei have their right of his free bounty to all those Church-priviledges that serve to fit for glory. He is pleased to say, Mr. Bl. had done better, if, with that moderate, reverend, godly man Mr. Stephen Martial he had distinguished between those two questions [who are Christians, or Church-members?] and [whom we are to judge such and use as such?] and to bring in the latter rank only. I know not where Mr. Martial thus distinguishes. If he speaks of members of the Church invisible, it is not at all to our purpose, we are not speaking to them: And if he mean members of the Church visible, I know no use of such distinction, we can well enough know such members, otherwise they were not visible. Let Mr Baxter look upon those notes of a Church-member which he mentions, where he intended a confutation of my 31. chap. in case I had not spoken to his mind, and the same things with him, and then see whether such cannot be known? I think those of the Worcestershire combination, may know who those be whom they take into Communion. In a parenthesis he is pleased to tell me, that herein I join with Mr. Tombs. To which I reply, what animosity soever he hath against me, I shall not leave any one truth to shun agreement with him, when Mr. Baxter himself affirms, that Mr. Tombs and he are agreed in that particular that he there mentions, pag. 92. though most Divines, (as he there says) are against them both; sure I may boldly join with him, when most Divines are for us. He tells me, Those that profess to fear God, and love him, we must love and honour as men, that do fear and love him: yet in different degrees, as the signs of their graces are more or less probable. In some common confessing Christians, we see but small probability: yet dare we not exclude them from the Church, nor the number of true believers, as long as there is any probability; Others that are more judicious, zealous, diligent and upright of life, we have far stronger probability of: and therefore love and honour them much more. All this is true, in case we were to inquire after the fear of God in its power, or the image of God, renewed in sincerity; But when it is applied to visible Church-membership, I know not what to make of it. Must I more or less honour a man, accordingly as he appears more or less visibly in Congregations? After a long discourse about the Covenant, and faith dogmatical, which I shall have occasion further to touch upon, he concludes thus, The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth, I confess are mine, against Dr. Ward, 
The Author vindicated from singularity.  and I did not think in so gross an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause. How this passage fell from his pen, may well be to every intelligent Reader matter of admiration: not that he chargeth an opinion from which he dissents, to be so notably gross, (which is not very unusual) but that a man of such multiplicity of reading, should think that Dr. Ward in this opinion would not have found a second, when if he hath perused our approved Authors about the question, especially since it came to a punctual just debate, he may soon see that he hath almost every one to appear for him if this which he mentions be his opinion, unless perhaps he hath been so held in reading the Fathers, and other Writers for the first thirteen, or fourteen hundred years (in which few will, I think, come out and vie with him,) that he hath not regarded what hath been said this hundred and fifty years, in this corner of the world, when his book came first out, I received a letter from as learned an hand, as any I have to converse withal, noting this, as a singular tenant; and when upon occasion I have mentioned it, that Mr. Baxter holds that no faith that is short of that which justifies, gives title to Baptism, it sounded so strange that I could not gain credit to the report of it. He that hath spent so much pains in that Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. cannot be ignorant of that usual distinction, of Covenant holiness, and holiness habitual, and personal. The former, (according to Divines and Mr. Baxter himself) is an holiness of relation to God, and separation for him; which was found in all the Nation of the Jews, and now is in all professed believers, and their seed. The latter is an inherent quality, infused by regeneration, by which the man is brought into conformity with the Law of God. The former (according to them, and him in that Treatise) gives title to Baptism, even where the latter is wanting. Those words therefore were more than needed: [If men be once taught, that it is a faith short of that which is saving and justifying, which admitteth to Baptism] seeing it is in reformed Churches generally, and universally taught, Mr. T. very well knowing, (as all do know) that in these last ages it is a doctrine generally received: and setting himself to oppose it, saith, that he can derive its pedigree no higher than Zwinglius: but he hath heard of those that were Zwinglius his seniors, to be of the same mind, as the Reader may see in my answer to his letter. The Jesuits generally charge it upon Calvin, and Beza, and those of that party; and well they may, as their opinion, but not as their invention. As to that charge, they stand acquitted by their adversaries: Suarez in Thom. part. 3. tom. 3. q. 69. art. 8. dis. 27. Sect. 1. speaking of this opinion, saith, It is ancienter than Calvin, as appears by walden's. tom. de Sacram. tit. 3. cap. 53, 54. yet Calvin (saith he) either increased or revived it, as appears by Ruardus, Lindanus, Prateolus and others. This easily may be yielded, and if Chamier may be heard, all Protestants embraced, it. Mr. Baxter in the words before may see the opinion of that Divine, whom he so deservedly magnifies, Mr. Cobbet full against him; notwithstanding he lives where the greatest strength of that party is, that are his opposites. Let the Reader observe his fourth conclusion, pag. 52. The Church in dispensing an enjoined initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace, looketh unto visibility of interest in the Covenant, to guide her in the application thereof; nor is it the saving interest of the persons in view, that is her rule, by which she is therein to proceed. And compare with it the close of his whole discourse upon it in these words: And I the more wonder, that any which confess, that it's not to be denied that God would have infants of believers in some sense to be accounted his, to belong to his Church, and family, and not to the Devils, as true in fancy Ecclesiae visibilis, etc. yet do oppose us in this particular now in question. If he please to peruse Pareus, 1 Cor. 7.14. as he shall find Stapleton, in objections there produced, his friend, so Pareus fully his adversary. And I shall add one testimony that carries many more in the belly of it, in which the Reader may see that Dr. Ward in this thing now in agitation, hath the general vote of reformed Churches for him, and against Mr. Baxter. Apollonius speaking to the question, 
Quaestio quarta, An infant's quorum parents proximi solenni & Ecclesiastico foedere alicui particulari Ecclesiae sese non adjungunt, in Ecclesia non sint baptizandi, sed ut baptismi in capaces & privilegiorum Ecclesiae expertes sint aestimandi? Resp. Existimant Reformati, quod federalis quaedam sanctitas, qua jus habent illi qui hoc modo sancti sunt, ad media salutis & Sacramentum Baptismi, & qua ab Ethnicis, Turcis, similibusque aliis infidelibus separantur, 1 Cor. 7.14. toti nationi seu populo communicetur, cui Deus tabulas sui foederis ita impertit ut easdem suscipiant, & profiteantur, quos ad statum visibilis Ecclesiae suae vocat & ducit, Rom. 11.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Haec foederalis sanctitas transfertur ad posteros non per proximorum parentum sanctitatom inhaerentem, qui sua fide vel infidelitate eam posteriis proximis vel tollerent vel stabilirent; sed misericordi Dei voluntate, qua foederis illius privilegia externa parentibus etiam remotioribus promissa extendit & constanter impertit in multas generationes posteris fidem profitentibus etiam iis quorum parentes proximi impii, & in foedere Dei perfidi fuere.  Whether infants whose immediate parents do not join themselves by any solemn Ecclesiastical Covenant to any particular Church, are not to be baptised in the Church, but are to be esteemed incapable of Baptism and void of Church privileges? answers the question in these words: The reformed hold that a certain federal holiness, (whereby those that are in this manner holy, have right to the means of salvation, and whereby they are differenced from Heathens. Turks and other like infidels, 1 Cor. 7.14.) is communicated to the whole Nation or people to whom God does so impart the tables of his Covenant, that they receive and profess them, whom he calls and brings to the state of his church visible, Rom. 11.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. This federal holiness is transmitted to posterity (saith he) not by the inherent holiness of immediate parents, which either their faith or unbelief should take away, or establish, to their immediate posterity: but by the good and gracious will of God, whereby he extends and constantly bestows the outward privileges promised to more remote parents, for many generations to posterity, professing the faith; even to those whose immediate parents have been found wicked and false in their Covenant, quoting these texts, Ps. 106.35, 36, 44, 45. Isa. 63.10, 11.51.1, 2, 3. Ezek. 20.8. And confirming this assertion with several arguments, the last of which is this; 
c Quia adulti omnes in Novo Testamento à Johanne Baptista & Apostolis sunt baptizati, telonarii, milites & quicunque ex Judea & circumjacentibus regionibus ad Baptismum devenerunt absque longiore examine, si modo fidem profiterentur & peccata confiterentur; et si hypocritae, genimina viperarum & homines malae frugis iter eos essent, proinde & infants eorum ad baptismum admittendi. Causam hanc pro praxi Ecclesiarum Reformatarum multis disputat Cl. Walaeus, in locis communibus, operum in Folio, pag 494, 495.  Because all of years in the New Testament were baptised by John Baptist and the Apostles, as Publicans Soldiers, and whosoever out of Judea, and the regions round about came to Baptism, wit hout any further trial: provided that they professed their faith and confessed their sins, though there were many Hypocrites, generations of vipers and men of dissolute courses amongst them: and therefore (saith he) their infants are also to be admitted unto Baptism, adding that learned Walaeus largely defends this cause for the practice of reformed Churches in his Common places, pag. 494, 495. adding yet further, 
d Rejicimus igitur Antitheses eorum qui denegant Baptismum filiis eorum qui impie vivunt & vita sua improba efficatiam baptismi sui irritam erga se reddunt. Hisce opponimus judicium Leydensium in Synopsi Theol. ubi sic disserunt, disput. 44. thes. 50.  We therefore reject the contrary opinion of those which deny Baptism to the children of those who live wickedly, and by their wicked life render the efficacy of their baptism to themselves as null and vain. To those we oppose (saith he) the judgement of the professors of Leyden in their Synopsis of Divinity, dis. 44. thes. 50. If the Reader please to consult this quotation from these Authors, he shall see it very full to the purpose; as also Walaeus in the place before mentioned. So that Mr. Baxter may see that he hath not only me to oppose, together with the ashes of Dr. Ward, (whose memory yet is to be had in reverence) but ancient Writers within these 1300. years, together with the concurrent voice of Divines in the generality of them in these 150 years last passed, which in other Points he confesseth are his adversaries, on whose side the truth is, whether on his few, or the Churches many, is further to be enquired.  

A Vindication of several Arguments in the Treatise of the Covenant.  
Chap. 32. of my Treatise of the Covenant, I bring several Arguments to evince this Proposition, [that A Faith which is short of Justifying, and saving, admits to Baptism.] The first of which refers to that, which I had before spoken at large, concerning the latitude of the Covenant, expressing myself in this manner, Argument vindicated. 1 [All that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant, may fitly be applied for the like latitude of Baptism]. To this Mr. Baxter replies, Therefore did I say the more of the Covenant before, 
Covenant and Seal commensurate.  to show your confusion and mistake in that. It is not every Covenant, or Promise, that Baptism is the seal of. I desire no more of the judicious Reader, but to reflect upon that which I have spoke, Chap. 27, 28. of that Treatise, together with that which he hath been pleased to speak so largely against me: His distinctions of Covenants, and Promises; The several ways that (according to him) men may be in Covenant: How unregenerate men may be in Covenant, and how not; together with his multitude of Positions, (most of which look not at all towards the business) and then consider whether he, or I, stand more guilty of mistake or confusion, and whether he hath brought any thing home, after so tedious a discourse, for satisfaction, or to give any colour to it, that unregenerate men are not so in Covenant as thereby to have interest in Baptism, which must be done, if he speak any thing in opposition to me: My business being to prove that they are so in Covenant, that they have upon Covenant-right, title to the seal; and if the Reader can find any thing tending that way, let Mr. Baxter consider whether it be not in full opposition to himself, who reckoning up Mr. Tombs his errors, makes this the fifth in order: that he holdeth, That the Covenant whereof Baptism is the Seal, 
Mr. Baxters Concessions of the latitude of the Covenant.  is the absolute Covenant of Grace made only to the Elect. Did not Mr. Baxter then believe that those that are non-Elect were comprised in it? The conclusion of his large discourse is laid down by himself, pag. 63. in these words, Though wicked men have many Promises from God, especially the great conditional Promise of life, if they will repent, and believe, and though they are also by their imperfect equivocal covenanting with God; yet God remaineth still unobliged to them. But how this stands with that which he hath in dispute in the place before mentioned, let him also take into further consideration; where he chargeth this, as his adversaries fourth error: That every right administration of Baptism, is not Gods sealing: Actually God sealeth not, but when it is administered to a Believer. It may be called a right act of the administrator, according to God's appointment, but not Gods sealing. Against which he thus disputes, pag. 222. If the Sacrament rightly administered to an hypocrite, have all that is essential to God's actual sealing, than it is his actual sealing; But the Sacrament rightly administered to an hypocrite, hath all things essential to God's actual sealing; Ergo. The Minor he proves at large, as I may have occasion hereafter to make known. And whereas he so peremptorily determines, that though wicked men oblige themselves, yet God still remains disobliged, let him consider, 
God stands obliged to all that he doth avouch his people.  whether God be not some way obliged to all that he avoucheth to be his people. If this be denied, there will be found no great happiness to a people, to have the Lord for their God. But God avoucheth those to be his people, Deut. 26.17. who are yet in an unregenerate estate. And if we look into Scriptures, we shall see that this is God's ordinary language. Are there many worse to be found in any visible Church-state, than those with whom God holds contest, Psal. 50? Yet to these he says, verse 7. Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God: Together with those, Isa. 1. to whom he addresses himself under these titles, Rulers of Sodom, people of Gomorrah: yet we see, verse 2. what language he speaks of them, Israel doth not know, my people do not understand. And whereas he states the Question as though the whole of the dispute turned on this hinge; Whether these men be in Covenant with God, as to God's actual engagement to them; so far as that God's promise is in force for conveying actual right to them, as to the promised blessings? and so whether it be a mutual Covenant, and both parties be actually obliged? And thus I say that wicked men are not in Covenant with God, that is, God is not in Covenant with them: Neither have they any right to the main blessings given by the Covenant, viz. Christ, Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Glory. I know no man that hath spoke so much as himself towards the proof of it in the affirmative: So long as they break not the Covenant-engagement, (in which he confesseth they have obliged themselves,) God stands engaged to them for the greatest spiritual blessings. But according to him, they break not Covenant until they arrive at final impenitence and unbelief. He very well knows that I hold that every wicked man in the Church lives in continual breach of Covenant, and is therefore under the curse and penalty of it; and that I should think that God were actually engaged to give Christ, Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Glory, to them, in that state and condition, were more than strange. These may know by virtue of their Covenant-priviledges upon what terms they may attain the mercies mentioned, and upon what terms God stands engaged to give them, and they enjoy the power of Ordinances to work them up to the said terms, which they do not, who are without Covenant, and therefore are afar off, when men in Covenant are near. Did ever man, speak of an absolute tye in a conditional Covenant, whether the conditions are kept or no? That therefore before mentioned which he calls the great question between him and me; is no question at all. It were madness to affirm that, which with these limits he thus denies. Yet still I say, that the Covenant which Baptism seals, is made with the unregenerate as well as regenerate persons; which as we have heard, he makes Mr. Tombe's error to deny. And because the Covenant belongs to them, Baptism in like sort belongs to them: and as upon that account we must baptise them, so in foro Dei, according to the mind of Jesus Christ, they have right to Baptism: Which in case Mr. Baxter shall deny, I shall desire him to reflect upon the  passages of his own; together with that which, pag. 65 of this Treatise he delivers. If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed, but dissembledly: then as he is equivocally, or analogically a believer, or Christian, so I yield he is a member of the Church visible. And Church-membership is one of his own mediums to prove a right to Church-entrance by Baptism, and here is a Faith not above dogmatical; At least, short of that which is justifying, and yet such a faith as is real, having real fruits and effects, and sometimes real miracles. If the argument hold when it is thus enfeebled, how much more when it is put in its full strength? Such an one is univocally in Covenant, whose dissimulation is no other than necessarily attends an unregenerate estate: in case there be any thing in Scripture above equivocation, They remembered that God is their Rock, the high God their Redeemer, Psal. 78.34. And whereas I stand charged in this discourse by Mr. Baxter with several uncouth, if not wild, opinions and assertions about the Covenant, and Mr. Baxter despairs (as we have heard) of understanding of my meaning, I shall here endeavour, as to vindicate, so to explain myself in like manner, that the Reader (if not Mr. Baxter) may be brought to a right understanding; avoiding, as much as may be, both nicety, and multiplicity.  
1. It is said, that I suppose certain Promises to go before the great Law of Grace. Those that suppose such (saith he) are of two sorts, 1. The Arminians and Jesuits. 2. Such as Mr. Bl. about Church-Ordinances. And having spent many lines upon the Arminians to show his dissent, and assent, so that the Reader may well have forgotten both me and my charge, he saith, 2. 
The Author vindicated from a fiction imposed.  The second part of promises before the great Covenant of Grace is feigned by Mr. Bl. (and if there be any other that go that way, as some do, and that with some difference amongst themselves) and that is a promise of Church-priviledges upon condition of a faith, not justifying, nor saving. One that Mr. Baxter will not deny to be eminently learned, (and I think as well versed in his Writings, and mine, as any man alive; Far better, I believe, than he in mine, or I in his) upon observation of this passage, replied as by address to him, You rather feign this of Mr. Bl. then find it in him. And I profess I know no man whose brain ever either hatched, or vented such a crotchet. Neither do I know how this mistake was ever entertained, (for I believe it was a mistake) unless it be, that taking for granted that there is no Covenant of grace entered with any out of the state of grace; and finding, that I assert, that Church-Ordinances appertain to unregenerate Christians, and those that are short of faith that is justifying, he here fancies a promise of these made to a faith of this kind: Whereas that which I say is, That every acceptation of a Gospel-tender (which tenders a man a Christian outwardly) actually vests him in right to these Ordinances, as it did the Jew outwardly, Rom. 3.1. And that these Ordinances are necessarily requisite to bring men up to the fruition of those happy privileges of Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Glorification. So that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith, but an actual investiture of every such believer in them. Neither do I know any promises preceding the Covenant of Grace. Such must be made to mere Heathens, or those that are in a parallel estate, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel. Unless perhaps some such promise to some such, upon some particular account may be found. Yet if he can work me to be of his mind, that Election, Regeneration, and the Covenant of Grace, are commensurate, so that no non-elect man is in Covenant, then shall I say that there are Promises made before the Covenant. The Apostle speaking of the Jews, that for the generality of them, were neither elect nor regenerate, saith, To them appertained the Covenants. I may therefore charge it upon him, with better reason than he upon me: Those stand vested in promises, that, he says, are out of Covenant. The Promise is said to belong to those Jews, Rom. 9.4. on whom yet the Word took no saving effect, verse 6. Hence by opposition to the Gentiles they were those that were not strangers to the Church, but of it. They were not strangers to the Covenant of Promise, but in the same, Eph. 2.11, 12. Hence God, saith he, maketh his Covenant with them all, Deut. 29.10, 12, 13, 14, 15. speaking there of that solemn renewal of the Covenant of Grace, as Deut. 30.6, 10, 12, 13, 14. compared with Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. evinceth. So, Ezek. 16.8. he made a Covenant with that Church and people, many whereof proved very base, as that Chapter showeth. Cobbet just vindicat. pag. 46. Where much more to this purpose from many Texts of Scripture may be seen.  

The Author further vindicated.  I am farther charged, that my common phrase is, That they (namely unregenerate men) are in the outward Covenant, with this note upon it, what that is I cannot tell. Who would not now think but that here were a phrase peculiarly mine: Upon which the same learned hand as before, expresseth himself in these words, I do not see that that phrase is common with Mr. Bl. He rather useth it as from others: which any may evidently see, if they consult pag. 189, 190. of my Treatise of the Covenant. But of this I have spoke before, and therefore his guesses upon it, that he believes that it is called outward, by reason of outward blessings annexed to it, might have been spared. They that use it, express their own meaning, The Covenant (they say) is but one and the same; but all are not in the Covenant after one and the same manner: Some are only in it by outward profession, to the present participation of outward privileges; but some by cordial acceptance to the enjoyment of saving benefits by means of these privileges. He says in the place quoted, I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. 1. To have told us what those outward blessings are that this Covenant promiseth. But what need I to tell him, when, pag. 61. he hath told me, that it is a promise of Church-priviledges, and I now tell him that these stand actually possessed of these privileges, and have all the Promises, together with these privileges that the Gospel contains. And that these privileges are appointed of God, to bring them in God's way to the possession of them. 2. Saith he, That he would have it proved out of Scripture that God hath such a Covenant distinct from the Covenant of grace, which promiseth Justification and Salvation, and having other conditions on our part. To this I know not what to say; but that when Mr. Baxter hath proved that there are not only mountains of earth in his West side of England, viz. Wreakin, Mawbourn, Clee, but also mountnins of Gold, I will endeavour the proof of this, if I can tell how: for he hath had as many thoughts of such golden Chimaeras, as I have had of any such Covenant, distinct from the Covenant of Grace, which in my name he here imagineth. Having vindicated myself from these imposed fancies that never entered into my thoughts, I shall now endeavour, if it may be, further to clear my own meaning in these following Propositions. 
Propositions tending to clear the Author's meaning.   
1. Those that take upon themselves a Christian profession, being separate for God, calling him by the name of Lord, that have Ordinances of God as their inheritance, that acknowledge a Deity, and no other but the true Deity; a necessity of worship, and none but the Christian worship, these with me are in Covenant with God, as was Propos. 1 the whole state of the Church of the Jews, and the whole face of the visible Church of the Gentiles, that were engrafted in their stead. This to me is plain in that they are the Church or Churches of God, Acts 7.8. Gal. 1.2. The called of God, Mat. 22.14. The people of God, Isa. 1.2. Psal. 90.7. They that sacrificed to the true God, Psal. 50.7. Are the sons of God, Gen. 6.1. Deut. 14.1. Rom. 9.4. Are a people nigh unto the Lord, Deut. 4.7. Psal. 148. ult. God professing himself to be their God, Psal. 90.7. Are Children of the Covenant, Acts 3.35. Saints, Psal. 90.5. Act. 26.10. 1 Cor. 14.33. Believers, Act. 8.12, 13. Act. 21.20. Luke 8.13. Disciples, Matth. 10.1, 4. Acts 9.1. & 15.10. Christians, Act. 11.26. That all of these imply a Covenant-state; and that unregenerate men have in Scripture all this honour, is clear. These therefore with me are in Covenant. I know that as to all of these eulogies it is answered in a word, that they are equivocal. An answer that I can scarce take into my thoughts without horror; As though God's oracles were all over, from one end of the Bible to the other, like those of Apollo, and there were no reality either in their separation for God, or gifts that they receive from God, (which as to illumination, conviction, faith, as well ordinary as extraordinary oftentimes are many) or privileges that they enjoy: But this we shall have further occasion to consider; and when there can be no plain denial that all of this here mentioned argues Covenant-state, a quarrel seems to be picked, rather than any direct answer given. For as I say, pag. 189 of my Treatise, That in Old-Testament-times the Covenant was made with Israel in the uttermost latitude of it, with all those that bore the name of Israel, making proof at large from Deut. 29. as the Reader may see. Mr. Baxter quoting the place, taketh notice of no more than that it was made with all Israel: and infers, pag. 65. So that it seems he takes all to be in Covenant that bear the name, Christian. And then questions; What? Though they know not what Christ or Christianity is? Is taking a name, entering into Covenant? The poor Indians that by thousands are forced by the Spaniard to be baptised are said to know so little what they do, that some of them forget the name of [a Christian] which they assumed. And does not he think that a man may take as plausible exceptions against his word, where he saith, The rule is, That a serious professor of the faith is to be taken for a true Believer; If he would travel as far as India for it, as he doth here against God's Word? Do not we know, that force may make these poor Indians to appear serious in their profession? And it is wonder that it should be so strange with him, that taking a name should be entering Covenant, or at least that it should imply a Covenant-state: Let him consult, Isa. 4.1. and those manifold Scripture-Texts, which express the relation of God's Covenant-people to him, in these words, A people called by his Name; or on whom the Name of God is called. And distinction should be put between children of the Covenant by descent from parents in Covenant, whether Jew's or Christians, (who continue their Covenant relation, till they professedly cast it off, notwithstanding their ignorance) and such that of mere aliens are to be received, having no other title than their own present qualification. This aught to be voluntary, as well in renouncing their old false way, as embracing the present, as we see it was in those converts through the Acts of the Apostles. And it is not to be without some competency of knowledge, discerning the evil of their former course, and the happiness attainable in the present. And I am easily induced to believe that more knowledge by the industry of teachers, is now required, then was in the primitive times, seeing there is not so much of God by miracle to persuade, and, as it were, to overrule: So that it is not a naked taking of a name that is intended, but that which still attends upon it: As a wife is called by her husband's name, and withal makes her abode in his house, so it is with a Covenant-people, and was with Israel: They bore the name of God, and they made abode in the Church of God, enjoying his Ordinannances as their inheritance. Mr. Baxter says, For the Word of God, God oft bestows it on infidels, and in England there aremen that deride the truth of Scripture, and esteem it: affliction, and yet for credit of men come ordinarily to the Congregation. These have the Word given, and so have other unregenerate men, but not by Covenant that I know of. That God doth bestow his Word on infidels, to me is strange: it is true that he often tenders it to them, but in case they remain infidels, they put it away from them, and bestowing implies not only a tender, but an acceptance. It is the great advantage of Israel above other Nations that to them was committed the oracles of God, when others had not that honour. And to speak of Gods giving his Word by Covenant, is a most improper speech, seeing it is the very Covenant droughts; as though we should say, he gives his Word, by his Word. And these sure are no open deriders that for the credit of men make such a public profession: this would work restraint on the one hand, as it puts upon profession on the other. And in case any such thing be, though the Covenant is perfidiously broke, yet (as I conceive) not totally cast off, as long as any open profession is continued. What shall we say of those that take their sons, and daughters to give them to Moloch? this can be no low crime, and an high departure from the true God, yet these bring forth children unto God: and they are his children, that they thus sacrifice, Ezek. 16.20, 21. So also, Psal. 106.35, etc. Israel was mingled among the Heathen, and learned their works, and they served their Idols, which were a snare to them; yea, they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto Devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters. Yet this, as appears, casts them not out of Covenant; God notwithstanding remembered with them his Covenant, ver. 45. This was therefore doubtless but a partial apostasy; taking in the worship of Idols, they did not totally cast off the worship of God: God was not totally cast off in Judah, neither did cast off Judah. Ahaz was of the worst of Kings, and yet his posterity was reckoned among the people of the Lord. Had the Jews then been as severe disputants against a Covenant-state as are risen up now, the Church of God had wanted an Hezekiah, he had never lived, much less wrought so happy a Reformation in the Church of God.  
Propos. 2 2. Those that are looked upon by men, as in Covenant with God, and so ordinarily judged (as the people of Israel were) by the name that they bear, their abode in the Church, and profession that they make, and so accordingly styled, they are truly, and really in Covenant. A man may know a man to appertain to such or such a person, because he sees him in his family, hears him call him Master, sees him, sometimes at least, in his work, and knows him to have the repute of his servant; Though to know him to be a faithful servant requires more diligence of enquiry, and a stricter scrutiny: So a man may be as easily known to appertain to Jesus Christ; The same Characters make him known. For all that is required to being in Covenant is visible, open, evident: but sincerity of heart in covenanting is invisible and secret. And therefore the Jew outwardly, Rom. 2.28. is called by the Vulgar, Vatablus, Tremelius, Arias Montanus, and Castalio, Judaeus in manifesto; by Calvin, Judaeus in aperto; by Beza, Judaeus in propatulo: the Jew inwardly, Judaeus in abscondito, or, occulto: Their Church, or Covenant-station giving them those great advantages after mentioned, was open and manifest. Those that say, Lord, Lord, as, Matth. 7.21. are of those that avouch God to be their God, and God avoucheth them to be his people. And therefore when they come with their sacrifices, though in their sins, and God upon that account testifies against them; yet he says, I am God, even thy God. It is confessed by Mr. Baxter, that we must judge those that make profession, to be in Covenant with God: we must give them the name of Christians, and men in Covenant with God, and we must use them as Christians in works of charity and Ordinances, and Church-communion, and so must use their Children as Christians children. And seeing reason to judge so, (according to Scripture-character of men in Covenant) they are so. Either in this we judge right, or else we proceed upon mistake. If we judge aright, than all is well: If we mistake, than all in these proceed is null. Water hath been applied to the child of such an one, but no Sacrament dispensed; And according to a man's hopes, thoughts, or fears of his father's regeneration, are his hopes, thoughts and fears of his own baptism, and consequently of his interest in Church-communion; for this stands or falls according to his father's interest or non-interest in the Covenant. When Mr. Baxter is urged with this, he uses to refer to his Treatise of Infant-Baptisme, where he lays us down a grand Rule or Maxim, and out of that extracts many others. His grand Rule is, That a serious Professor of the faith is to be taken for a true Believer: and this being laid down, he proceeds on. If this Proposition were a Scripture-Maxime, than it would have born a farther superstruction; but being neither found there, nor any proof made that it is any way deduced thence, mother and daughters may all justly be called into question: and seeing he cannot but know, that very many as to the thing for which it is produced, (which is in order to admission to Ordinances) will utterly deny it, he might have done well to have made some essay to have proved it. I do yield that charity is to hope the best, but that we should put our charity to it, or our reason either, for probability or certainty, when we are not where so taught, and have a more sure rule for our preceding, I see no reason. I can scarce meet with a Minister that says, (and I have put the question to many of the most eminent that I know) that he baptizeth any Infant upon this ground of hope that the Parent is regenerate, but still with earnest vehemence professes the contrary. I desire the Reader to consider Mr. Cobbets third and fourth Conclusions in his just Vindication, pag. 46, 52. There is a bare external being in the Covenant of Grace, saith he, of persons who possibly never shall be saved. Concl. 3d. The Church in dispensing an enjoined initiatory seal of the Covenant of Grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the Covenant, to guide her in the application thereof: Concl. 4th. Visibility of interest, and saving interest are there opposed. See also Mr. Hudson, pag. 249. John Baptist did not in his conscience think they had all actually, really and completely repent and reform themselves, whom he baptised, but he baptised them unto Repentance, Matth. 3.11. and they by receiving the same bound themselves to endeavour the practice thereof. It were a sad case for Ministers, if they were bound to admit none, or administer the Lords Supper to none, but such as were truly godly; or that they judged in their conscience to be so, or were bound to eject all that they judged were not so.  
Propos. 3 3. Man's obligation of himself in Covenant unto God, upon the terms by him proposed, necessarily implies God's obligation to man. Where God makes tenders of the Gospel by his Ministers to any one out of Covenant, there he makes tender of the Covenant; and where a person or people professedly accept, that is, engage themselves, (as myriads of thousands did through the Acts of the Apostles) this person, this people, each man of them is in Covenant. As Scripture calls them by the name of Saints, Disciples, Believers, Christians, so we may call them Covenanters. They have all a sanctity of separation, which Camero says, is real, and Mr. Baxter disputed from thence to a right in Baptism, from that Text, 1 Cor. 7.14. There is in most of them, if not in all, some graces that are real, either common or saving, and a Covenant doth not wait till the terms be kept, and the conditions made good, before it hath the being of a Covenant. And whether these be every way sincere, or any way dissembling, yet, as Mr. Baxter acknowledges, they really oblige themselves: And God howsoever dissembles not, but is bound by himself upon his own terms which they professedly accept to confer all that the Covenant holds forth. So that wheresoever man is obliged, there a complete Covenant is made up. For God's tender goes before, and man is the last party, and completes the Covenant.  
Propos. 4 4. Sincerity, and integrity of heart; or full reality in a man's intentions to stand to the whole of a Covenant, is not of the essence, and being of it. Both parties stand engaged upon their respective terms, though one part should have unsincere intentions. A wife is a wife, and the marriage is complete, when both parties have publicly expressed consent, though she hold a resolution to be stubborn, refractory, profuse, etc. A man consenting to serve, whether in bare words, or taking earnest, (as is most usual) or by hand and seal, (as in the case of apprentices) is a servant, although he intent with Onesimus to purloyn, or take his opportunity to be gone. Mr. Baxter thinks it makes for his advantage, to say that unregenerate men are unsincere in Covenant; but that is a concession, that utterly destroys him. If they be unsincere, or, as the Psalmist speaks, not steadfast in Covenant, than they are in Covenant. A Propositione secundi adjacentis ad propositionem primi adjacentis valet argumentum. If it be true that Catiline is a seditious man, than it is true that he is a man: that Peribomius is a vicious man, than he is a man; that Judas is treacherous and perfidious in Covenant, than he is in Covenant: A man's conviction that he is an unjust steward, or an unfaithful servant, doth not conclude him to be no servant, or no steward, but the contrary. And whereas, pag. 66. he saith, The differences, Mr. Bl. must take notice of, between humane Covenants and ours with God; or else he will mar all. Men know not one another's hearts, and therefore make not Laws for hearts, nor impose conditions on hearts: and therefore if both parties do confess consent, though dissembledly, they are both obliged, and the Covenant is mutual. But God offers to consent only on condition that our hearts consent to his terms, and therefore if we profess consent, and do not consent, God consenteth not, nor is, as it were, obliged. This were somewhat to purpose, in case he could make it appear that Scripture denies all being of a Covenant, where the allseeing eye of God sees not all integrity and sincerity. But Scripture-language, which is the safest for us to follow, being (as we have heard) far otherwise, there is nothing marred in nonobservance of any such supposed difference: For which we shall presently hear again and again Mr. baxter's own confession.  
5. There is a real and serious purpose in many unregenerate persons Propos. 5 to serve the Lord, and to come up to as much as they think he in Covenant requires, though with Austin they have a great mind to delay, and often to put off the thought of their more exact, and serious service; and too ordinarily think that they keep Covenant, when they break it. Having not as yet any right knowledge, either of their own hearts, or God's commands: And in this posture in which they thus stand before they come up any higher, yea, though they never come higher, they reach unto graces in themselves real, true, and good, and also do the works which God commands; and this sometimes is Mr. baxter's own thoughts. When his business is, to inform his Hearers, or Readers, and not to make opposition against others, than he can use the word [real] and forbear the word [equivocal] as appears in his Saints everlasting rest, Part 3. Sect. 6. There is a common grace which is not saving, yet real, and so true, and good, and so true grace as well as special grace which is saving. Which may be a fair answer to that which himself hath said, pag. 68 of this Treatise; Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatic faith, addeth by way of exclusion [though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ] where he seems to imply, though he express it not, that the faith that he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full. But if so, then, 1. It is much more than assent, or a mere Historical, Dogmatical Faith. 2. But is the choice, which he intimateth, real as to the act, and suited to the object? That is, the real choice of such a Christ as is offered, and on such terms? If so, it is justifying faith: If not, either it is counterfeit, as to the act, or but nominal, as to the object, and is indeed no choosing of Christ. That which is real and true, is neither counterfeit nor merely nominal, so far as they know either Christ or their own hearts, they undissembledly choose and take to him, as expecting to be happy in him, rather than any other object; though too often it is upon misinformation: and when they come to a right understanding of the terms, they are in danger to quit the way in which they might enjoy him. He further says, Mr. Bl. thinks that there may be an undissembled profession, which yet may not be of a saving faith; and adds, But then I conceive it is not an entire profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith, viz. of assent and consent. In which it doth but cast dust in his Readers eyes, in confounding the entireness of the object, and the integrity of the subject. There may be an entire profession of the whole essential object of faith, where the will is brought in to make no more full choice, or consent then hath been said. There is added, It will be an hard saying to many honest Christians, to say, that a man not justified may believe every fundamental article, and withal truly profess repentance of all his sins, and to take God for his Sovereign to rule him, and his chief good to be enjoyed to his happiness, and to take Christ for his Lord, and only Saviour, and his Word for his Law and Rule, and the Holy Ghost for his guide and sanctifier, and the rest which is essential to Christianity. I think it will be nothing hard for any honest Christian to say, that a man not justified may believe every fundamental article, as to assent, and that he may be convinced of the necessity of such repentance, and accordingly to make profession of it, as John's converts were baptised into it. That such an one may freely yield that God hath right of Sovereignty and rule, and that he is the chief good to be enjoyed for happiness, and that he ought to take Christ for his Lord, and Saviour, etc. and that this may be done truly, not only as to reality of assent, but as to reality of purpose to make this choice, so far as the man knows his own heart, or the mind of God in this work: though there be not that integrity to yield up himself wholly, which yet by the power of Ordinances through the Spirit in God's time may be done, and through grace perfected.  
Lastly, God setting up a visible Church upon earth in order to that Propos. 6 which is invisible, will have those admitted that give assent to Scripture-doctrine, and accordingly make profession: And this of itself in foro Dei, brings them into Covenant-right, and visible Church-membership. And therefore according to the mind of God, and, as Apollonius speaks, jure Dei in this estate are to be received; Though they shall hit or miss of the mercy of the Covenant accordingly as by grace they come up to, or by sin fall short of the Propositions contained in it. A Scholar (says Mr. Hudson) that is admitted into a School, is not admitted because he is doctus, but, ut sit doctus; and if he will submit to the rules of the School, and apply himself to learn, it is enough for his admission. The like may be said of the Church visible which is Christ's School; Vindicat. p. 248. To which Mr. Baxter himself, if I understand him, hath given his assent in his Treatise of everlasting rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. The door of the visible Church is incomparably wider than the door of heaven; and Christ is so tender, so bountiful and forward to convey his grace, and the Gospel so free an offer, and invitation to all, that surely Christ will keep no man off: if they will come quite over in spirit to Christ, they shall be welcome: if they will come but only to a visible profession, he will not deny them admittance. This seems to speak the mind of Jesus Christ for their admittance, and that in foro Dei, as well as in foro Ecclesiae, they stand in Covenant-relation, and have title to Church-membership. Thus Mr. Baxter and the Reader may see my thoughts in this thing: and though I doubt not, but that he will question much that I have said; yet now at last I hope both he and others may know my meaning.   

Argument 2. vindicated.  
Argument vindicated. 2 My second Argument is, All the absurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect, or men of a saving Faith: follow upon this restraint of interest in baptism.] Mr. Baxter answers, What absurdities follow such restraint of it to sound believers, as I have asserted, I should be willing to know; though with some labour I have searched for it. Bear with me therefore, whilst I examine what you refer me to. It is, pag. 109. where you charge those absurdities. I wonder that all this labour for search should need, when as he says, he hath a reference, and the Reader I think may see enough from Mr. baxter's own hand in the places already mentioned; one part of the first absurdity which I have pressed, Mr. Baxter is pleased to repeat; This restriction of the Covenant (to shut out all the non-regenerate) makes an utter confusion betwixt the Covenant itself and the conditions of it: 
The restriction of the Covenant to the regenerate, confounds the Covenant and conditions together.  or (if the expression do not please) the Covenant itself, and the duties required in it: between our entrance into covenant, and our observation of it, or walking up in faithfulness to it. All know that a bargain for a Sum of money, and the payment of that Sum: the covenant with a servant for labour, and the labour according to this covenant, are different things. Faithful men that make a bargain, keep it; enter covenant, and stand to it: But the making, and keeping; the entering, and observing, are not the same: and according to this opinion, Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant, and regeneration is our keeping of Covenant: before regeneration we make no Covenant, after regeneration we break no Covenant, there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking. All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant. After a charge big enough, he says, I cannot give my judgement of the intolerableness, and great danger of your mistake here manifested; without unmannerliness, I will therefore say but this, It is in a very weighty point, near the foundation, wherein to err cannot be safe. To which I only say, I wish he had spoken fully out, that the intolerableness and supposed great danger of my mistake, might have been seen, and I earnestly desire all my friends, that in case I err in this manner as I stand charged, that they would afford me their help to discover my error; but I trust I shall make it good, that my error at the highest is but equivocal. He adds: In my Aphorisms, (pag. 265.) I gave my reasons for the contrary; we must therefore see first what is said there, where he thus bespeaks his Reader. Here let me mind you, of one useful observation more. The Covenanting on our parts, is a principal part of the conditions of the Covenant, though this may seem strange, that a covenanting and performing conditions, should be almost all one: And indeed, I think all intelligent Readers will judge it to be fare more strange than true, though we are to hear of that which is more strange presently, we are told of reasons in this page, but I find no piece of a reason in it, but only, I say, instead of a reason; And I know not where any thing towards a proof of this position may be found, unless it be in the Poet's Hyperbole, Dimidium facti, qui bene coepit, habet; He that hath well begun, hath half done; yet half is not almost all. He goes on. It is a truth so fare beyond all doubt, that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of grace, as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel. Here are mysterious words. Is our covenanting a part of the condition, or is the condition a part of the Covenant? The condition is here made the integrum, and our Covenanting one part of the condition. This is above my reason. And for the other part, I say, if our covenanting be a great part of the substance of the Gospel, than the Jew outwardly did make a better progress in Gospel-ways than we are yet ware of, or the Apostle understood when he spoke so much as we read, Rom. 2. concerning him, for he was in Covenant, otherwise he had been no Jew at all, but a Pagan or Heathen. Having told us, (I cannot guess to what end) that the same act is called our conditions, as the performers; and God's conditions, as the imposer, and promiser: giving his blessings only on these imposed conditions, he adds, Most properly they are called the conditions of God's Covenant, or promise, rather than of ours; for our own promise is the first part of them, and our performance of that promise, but a secondary part: Is not here a convincing reason? Our own promise is the first part, our performance the second part; Ergo they are more properly the conditions of Gods, Covenant then of ours. I deny not the thing, but wonder at the reason; but, speed it as it will, I thence collect, that promises and performances are distinct things, and that is enough for me. Our promising to God, I am sure, is our covenanting; this than differs from Covenant-keeping, or performance, and is not to be confounded with it. There follows, For, 2. God's Covenant is a free gift of Christ, and life to the World on condition of their acceptance: This our Divines against the Papists, and the doctrine of merit have fully proved. That God doth freely give Christ to those that accept him, I freely yield, and that our Divines have fully proved it against Papists, I confess, and that it must be asserted against Antinomians; but what Divines have proved that God's Covenant is his free gift of Christ, and life to the world on condition that they will accept, I know not: It is the first time (I think) that ever I heard it. This then is a full definition of a Covenant, which I yet think comes short of it; and if it be a truth, it well serves my purpose; many a Covenant is made, and conditions never performed. After his expression of himself about the modification of our acceptance of Christ by faith, he adds, Our acceptance or consent, is our Covenanting and our Faith. So that our Covenanting with Christ, and our Faith is the same thing: that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms, or a consent that he be ours, and we his on his terms. And who knows not that this Faith or Covenanting, or consent is the condition by us to be performed, that we may have right to Christ, and life offered. I do know the latter, and therefore upon that account, (as upon divers others) I deny the former. I know that justifying faith is the condition by us to be performed; and I as well know, that it is not our covenanting, but our making good our Covenant. That Faith by which the Romans stood in Covenant with God, was such a faith that the whole visible Church of the Gentiles had, and the Jews both, Rom. 11. But this was not a justifying faith, but short of it. To make justifying faith, and Covenanting Synonyma is an error, I am confident, of what size I leave to others to determine. If they were both one, Scripture would promiscuously speak of them; but we find that it still distinguisheth them, and gives us clearly to understand, that the greatest part of Covenanters are short of Faith that is saving and justifying. Ordinances in which the Covenant of grace is dispensed, and which speak all those that entertain them to be in Covenant, are granted of God to men short of justifying faith, as their proper inheritance, Rom. 3.1. Deut. 33.4. Titles implying a Covenant-state, (as I have abundantly showed) are given of God to them that are short of this faith, viz. Christian, Disciple, Saint, Believer, Called, Brethren: God imposes Covenant-conditions, makes promise of Covenant-blessings upon these imposed conditions, to those that are short of Faith that justifieth; These therefore are in Covenant. Though I hear neither of Scripture nor argument, nor any thing else but bare words in two or three Paradoxes for my conviction, yet by a similitude I shall understand, that our own Covenant-act is the primary condition of God's Covenant. In his Aphorisms he says, It may seem strange, but now a similitude shall render it familiar, If a King (saith he) will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman, and a beggar, on condition that she will but have him, that is consent, and so covenant and marry him; here her covenanting, consenting, or marrying of him is the performance of the condition on her part, for obtaining her first right in him and his: but for the continuance of her right is further requisite. If we had had either Scripture or argument to have given us a first light, than a Simile might have served for somewhat, and come in as a garnish; but being served in alone, it may speak the Author's thoughts, but never settle any in the truth. And I shall leave it to the Reader to judge whether the edge of it may not easily be turned against himself, and whether when it is brought home, it will not prove destructive to his own opinion. I must therefore tell the Reader, that our relation to Christ whilst on earth, is more frequently expressed in Scriptures, by espousals, than marriages: as we may see through the book of Canticles, and Hos. 2.14. 2 Cor. 11.2. and that there is ordinarily a relation of men to God, preceding faith that justifies. Now Mr. Baxter is not so ill read in the Civil Law, but that he knows that there are sponsalia de futuro, and sponsalia de praesenti. Those, God is pleased to take for his people, that are his only in the first relation, and to honour them with privileges to bring them on to the second. Whereas he says, Our Covenant principally is to receive, nor is it only de futuro, but de praesenti. I may answer, first, If our Covenant be to receive, than it doth precede this receiving; and secondly, if he mean, that it is our duty to receive Christ in present, and not to delay the least moment of time, I shall readily yield; but in case he say, that present profession and engagement to receive gives a people no title to any Covenant-relation, before Christ be actually and savingly received, I may well ask what we are to say to the whole body of Old Testament-Scriptures? were not all Israel in Covenant? were they not all visibly the people of the Lord? are they not owned of God for such, when they were at the worst and lowest? How many thousands of Scripture-Texts may be brought to evince it? Had they called themselves so, and valued themselves as such, on this account to be a people nigh unto the Lord; and no people so nigh, it might have been said to be their own vapour; but when God gives them that testimony of honour, and hath never done with it, sure he would have us to believe it. There is a first right therefore, before that right in the similitude contended for; and that is no other but a right of Covenant: to be without God and without hope is the case of a mere heathen uncircumcised in the flesh, Eph. 2.11. The state of visible relation is one step nearer, than aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel do enjoy; and yet too short of a state of salvation. Mr. Baxter concludes, By this time I leave it to the Reader to judge who it is that introduceth confusion about the Covenant, and whether it be an error of the lower size: And I am very well contented to sit down and hear his judgement: and if it be upon this determined against me, I shall say the authority of man is mightily prevalent. I have yet seen no title of Scripture, nothing of reason, only that which I take to be Scripture-Paradoxes, are laid down as Maxims. 
Restraint of Covenant denies any breach of Covenant.  There follows, As for that you add, that then there is no Covenant-breaking, I reply, 1. quoad essentiam, et possibilitatem, there is, 2. quoad existentiam, there is a breaking of mere verbal and erring half Covenants; but if you think, that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke, than you are against the certainty of perseverance. 
Real Covenants may be broke.  I desire to know whither this essence, possibility and existence refers, whether to the Covenant, or to the breaking of Covenant. If it refer to the Covenant, as the words seem plainly to imply, than here is a new piece of learning, that the essence of a thing may be broke, and the existence stand firm. I have learned that existencies may be destroyed, and essences remain, and instance is commonly given in Roses in winter; But I have not until now heard the contrary. But if these refer to breaking of Covenant, than the meaning is, there is a possibility, but there shall not be a futureity: But this is flatly to gainsay the Scriptures, that complain so frequently of actual breach of Covenant. Somewhat therefore is granted, and somewhat denied. It is granted that there is a breaking of mere verbal, and of erring, half-Covenants; but I am told, that if I think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke, than I am against the certainty of perseverance. If by sound Covenanting, truth of Covenant be meant, this may be broke, and no Saint apostatise, but if integrity of heart and such soul-qualifications as might be desired in Covenanters be understood, the truth of a Covenant stands, where this is wanting: otherwise none but upright, honest, sincere men, can ever make bargains. It follows, They broke their particular Covenants about reforming Idolatry, and such particular sins. And these particular Covenants were branches of their grand Covenants, and so habemns reum confitentem. It is farther said, They broke their verbal, and equivocal Covenant, or promise to God, whereby they seemed to accept him on his own terms, but did not. But it should be remembered, that this Covenant they broke was a marriage-Covenant, as is frequently testified in Scriptures, as, Jer. 31.32. where the Lord speaking of the Covenant made with Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt: Which my Covenant they broke, saith he, although I was an husband unto them: which is further clear, Jer. 3.1, 14, 20. Hos. 2.17. This than was a real, and no equivocal Covenant, or else Mr. baxter's similitude, on which he puts so much stress, is spoilt. And I never knew, that verbal Covenants, where sincerity of intention for faithful performance was wanting, were equivocal Covenants: much less where a man did not fully understand himself in covenanting. All want of integrity is not equivocation: Men may promise and not perform, men may promise and never mean to perform, (which I think few unregenerate men directly do) and yet not equivocate. If a Gentleman shall promise a Tenant a Lease for life, provided that he will give him a dog, he brings him one, and accordingly expects his Lease, the Landlord puts him off in telling him that he indented with him for a dog-star, or a dogfish, here is equivocation; but had he directly promised and broken faith, it had been no equivocation, but falsification. I have heard of one of quality that often solicited one to serve him, after long importunity he got a promise from the man, that such a day he would come and serve him, he kept his day, and came and served a writ upon him: This was equivocation; but if he had not come at all, as the son in the Parable did not work in the Vineyard, when he had said he would, that had been plain falsification. If those were equivocal Covenants, and no reality of the being of a Covenant between God and them in them, than all the honour that followed upon them, and mercies enjoyed were equivocal likewise. Then whensoever God calls Israel his people, we must understand him his equivocal people: when he calls them his portion, we must understand it his equivocal portion: when he says, Judah is his inheritance, we must understand his equivocal inheritance: and Christ's word, Matth. 8.12. The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out, must be interpreted, the children of the equivocal Kingdom: and, Matth. 22.14. Many are equivocally called: and, Rom. 9.4. the Apostle must be understood, To whom pertaineth the equivocal adoption and the equivocal glory. These certainly broke Covenant, and yet we have no example of Saints apostasy in them. When the Jesuits forced Texts of Scripture to find (if it had been possible) one or two equivocal speeches in our Saviour's words, as Joh. 7.8. I go not yet up to this feast, leaving out [Yet] that so there might be either an untruth, (for he did go up) or an equivocation: as also in those words of his quoted from the Psalmist, Joh. 10.34. I have said ye are gods: how would they have gloried, in case they had learned, that Scripture was almost all over equivocal? Give them this, and the day is theirs in the doctrine of equivocation.  
Mr. Baxter adds, Your second absurdity is, That then there are no hypocrites, and replies rather, Then all unregenerate professors are hypocrites. They pretend merely to real proper covenanting, and they do covenant but verbally and equivocally. But the great falsehood of this I have sufficiently discovered, and therefore my Argument which he notably curtails still stands firm. It were too tedious to trouble the Reader with all my words and his.  
The third absurdity which I press, Mr. Baxter doth not vouchsafe to name, but only refers to his answer to Mr. T. I shall therefore let it alone, not intending to interpose between them.   

Argument 3. vindicated.  
My third Argument to prove, [That a faith short of justifying may give title to baptism, is, To make the visible seal of baptism which is the privilege of the Church visible to be of equal latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members, is a Paradox.] To which he answers, 
The seal of the Covenant, and the seal of the Spirit, not of equal latitude.  But you take it for granted, that we do so; which is too easy disputing: and I may well take it for granted, seeing in the next words he yields it; where he says, We give the seal of Baptism to all, that seem sound Believers, and their seed; and we say, the seal of the sanctifying Spirit is only theirs that are such believers. Their seeming faith works then only by way of cheat; to procure that which is none of their right, and so both seals are of equal latitude, which yet is more plainly expressed in his following words: But if you speak only of Covenant-right to Baptism, coram Deo, by his gift of Covenant, than I make them of the same extent; and I cannot tell what other Covenant-right to speak of, but that in which God avoucheth a people to be his, and himself to be their God, and I dare not have a thought of any thing but reality in his words. For his distinction which he hints here, and plainly delivers elsewhere, of right in foro Dei, and in foro Ecclesiae, both to Covenant and Baptism, I suppose considerate men will pause upon it, before they receive it, especially in the sense which he puts upon it: 1. They may press him with his own rule, Vbi lex non distinguit, ●ibi non est distinguendum. Such a right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God, I would learn. 2. They may demand whether it be the Will of God, that any upon the latter right coram Ecclesia should be baptised by the Church. If it be, than they have right coram Deo: If it be not his will, than they have no right coram Ecclesia. I know no Court that God keeps respective to visible Church-priviledges, but his Church. 3. They may tell him of the necessity that is put upon Ministers to profane this Divine Ordinance, in putting this seal ordinarily and unavoidably to mere blank paper, which is a most contumelious abuse of it. Of many that are called, few are chosen; and yet all that are visibly called, are thus sealed, when in God's sight all title is wanting. 4. They may tell him, that poor souls are thus miserably cheated in bearing them in hand, that this great privilege, and consequently all further Church-priviledges are theirs, when the conveyance is more fraudulent that casts it upon them. 5. They may yet tell him, that a door is here opened to Anabaptism, or multiplication of Baptism. A new door, of which either nothing or very little hath ever been spoken. When discovery shall be made, (as according to these principles it may be often made) that the title, when Baptism was administered was barely seeming; then all was null ab initio in such proceed: and as such persons always were in the eye of God, so now in the eye of men, they are unbaptised persons: And in case God ever vouchsafe the grace of conversion to this man, he is now by Divine appointment to seek baptism. In case Simon Magus, who after baptism did discover himself to be in the gall of bitterness, by God's grace should ever attain repentance and forgiveness, (which Peter did not judge to be desperate) he must then upon conversion afresh offer himself to Baptism. If Titius be admitted into possessions presumed to be his true inheritance, and afterwards it be made to appear that it never appertained to him, but to Sempronius; when this appears all is to be judged invalid. And if Titius ever gain due right, he must again procure possession, and is not to hold on his former cracked and seeming title. So that whensoever a Minister converts a baptised man, he must look upon former proceed as null, and upon his conversion baptise him. Neither let Anabaptists here triumph, as they may baptise whom we have baptised, when they see them converted, so we may baptise whom they have baptised, too many of both parties, manifesting over-evident signs of their unconversion. 6. They may tell you that, that Scripture-distinction of circumcision in the flesh, and circumcision in the heart, is hereby overthrown; seeing circumcision in the flesh, where circumcision in the heart is wanting, is uncircumcision: which the Apostle grants respective to true happiness, Rom. 2. ult. but denies respective to Church-priviledges, Rom. 3.1. 7. They may tell him, that this principle standing, all persons dying unregenerate, die unbaptised; yea, all that were baptised in infancy and after converted, remain still unbaptised. 8. That it is much to be feared, if not certainly to be concluded, that the major part by far of Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons, there being, I doubt, no good evidence of true conversion in the most considerable part of them; subscription to the confession there, and consent to membership, being all that is required; and whether it be enough for a good satisfying evidence that a man or woman is in grace, that he or she hath subscribed, or put to their mark, let any judge. I am sure it is voiced, that the most profane (where the Minister carries any authority) are as forward for subscription as any. If all marriages were null, where grace were not in truth in the parties, I fear that through the Christian world there would be more adulterous, than marriage-copulations. And in case where there is no grace, there is no subject for Baptism, there are as many unbaptized persons.   

Argument 4. vindicated.  
My fourth Argument is, 
The great condition to which Baptism engages, is not a prerequisite to the being of Baptism.  [The great condition to which baptism engages, is not a prerequisite in Baptism. This is plain, no man is bound to make good his condition before engagement to conditions; no servant is tied to do his work, before he hath received earnest; no Soldier to fight, before he is listed, or hath given in his name. But faith that is justifying, to accept Christ is the condition to which Baptism engageth.] To this Mr. Baxter answers, What is the conclusion? Therefore justifying faith is not a prerequisite in baptism, or according to the Simile no man is bound to accept Christ to justification before he is baptised: And then gins highly to Rhetoricate. I confess the reading of such passages in Grave, Learned, Godly Divines, and that with such confidence uttered, as undoubted truth, and that in zeal to save the Church from the errors of us that are contrary minded, doth very much convince me of humane frailty, and that the best of men do know but in part, and in a little part too. If Mr. Baxter seek an instance of humane frailty, he hath made no mischoice in casting his eyes upon me, he cannot see so many in me as I know; but I am sorry, that he must put his wit upon the device of one, or at least take hold on the most handsome seeming opportunity, to cry up one, and so to give too much evidence (as one said upon the first sight of it) of his own weakness. As to the conclusion, that justifying faith is no prerequisite in Baptism, in the sense that every Reader may see I have given of it, I shall maintain, and as Mr. Br. hath heard, I have the strength of the reformed Churches for my confirmation in it; but for the other, which serves only to blind the Reader, and to bring me under a charge, that no man is bound to accent of Christi before he be justified. I look upon it as an assertion, both senseless and graceless. I believe it never came into the heart of any that is either grave, 
A position by the Author disavowed and detested.  or godly to utter it, and that there is scarce any so witless, or graceless as to believe it, and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons, five, pag. 84, 85, 86. Twenty six, pag. 94, to 107. are almost at one breath answered. Few of them tending to oppose any thing that I hold, but in the fare greatest part brought against his own conceit; and no assertion, or opinion of mine. I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons, to deny this fancy; Faith is commanded in the moral Law, 
Reason's evincing that a man unbaptised is bound to believe in Jesus Christ to justification.  as I have asserted Treat. of the Covenant, pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptism doth first put a man under such obligation. Some Papists do charge upon us, that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the moral Law, and therefore the Council of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it, but never any I think were charged to say, that Baptism is our first obligation to it. 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation, but he that believeth not shall be damned. 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation; but we must believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth to Salvation. 4. Baptism presupposeth the Covenant; but the Covenant, as I have often said, engages to believing. 5. None can be exempted from believing, but they are withal exempted from repentance; but unbaptised persons are to repent, Act. 17.30. 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized, Act. 16.30. And therefore it is marvel that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly, he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me, transgressing the wise man's advice, Prov. 26.4. Answer not a fool according to his folly. When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptised, I marvel that he would set his wit to mine. But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion. I have said? The great condition to which Baptism engages, is not a prerequisite in Baptism; and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptism? Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptism, till after he be baptised? and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning, where I say, that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before, but a necessity that it must follow after Baptism: further explaining myself, It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptism, as in Abraham it went before Circumcision: but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptism or Circumcision; and doubtless I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand. I say, justifying faith, or grace in the truth of it, is no prerequisite in marriage; and I further say, that a Minister in times past might, and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace, and yet he is no better than a graceless man, that thinks that persons unmarried are not tied to faith and godliness. Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling. A bargain of sail stands firm, though there be no grace in them that make the bargain. Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hang and curtains, and those of that place may lawfully trade with them, and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godliness. But though my assertion is clear enough, yet some may say, my similitude darkens it. I say, No servant is tied to do his work, before he hath received his earnest; no Soldier to fight, before he be listed, 
The Author's meaning in some mistaken expressions cleared.  or hath given in his name. To this I say, If my expressions which I thought were clear, (well knowing my own meaning, yet) to others seemed dark, no candid man would draw them further than the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm, which is, That a faith dogmatic, or as I explain it, a faith short of justifying, entitles to Baptism. In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Soldiers listing, a servants entertainment into his Master's service, and a Christians Baptism. And as a Soldier is not bound in order to listing, first to fight: nor a servant in order to his entertainment, first to work: so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptism, first to believe to justification. And thus I fully explained myself in the next page but one. That faith which is the condition of the promise, is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal, an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seals and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed; To promise service and fidelity in war is enough to get listed, as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded. So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen, and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning: Having taken notice of Mr. baxter's great mistake, and upon it his injurious charge, I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another (though under another head) that so, at once I may vindicate myself from things of this nature. I say, in my Treatise of the Covenant, chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule, or the rule of the New Covenant. To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply, When I first read these words which you writ in a different character, and father on me, I was ashamed of my nonsense, for they are no better: but it came not into my thoughts, once to suspect a forgery in your charge. Fare was I from imagining that so reverend, pious, and dear a friend, would tell the world in print, that I said that which never came into my thoughts, and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote. After many other words added, If when we are dead, men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine, and there see it written that I said [sincerity is the new rule, or the rule of the New Covenant] can any man blame them to believe it, and report of me as from him, and say, what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in express words? Can any man now think but that I father this upon him; 
Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriously charged.  and that I report it to the world in print, in express words, that he hath said it? will it not be said on Mr. Baxters' credit that I said it, and wronged him in it? But I desire the Reader to peruse the whole Chapter; and in case he find not Mr. Baxters' name there at all, than he must needs conclude that this was spoken at least improvidè et inconsultè, and some testimony of humane frailty given in it. I recite indeed some passages of Mr. baxter's in that Chapter without his name, being unwilling indeed to make it known that he was in any such opinion, or that he had laid any such charge of intolerable ignorance upon learned Divines as there he does. But of this he hath heard enough already from other hands; How can he tell that I mean him in those passages, seeing I never named him, but that the words are his? And when these words now in question (produced at a good distance from the other) are none, of his, who can say that I meant him? much less can they say, that I have expressly charged them upon him. If they be in any odd corner of his book (as he says he knows not but that they may be), he then may be yet charged with them, and therefore injuriously complains of any injurious charge upon him. But to return to what we have in hand. Though in Mr. baxter's five first Reasons, there is much very well worth animadversion, yet seeing there is nothing, but that which hath either already been spoken to, or else that tends to the overthrow of that senseless sottish tenant, (which I profess to abhor) I shall pass them by. For his additional 26. Arguments which he sets, (I know not for what reason) at a great distance from the rest; the greatest part of them are brought, and mightily fortified to beat down that which I think never any but himself set up. I think his misconceit first hatched it, and I am well content to stand by; and see him murder it; For so many of them as look at all in opposition to any thing that I hold, I shall take them into consideration.  
His two first arguments drawn from Authority, 
Arguments bowrrowed from humane authority examined.  the first of the Assembly of Divines, and others of a number of Fathers, are brought to prove that the profession of a justifying faith is required to baptism; and what is that to me, who never denied it; but in plain words have often affirmed it? It is sufficiently employed where I require a dogmatical faith to Baptism. A dogmatical faith assents to that of Apollo's, Jesus is the Christ, and when I say that this entitles, I cannot mean, concealed or denied, but openly professed. If I say that a man hath six pence in his purse may dine at such an ordinary, I do not mean with six pance concealed, or denied, but produced and paid. Have I not both the words [professing] and [profession] both in the margin and in the Index? seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare myself further in this thing, I do believe, and profess to hold that, he that upon hearing the Gospel preached and the truth of it published and opened, shall professedly abjure all other opposite ways whatsoever, and choose the Christian way for salvation, promising to follow the rules of it, is to be baptised and his seed, and that upon a right not only coram Ecclesia, but coram Deo; It being the mind of God that such should be admitted. The authority of reverend Mr. Gataker against Dr. Ward is only worthy enquiring into, citing Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Whitaker, as Mr. Baxter observes. But Mr. Gataker himself understands not (as he says) what Dr. Ward means by the initial faith and repentance which in the judgement of the Apostles gave right to those that desired baptism, and upon that account I cannot directly tell what that is that Mr. Gataker opposeth. The authorities quoted by him, reach not the thing that we contend about Luther says, He (meaning Philip) will not baptise him unless he believe; I say the same: Neither Simon Magus nor any of the Samaritans men or women could have baptism, before they believed. Calvin says, He had not baptised him without true faith, which is doubtless to be understood of fides quam, not quâ credimus, as appears in his words before. There is no doubt but Ananias had first faithfully instructed Paul in the principles of godliness. A belief of such principles than Calvin means. Bucer speaks only of profession of faith, and requiring of men to believe. Neither is there any thing in Whitakers testimony that comes up to our purpose: For Mr. Marshals Sermon of unity that is added, I have it not, and there is nothing quoted out of it. Whereas it is said, that an hundred might easily, and truly be cited to this purpose: I say, if it be but to this purpose, it is not to our present purpose. If they be brought to prove that justifying faith is required of men before baptism, they may well prove that: but as I have said, so I do say, I think never man denied it. Dr. Ward I believe never opposed it. If they be brought to prove that no faith that is short of that which is justifying gives title to baptism, and speak no more than those already quoted, they speak not home to the purpose. And in case there be any that have said, that Baptism still presupposeth regeneration, and that we baptise infants or men of age only upon this supposition as regenerate. As Mr. Baxter, Append. pag. 71. says that, Learned Divines have given Papists great advantage in mistaking the nature of justifying Faith, thinking that it consists in [a belief of the pardon of my own sins;] So I may say, that those, whosoever they are, that have confounded covenant-holiness, with that of regeneration and inherent sanctification, have given as great advantage to others, yea, to the Papists themselves. And as the former doctrine has perplexed many a weak soul, being not able to make good their assurance, they conclude thereupon their want of Faith; so these as much perplex the consciences of those that administer this Ordinance, which I had rather express in Mr. Baxters' words then mine own, Append, pag. 70, 71. No Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man, but to himself, because he can be certain of no man's justification, being not certain of the sincerity of their faith. And if he should adventure to administer upon probabilities or charitable conjectures, than should he be guilty of profaning the Ordinance, and every time he mistaketh he should set the seal of God to a lie: And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament, being never certain but that he shall thus abuse it? adding further, I confess ingenuously to you, that it was the ignorance of this one point, which chief caused me to abstain from administering the Lords Supper for so many years. And I confess as ingenuously, that in case he can work me to his opinion, I stand resolved for present to baptise no Infant, as being unable to know the Parent's faith to justification; and further with Walaes' concluding that the Parents faith doth not justify the child; but as Calvin resolves, lib. 4. instit. cap. 16. Sect. 20. they are baptised into future faith and repentance, which Walaeus also says is the opinion of most others: Neither shall I baptise any man of years till I have as high assurance, if not more, of his justification, than Mr. Baxter seems to think any man can have of his own. If this must stand, than Paedobaptists and Anabaptists must all leave their Principles; and both men and women when they have learned to read that new name in the white stone, [that is] have concluded their assurance, must turn Sebaptists, and then let us look for as many counterfeits, as there were Jews in Christ's time with broad Phylacteries. Those that bottom Baptism on the Covenant, holiness of Covenant, distinct from that of sanctification, stand ensnared in none of these difficulties or inextricable perplexities.  
All the following Arguments to the 9th. may be easily granted, and that is thus form, 
Titles given by Apostles do not argue that in their thoughts they were always answered with inherent grace.  If the Apostles use to communicate the proper titles of the justified to all that are baptised, (till they see them prove apostates or hypocrites) than they did take all the baptised to be probably justified, (though they might know that there were hypocrites among them, yet either they knew them not, or might not denominate the body from a few that they did know) But the antecedent is true; Therefore. For the truth of the antecedent here laid down, [That the Apostles use to communicate the proper titles of the justified to all that are baptised,] I expect better proof than a naked affirmation. And all that is brought for proof, is, I need not cite Scripture to prove, that the baptised are called by the Apostles Believers, Saints, Disciples, Christians; Mr. Bl. hath done it already, pag. 28. And he very well knows that I there make it good, That those titles are not proper to the justified, but ordinarily given to those that are not justified, nor in any saving condition. But if my words in the place quoted, or elsewhere may not be heard, Mr. Baxters sure will take, who in his Saint's rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. p. 105. saith, There are many Saints (or sanctified men) that yet shall never come to heaven, who are only Saints by their separation from Paganism into fellowship with the visible Church, but not Saints in the strictest sense, by separation from the ungodly into the fellowship of the mystical body of Christ, quoting these following Scriptures, Heb. 10.29. Deut. 7.6. and 14.2, 21. and 26.19. and 28.9. Exod. 19.6. 1 Cor. 7.13, 14. Rom. 11.16. Heb. 3.1. compared with vers. 12. 1 Cor. 3.17. and 14.33. 1 Cor. 1.2. compared with 11.20, 21. etc. Gal. 3.26. compared with Gal. 3.3, 4. and 4.11 and 5.2, 3, 4. John 15.2. His demand therefore to me is strange: Now who knows not that salvation is made the portion of Believers, Saints, Disciples? when he himself affirms that there are Saints that never shall be saved. He afterwards puts a further question, Is it another sort of them? or doth the Scripture use to divide Saints as a genus into two species? Not that I know of: It is but an aequivocum in sua aequivocata. The name belongs to them but as the name of a Man to a Corpse, etc. Then it seems that there is nothing of Reality in such Separations. Camero tells us otherwise, that there is a reality in this Saintship by separation. In the relation of his dispute with Courcellius he affirmed, that the Text of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.14. was without doubt to be understood of real holiness. To which Courcellius replying, He that is really holy hath no need of regeneration and baptism: But Infants of Believers after they are borne have need of baptism and regeneration; Ergo. Which Camero answered, (as the relation says) by distinguishing of real holiness, which is twofold: One consisting in the bare relation of the person to the people of God, or the Church, and depends wholly upon birth within the pale of the Church, and of parents embracing the Covenant. The other is, etc. And it seems that the Scripture is still under the change of equivocal speeches all over. As Camero hath somewhere observed, that the word Saints in Scripture is far more frequently taken for Saints on Earth, then for Saints in heaven; so I doubt not but it may be maintained that it speaks far more frequently of Saints by dedication, and separation, and so of Believers and Disciples by profession, then by inherent qualification; and doth it in all these places speak equivocally? had it been affirmed to be Genus Analogum, in opposition to uni vocum, 
Scripture Language real and not aequivocal.  as is said of Ens in respect of Substantia & Accidens, it had been less; but to make nothing of this noble privilege of which Scripture speaks so honourably, is too plainly to side against the truth itself. I would know for my learning, what advantage or profit a dead Corpse is in Capacity to enjoy; I think one at all: but these (as the Apostle tells us) have much every way, even they that have no more than sanctity of this nature; If such equivocation be found in the word [Saint] their the like is to be affirmed of the word Believer, and believers having their denomination from their faith, that is equivocal in like manner, and so our Common division of faith into dogmatical or historical, temporary, miraculous, and justifying, is but a division of an aequivocum in sua aequivocata, which I should think no man would affirm, much less Mr. Baxter, who makes common and special graces to differ only gradually, and then as cold in a remiss degree may grow to that which is intense, so one aequivocatum may rise to the nature of another, animal terrestre may become Sidus coeleste; one of our dogs that we use on Earth, may become a star in heaven; then miraculous faith itself hath only the name, and nothing of the power and nature of faith in it. Judas had power given him to cast out unclean spirits, Maetth. 10.1, 4. and he never had faith that justifieth; if his faith was only aequivocal, than the unclean Spirits were equivocal likewise; I shall never believe that an aequivocal faith can cast out a real devil. The Apostle tells us of faith to the remooval of Mountains void of charity, 1 Cor. 13.2. If this were equivocal faith, those must be equivocal Mountains. Mr. Baxter adds, To put the matter beyond doubt, I wish Mr. Bl. to consider that it's not only these forementioned titles, but even the rest which he will acknowledge proper to the regenerate, which are given by the Apostles generally to the baptised. Instances given in Adoption, Gal. 3.26, 27. union with Christ and several others. If I will acknowledge this, I shall be soon brought to yield up all. Is all Adoption proper to the regenerate? what shall we say then to that of the Apostle, Rom. 9.4. To them pertained the Adoption? Had the Apostle that heaviness and continual sorrow of heart, for Israel after the flesh, and doth he yet give them that testimony that they are regenerate? Gomarus on the place hath these words, Lest any in this place should mistake Adoption and acceptation for sons in Scripture is twofold, general and special. General adoption is an outward destination or call into the visible Church and Company of the Sons of God, upon which account many are said to be the Sons of God, as opposite to the Sons of men, that is, aliens from the Church, Gen. 6.2. And Israel this general way are called the sons of God, not only those that were elect to life eternal and regenerate, but also those that were reprobate and merely carnal, and therefore the Jews, Sons of the kingdom, or the Church of God, are said to be cast into utter darkness, Matth. 8.12. And whether all union with Christ imply regeneration, let John 15.2. be consulted, where an union with Christ is clearly held out; yet Mr. Baxter brings that text among others to prove that there are some Saints that shall never be saved. Mr. Hudson and Mr. Cobbet tell us at large that, Christ is the head of the Church visible, and hath many unfruitful members. Other phrases are there brought, or titles as proper to the regenerate; which are well known in Scripture to be applied to such as have Apostatised, and are brought by Arminians to prove falling away, and are answered by their adversaries; Mr. Hudsons' words are here worthy of consideration. Only the invisible company have internal spiritual communion, and are elect, many of those that have external communion and are visible members shall perish, and yet by reason of their profession, are said, 2. Thes. 1. 1. to be in God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, as Ames also confesseth, Med. lib. 1. Cap. 32. art. 9 Such was the Church off Corinth and Ephesus, etc. wherein all were not in Communion for life; and of such Christ speaketh, John 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he takes away. and verse 6. If a man abides not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. These are said to be redeemed, 2 Pet. 2.1. denying the Lord that bought them; and sanctified, Heb. 10.29. yet hath accounted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and much more to this purpose, Vindi. pag. 5. And if the Apostle give Testimonies to whole Churches holding out what they engage to be, aught to be, and professedly were, this comes short of his purpose.  
I find little or nothing in all the other Arguments but that which either looks not at all towards any thing that I hold, 
Humane authorities vouched.  or else is already spoken to. His last only from humane authority is observable. Our Divines against the Papists (saith he) do generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church, but as a wooden leg is to the body. I must tell him that if they be Members of a particular Church than they are true members of the Church universal, Taking universal and particular in a Similar homogeneal way for the visible Church state, as we must take them if we speak any thing to purpose. That which is pars partis, is pars totius, if my finger be a part of my hand, it is a part of my body, and if Mr. Baxter be an Inhabitant of Kederminster, than he is an Inhabitant of Worcestershire, and if of Worcestershire, than an Inhabitant of England; and let us see what they say of the Church visible indefinitely. Lord Duplesse in his Treatise of the Church, pag. 3. saith, The invisible Church containeth none but the good, the visible containeth both the good and the bad; that only the Elect, this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the preaching of the truth. 
e Visibilis Ecclesia est coetus communiter vocatotum tum electorum tum reproborum.  Wollebius saith, pag. 194. the visible Church is a company jointly called as well of Elect as Reprobate. 
f Ecclesia visibilis constat non solum ex electis & vere piis, sed etiam ex reprobis & Hypocritis.  Ravanellus in verb. Eccles. The visible Church consists not only of the Elect and truly Godly, but also of reprobates, and Hypocrites. 
g Nostri Ecclesiam universalem non invisibilem (quae solos electos & vere fideles complect●tur, de quae Christus loquitur. Matth. 16.) sed visibilem quae electis & hypocritis constant intelligunt.  Gomarus' Analysis, in 2 Thes. 2. Our Divines understand the Church universal not invisible (which only contains the elect and truly faithful, of which Christ speaks, Matth. 16.) but the visible which consists of Elect and Reprobate. Mr. Hudson, Vindication, pag. 7. In the same sense, that a visible Church may be called a Mystical body of Christ, Christ may be also called a Mystical head thereof, as Christ terms himself a Master, so he hath evil, slothful servants, and stewards, as a King he hath rebels that will not have him to rule over them, even in his Church, Matth. 25.6. giving like instance, as a shepherd, as an householder, as a bridegroom, a husbandman, a fisherman, a vine, adding, Christ saith, My people are foolish, they have not known me, sottish children, etc. 
h Alia est Ecclesia vocatorum promiscue bonis & malis, fidelibus & hypocritis constans, Alia est Ecclesia electorum vere fid lilium qui quidem in coetu vocatorum sunt.  Pareus, Revelation 3.1. The Church of the called is one consisting promiscuously of good and bad, faithful and hypocrites; the Church of the elect is another consisting of Elect and truly faithful, which indeed are of the same company of those that are called. Ames. Anti Bel. T. 2. lib. 2. Cap. 1. not. 5. when Bellarmine had stated the controversy between his party, and his adversaries. Others he says require inward virtues, to make any a Church member, 
i Nosautem ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars verae Ecclesiae de qua Scripturae loquuntur, non putamus requiri ullam inteman virtutem.  But we (faith he) do not think that any inward virtue is required to make a man in some sort a part of that true Church of which the Scripture speaks. After discovery of his sophistry in the word after a sort, positively answers, 
k Falsum est, internas virtutes requirui à nobis, ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia quod visibilem ejus statum.  It is false that inward virtues are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the visible state of it. Abundant more like Testimonies might be added if it would not be the Readers trouble. And lest all of this should be evaded with this distinction, that respective to us they are members, but they are not so in foro Dei, let us see what 
l Ecclesiae Refor distinguunt inter Ecclesiam Christi invisibilem myst●cam; quae coetus est hominum vocatorum fidelium qui communionem habent cum Christo cui nulli hypocritae annumerari possunt, & inter Ecclesiam Christi Visibilem externam, quae est societas eorum qui veram fidem profitentur ad communionem & societatem Ecclesasticam inter se exercendam.  Apollonius hath in his answer to the question concerning qualification of Church-members. He saith, The reformed Churches distinguish between the invisible Mystical Church of Christ which is the company of believers, called, which have Communion with Christ, to which no hypocrite can be joined, etc. And the outward visible Church, which is the society of those that profess the true faith for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Communion and society among themselves. And having expressed his judgement, as to the question, proves it by three Arguments. The 3d. is 
m Ex descriptione Ecclesiae visib●lis cujus natur describitur in jure Dei, quod sit horreum in quo cum tritico & paleae colliguntur, domus Dei in qua vasa aurea & line a sunt, rete quo pisces boni & mali capiuntur.  from the description of the Church visible whose nature in the right of God is described (saith he) that it is a barn in which chaff is gathered with the wheat, the house of God in which are vessels of Gold and wood, a net in which are fishes good and bad. This distinction therefore as thus applied is here by him denied, and to this end we may examine further the definitions given by Divines of the visible Church: A definition compriseth no parts that are Monstrous, adventitious, Excrementitious or barely equivocal, but those only that are of the essence or at least integrality where it is an Integrum, as the Church (as Mr. Hudson hath showed) is, that is defined. We have heard Woll●bius his definition before. Mr. Hudson, pag. 9th. saith, The Church visible is a company of people, called or separated by God, from Idols to the true Religion: and yielding professed subjection to that call, which is true (saith he) of the godly as well as of the Hypocrites. The Leyden Professors, disput. 40. Thes. 32. give this definition. 
n Visibilis Ecclesia est coetus eorum qui per verbum externum, Sac amentorum ac disciplinae Ecclesiasticae usum, in unum externum corpus coalescunt.  The visible Church is a Company of those which by the outward Word and use of Sacraments and Ecclesiastical Discipline, are gathered into one outward body and society. Explaining themselves in he 35. Thes. in the same manner as Mr. Hudson before. The definition of Trelcatius junior little differs from it, pag. 432. And whereas Mr. Baxter saith, that our Divines generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church, but as a wooden Leg to the body; I am almost confident that in turning over all his books, he can produce but few such Testimonies. Had he said the Catholic Church instead of universal, I believe he might have found many, 
Universal and Catholic in Authors use of them distinguished.  but whether he can find them speaking in his terms, I somewhat question. When Whitaker handles the question so voluminously, he states it of what sort of men the Catholic Church consists, but not universal. Dr. John Reynolds, maintaining that position, The holy Catholic Church which we believe is the whole company of God's Elect and Chosen, expresseth himself by the word Catholic, we see, in his Thesis, and adds, The wicked must needs be a part of the Church, if the name of Church did signify the visible Church. Now I think that scarce any will deny that the universal Church is visible, which Mr. Hudson so largely hath proved, cap. 5. Yet Whitaker as largely makes good that the Catholic Church is invisible, quaest. 2. de Eccles .. If I be now sent to my Dictionary to see whether Catholic and universal be not both one, and demanded whether there be any more difference between them, than is between Idolum and Imago, about which we have had so much stir with the Papists, the one a Greek word, the other a Latin; I confess it is so in Grammar, but not in their use of it that handle the question of the Church Catholic in this manner, and when their Authority is quoted their sense must be inquired into. And in case they took it for the same as universal, they could not make it invisible, in which sense Hudson observes, Zanchy, Gerard, Whitaker, Chamier, Ames, Dr. Wille●, do use it, to which Daverant, Trelcatius, with other might be added. The distinction is usual into Catholic, and visible, and in that sense a wicked man is no member of the Church Catholic, as opposite to vibsile, when yet he is a true Member of the Church universal as opposite to particular; And therefore I say that a bad man is a true Member of the Church visible, and I think I am not gainsayed by any of our Divines, but seconded. But though they may be true members of visible Churches, yet perhaps Mr. Baxter, hath a way to make them only as wooden legs respective to the true Church visible, Churches with him being no true Churches, but aequivocally so called, owning that Charge of Bellarmine's, 
o Confessionistae & Calvinus, docent duas esse Ecclesias, veram quae est Sanctorum fide lium Congregatio: & externam quae nomine tantum est Ecclesia, in qua boni & mali reperiuntur: sed malos esse in Ecclesiâ, non de Eclesiâ.  where he saith, that the Confessionists, and Calvin teach, that there are two Churches, A true one, which is the Congregation of the holy and faithful: An outward one, which is only a Church in name, in which good and bad are found, but the bad are in the Church, not of the Church: But here he hath Amesius his adversary, who better understood the mind of Protestant Writers, and in this is rather to be believed. He answers, Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Eccles. Cap. 1. 
p Calumnia est manifesta, quod impingitur illis duarum Ecclesiarum Militantium fictio, non distribuunt Ecclesiam miltantem in duas species: sed duplicem respectum aut considerationem unius & ejusdem Ecclesiae distinguunt ac proponunt, unam quoad essentiam internam, & alteram quoad modum existendi ex ternum.  This fiction of two Militant Churches which is put upon them, is a manifest Calumny, they do not divide the Church Militant into two Species, but they distinguish and hold forth a double respect or consideration of one and the same Church: One according to the inward Essence, and the other according to the outward manner of Existence. Yet this must be taken further into Consideration, seeing from this distribution of the Church, Mr. Baxter hath got up an Argument to prove visible Churches to be no Churches, which is his nineteenth Argument of his 26. and is thus framed: If the distribution of the Church into visible and invisible be but of the subject into divers adjuncts, and not of a Genus into its Species, than that part or those Members, which are merely visible, are indeed no part of the Members of the Church so distributed, but are only Equivocally called a Church, Church-Members, etc. The Antecedent must be yielded him; the Consequence (he saith) is undeniable, in that adjuncts are no part of the Essence, much less the form, or the whole Essence; and therefore cannot denominate, but aequivocally, instead of the essence.  
To this I answer, the consequence might as fairly have been, that these members which are invisible, are no parts or members of the Church so distributed, seeing invisibility, or invisible (as is confessed) is an adjunct as well as visibility or visible. There may be a distribution of man by hundreds of adjuncts, either corpulent or lean, high or low, black or fair, old or young, rich or poor, learned or unlearned, etc. If one of these so denominated be a true man, shall the other than be only aequivocally a man? If a corpulent man be a true man, is a lean man no man? If a tall, black or old man be a true man, shall then a low, fair or young man be no man? This must needs follow as well as the other. The reason given, that adjuncts are no part of the Essence, is not at all to the purpose, seeing the subject that is denominated by such adjuncts, hath its Essence; though blackness be not of the essence of a man, yet the man that is black hath his essence; and though visibility be not of the essence of the Church, yet the Church which is denominated visible hath its essence. And whereas we are warned to note, that visibile is not the same with visum; so I can give warning that invisibile, is not the same with non visum, though I know not to what purpose.  
Secondly, I answer, the Church being an integrum, and that per aggregationem, and only one, in exact propriety of speech, it cannot be capable of any such distribution: so there must be one Church of one denomination, and another of another, but it is a distribution of Church-members, which serve as parts to make up the whole: some of which are only visible, that is all their honour, to make a visible profession, and to enjoy the glory of Ordinances, and the Divine protection of God over his vineyard; upon which account they are nigh, when others are a far off. The other are invisible members; As they have all the visible honour before mentioned, so they have an addition of a far greater glory of invisible graces. The former I take to be the Church most properly (though I know others are of another opinion) for two reasons. 1. When the Church is an integrum (as Mr. Hudson hath largely proved it) the visible Church contains the whole, for the invisible part is also visible, invisible respective to graces, but visible respective to profession and outward privileges: The invisible is only one part, and so not the Church in its most proper signification. 2. The Scripture almost wheresoever it speaks of a Church, takes it in this acception, and that which is the ordinary and common language of the holy Ghost, which he uses most often, almost always, is that which is most proper. Some have said, that the word Church is not more than once taken for the Church invisible, which is, Heb. 12.23. The Church of the first born. If it should be granted, that there is two or three places more, which will bear that acceptation of it, which is as much as can be pretended; yet I dare say, there is not one for twenty, where the Church is taken for the Church visible: And is the language of Scripture still all over aequivocal? When Christ says, The Kingdom of heaven is like to a man that sowed good seed in his field; is like to a draw-net: shall we say, the Kingdom of heaven aequivocally taken? Stephen says, This was he that was in the Church in the wilderness; must we understand it of the Church aequivocal? And when Paul gave Timothy a directory, how to behave himself in the house of God, which he says, is the Church of the living God; must we understand it of a Church aequivocal? Such a one would be but a weak ground or pillar of the truth; we may say the same of abundant other places. If all these aequivocals be granted, it will shortly be questioned, whether there be any reality in Scripture language.  

The Author vindicated from Arminianism.  As the authority of our Divines is produced against the Papists, so also their authority against the Arminians is brought forth. Our Divines against the Arminians (saith he) do suppose the first act of believing to be the first time that God is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of grace; and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature, though the conditional Covenant may be made to them, and though he hath revealed his decree, for the sanctifying his elect. That God is then first engaged for the graces of the Covenant I easily yield, for then the grand condition by the help of grace is put in by the soul. But let us here take up that which he is pleased to yield, and compare it with that which he hath put into the Index of his Treatise of Infant-Baptisme, where he notes this as Mr. T. his Error; That the Covenant whereof Baptism is the seal, is only the absolute Covenant made only to the Elect, which pag. 223. he confutes. And if men in the state of nature be in that Covenant that Baptism seals, (viz) the conditional Covenant, than men in the state of nature, and short of justifying faith, have right to Baptism. It follows, In my opinion the transition is very easy from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianism, if not unavoidable save by retreat, or by not seeing the connexion of the consequence to the antecedent. When this was charged upon me by another hand, I was acquitted by Mr. Br. and he testified for me, that I had acquitted Mr. M. from any such charge. I marvel therefore that now it should be fastened upon me. But let us hear his reason, For grant once that common faith doth coram Deo give right to Baptism, and it is very easy to prove, that it gives right to the end of Baptism, God having not instituted it to be an empty sign to those that have true right to it. What is it that we hear, will it give immediate right to the end of Baptism? That may be easily said, but I think hardly proved. It is no empty sign, if in the right use of it, it may prove serviceable to it; I am sure the Jew outwardly had right to the Oracles of God, and yet no immediate certain right to their end, which is to be the power of God to salvation, It will be an hard task, to prove the certainty of all their salvation, that in the right of God stand entitled to any Ordinance of his: the reason will hold of all as well as one, they are not empty and vain. The Jews had right to Circumcision in the flesh, and none that was a Jew outwardly might neglect it, and yet were void of Circumcision of the heart, or forgiveness of sin. The conclusion is, That it will be no hard matter to prove, that it is some special grace that is the end of Baptism, at least remission of sin. And so upon the right use of common grace, God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special grace, which is taken for Pelagianisme. It will far rather follow from that opinion, that a common and special grace differ only gradually, not specifically; According to that promise of our Saviour, Matth. 13.12. To him that hath shall be given, which our Divines have still understood of graces of the same, and not of a different kind: he that hath common graces and improves them, shall have a larger measure of those graces; and he that hath spiritual graces and improves them, shall have a more large measure of spiritual gifts. And if they be both of one kind, than Christ's promise holds from the one to the other. It will be an hard matter I think to prove, that all that have right in Ordinances, though they make no right use, shall attain to the end of them.   

Argument 5. vindicated.  
My fifth Argument was, 
An enquiry into Simon Maegus his Baptism.  [That faith upon which Simon Magus was in the Primitive times baptised, is that which admitteth to Baptism: Simon himself believed and was baptised, Acts 8.13. But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying.] To which a sudden answer is given, Concedo totum, sed desideratur Conclusic. He is certainly much to seek both in Syllogisms and Common reason that could not infer, and could not know that I left the Reader to infer, that, Ergo a faith that is short of justifying, entitles to Baptism. And so I have the whole in question yielded, and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if once granted. But as soon as it is yielded me, a Means is unkindly used to take it away from me. And it is further answered, That may be said to admit to Baptism which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to baptise him, as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did. If such liberty of interpretation be yielded, who may not easily elude the sense of any Scripture-Text? the Text saith, that Simon believed, and was baptised: Is it now enough for us to say he seemed to believe, and therefore those whom he thus deceived were bound to baptise him? Let the whole Text be viewed, and the former Verse taken in, and then let us see whether such a Gloss be fair. When they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also. That faith upon which all the other Samaritans were admitted to Baptism, Simon was admitted upon also: But it was not a seeming to believe, but a believing that admitted the other Samaritans; Therefore it was believing, not a seeming to believe that admitted Simon. When the Holy Ghost saith, Simon believed, as he saith other Samaritans believed, and his faith satisfied Philip, full of the Holy Ghost, to give him admittance; How may we that stand at this distance dare to call it into question? If the Seal were put to a mere blank paper, why is not all reversed upon discovery of a Misprision in proceeding? So any man would do that had put a Seal where no name was written. Why was not all ipso facto made null? what reason could be given but that Peter, had he been of that mind, should have said, Repent of this thy wickedness, that upon testimony given of thine integrity thou mayest yet be baptised? But when the Text says he did believe, and Philip upon that account thus proceeded, and no retractation upon such discovery was made, I believe no such Gloss is to be suffered. My sixth and last Argument was, [In case only justifying faith give admission to Baptism, than none is able to baptise, seeing this by none is discerned.] To which Mr. Baxter says very little, but only refers to what he hath said to Mr. Tombs; and I having had occasion before, and may have occasion hereafter to speak of it, shall here make no further defence of it.   

Additional Arguments, that a faith short of that which justifies, gives title to Baptism.  
SEeing these Arguments have given Mr. Baxter so little satisfaction, I shall endeavour to make some addition, only premising this, That Baptism is our door of Entrance, or way of admission into the Church visible, which I shall take for granted, seeing Mr. T. pag. 54. of his Apology, as Mr. Baxter observes, hath yielded it; and Mr. Baxter to my hand, Treatise of Infant-Baptisme, pag. 24. by Arguments hath proved it. If then I shall prove, that such are to be received into the Church, I shall take the Conclusion to be the same as if they said they were to be baptised; and proving their right to be taken into the Church, I prove their right to be baptised.  
1. They that have right in the sight of God, to many and Arg. 1 great Privileges of his gift, have right in his sight to the first and leading privilege; this I think cannot be denied: Having a right to those that follow, they have right to those that lead. If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover, they had right to Circumcision; and if any now have right to the Lords Supper, they have right to Baptism. But those of a faith that is short of that which justifies, have right to many and great privileges in the sight of God. This is clear from the Apostle, Rom. 3.1. The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting, had every way much profit and advantage, he had therefore right to Circumcision, and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies, have right in the sight of God to Baptism.  
2. Those that are a people by God's gracious dispensations, Arg. 2 nigh unto God, comparative to others, have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear, Men have right to be admitted to their right. But those that come short of justifying faith, are a people by God's gracious dispensation nigh unto God comparative to others; this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews, as appears, Deut. 4.7. Psal. 147.19, 20. & 148.14. Those therefore that are short of justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to Admission to this nearer relation.  
Arg. 3 3. Those that God ordinarily calls his People, and owns as his, openly avouching himself to be their God, have right in the sight of God to the Signs and Cognisance of his people, and are to have admission into the Society and fellowship of his people. This is plain, If God in Covenant will own Servants, than his stewards may open the door to them; if he will own sheep, his servants doubtless may mark them. But God owns all in visible Communion, though short of faith that is justifying, as his people, and openly avouches himself to be their God, as in abundant places of Scripture is evident: see Deut. 26.18. these have therefore right to the signs and Cognisances of his people, to admission into the society and fellowship of his people.  
Arg. 4 4. Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision, they had right in God's sight to Circumcision; and those of like condition, have like right to Baptism. This I think is clear; The Spirit of God doth not misname, doth not nickname, nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names. But men short of justifying faith, are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof. Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision, Rom. 15.8. and he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Those then of a faith short of that which is justifying, have right in the sight of God to Baptism.  
Arg. 5 5. Those that are the servants of God, whom God owns as his servants, have right in his sight to be received into his house, and to be entitled to the privileges of his Church. This we think should not be denied, and that God will take it ill, if any shall deny it. But men short of that faith which justifies, are owned of God as his servants, as is clear, Levit. 25.41, 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the children of Israel, and his children are called of God his servants, and that as Israelites; of which a great part were void of that faith which justifies. Therefore those that are short of faith which justifies, have right in the sight of God to be thus received. This argument me thinks might be of force with Mr. Baxter. when he had urged it for proof, that infants are servants, and aught to be baptised, he adds, pag. 18. Is not here then direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God, whether infants are his Disciples, and servants or no? Doth not God call them his servants himself? What more should a man expect to warrant him to do so? Men call for plain Scripture, and when they have it, they will not receive it: so hard it is to inform a forestalled mind. If God took such care upon that account, that they should not be held in bondage under any of his people; he takes like care that they should not be kept from the society of his people.  
6. Those that bring forth children to God, have a right in Arg. 6 the sight of God to be of his household, and to be taken into it; This is plain, especially to those that know the law of servants in families, that all their children in right were the Masters, and had their relation to him. But those that are short of justifying faith bring forth children to God, Ezek. 16.20, 21.  
7. Children of the Kingdom of God, or those that are subjects Arg. 7 of his Kingdom, have right in the sight of God to be received into his Kingdom. This Proposition Mr. Br. hath proved, pag. 21. therefore I may save my pains. But those that are short of faith that justifies, are children or subjects of this Kingdom, Matth. 8.12. The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to be thus received.  
8. The children of the Covenant have right in the sight of Arg. 8 God to the seal of the Covenant: This is evident, the seal is an affix to the Covenant: where a Covenant is made, and a seal appointed, there it is not of right to be denied. But those that are short of faith that justifies are the children of the Covenant, Act. 3.25. The Apostle speaking to the people of the Jews, saith, Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers.  
9 Disciples of Christ have right in the sight of God to Baptism, Arg. 9 as appears in Christ's Commission, Matth. 28.19. But many are Disciples of Christ, that are short of a faith that justifies. Therefore those that are short of faith that justifies, have right in the sight of God to Baptism. If all that I have said, pag. 208. of the Treatise of the Covenant, to prove this assumption be too weak, as I think it is not, Mr. Brs. proof pag. 21. of his Treatise hath sure strength sufficient; there he proves that infants are Disciples, because they are subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and what Kingdom he means, he there explains himself. I speak not here (saith he) of his Kingdom in the largest sense, as it containeth all the world; nor yet in the strictest, as it containeth only his Elect: But in the middle sense as it containeth the Church visible, as it is most commonly used: And therefore by the way not aequivocally used. Those then of this middle posture non-Elect are Disciples.  
Arg. 10 10. Christians have right in the sight of God to Baptism. This is Mr. Brs. proposition in the page before quoted, and in reason is plain, Christians must not be kept out of Christian fellowship. This is Mr. baxter's likewise in the place quoted, he makes Disciples Christians, and subjects of Christ's visible Kingdom, to be one and the same. Therefore those that are short of justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to Baptism. If he object that that particle in the sight of God is an addition, they have no such right being but aequivocal Christians: yet as is the Christian with him, so is the Church or Kingdom, as aequivocal Christians, they may have right to an aequivocal Church or Kingdom.  
Arg. 11 11. All that aught to be admitted visible Church members, aught to be admitted in the right of God to Baptism. This none can question, unless they charge it as Tautological, and it is Mr. Brs. pag. 23. and the medium of that argument which he makes the chief of all he useth. But those that are short of justifying faith are members of the Church visible. Ergo those that are short of justifying faith, are to be admitted to Baptism. The assumption is his likewise, where he distinguisheth the visible Kingdom from the Elect, and no man can deny it that grants the distinction of a Church into visible and invisible.  
Arg. 12 12. The children of God have right in the sight of God to be admitted to baptism; This is clear enough: But men short of justifying faith are children of God, even those that drew down judgements on the Old world, as, Gen. 6.2. The whole body of the children of Israel, Deut. 14.1. Those that most provoked God amongst them; Those that revolted from Christ, for whom Paul had so much heaviness in the flesh, Rom. 9.4. If the way of their adoption, or sonship be questioned; doubtless it ●s such as hath with it an inheritance, for a child is not adopted, but to be provided for. And what inheritance can be conceived, but Church privileges? Greater will not be yielded, and lesser to one thus related cannot be assigned, and what privilege can be inherited if there be no door of admittance to it? Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptism.  
13. Those whom God ingraffs by his power into the true Arg. 13 Olive, and makes partakers of the fatness of the Olive, they have right in the sight of God to be admitted. This is plain, God engraffing right must not be denied: But he engraffs by his power those that are short of that faith that justifies; even the whole body of the Church of the Gentiles, and we expect the like of the Church of the Jews, as appears from the Apostle, Rom. 11. Therefore those that are short of a justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to Baptism. I had thought to have ended here, but let me add two more.  
14. All of those that professedly embrace a Gospel tender, Arg. 14 in which there is a conditional promise of Justification, Adoption, Glorification, have right in the sight of God to all Ordinances, ordinarily necessary, and requisite to bring them up to these conditions; and to the fruition of these glorious privileges, and consequently to baptism the leading privilege. This none can deny, that know the readiness of Christ, in imparting saving Ordinances to a people. But those that are short of faith which is justifying, may embrace a Gospel-tender, in which there is a conditional promise of Justification, Adoption, Glorification. Those therefore that are short of faith which is justifying, have right in the sight of God to all such Ordinances, and consequently to Baptism.  
15. If the Apostle argue for a right to Baptism, from gifts Arg. 15 that are common to the justified and unjustified, than faith which is short of justifying, gives right in the sight of God to Baptism. This none can deny, unless they will call the Apostles Logic into question, and deny his consequence. But the Apostle thus argues for a right to Baptism; from those gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified; this is plain, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? The holy Ghost there, is the gift of the holy Ghost then poured out; the gift of tongues, as in the 45. and 46. verses is held forth: which is a gift not only inferior to charity, but such as may be severed from it, 1 Cor. 13.1. A gift of that kind, that men of a miraculous faith ordinarily did, as in an instant confer. They are therefore gifts common to the justified and unjustified. Those therefore of faith short of that which is justifying have right to Baptism.  
Arg. 16 16. If the promise be to others besides believers then so is the seal; for to whom God promiseth, to them he engageth himself to perform. But the promise is to others: Therefore the seal is to others. This will be evident, if it be once understood, that it is only the conditional Covenant which God sealeth by the Sacraments; for this promise is made to unbelievers, though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any but those that perform the condition.  
Arg. 17 17. If God do no more in his actual sealing to believers than he doth when the Sacrament is rightly applied to hypocrites, than he actually sealeth to hypocrites: But God doth no more in his actual sealing to believers than he doth when the Sacrament is rightly administered to hypocrites. The Minor is proved by the enumeration of the several acts. 1. God maketh a promise. 2. He commandeth Ministers to publish it. 3. He hath instituted the Sacraments, as mutually engaging signs or seals. 4. He commands Ministers to deliver or apply them to those that profess their consent and desire to enter or renew the Covenant. These two last I confess I have borrowed, and that from Mr. Br. pag. 223. of his Infant-Baptisme, and whether they make for him or against him, to prove or disprove their right which he here calls hypocrites, and distinguishes from believers, I leave to the censure of the intelligent Reader.   

Mr. Baxters Arguments reviewed, and his Vindication examined. Argument 1.  
MR. Baxter argues, When Christ saith, Make me Disciples of all Nations, 
Matth. 28.29. Vindicated.  baptising them, he meant sincere disciples, though we cannot know them to be sincere. I have answered, that this discipleship which Christ here mentions is such, of which whole Nations are in a Capacity, which was made plain by the Commission, concluding. If whole Nations, yea, the whole universal visible Church (consisting of discipled Nations) were all believers, it were a great happiness, Christ on the contrary saith, Many are called, but few chosen. Mr. Baxter replies, If it be not sincere disciples that Christ means in that Text, Then no Apostle was bound by that Commission and great Precept, to endeavour the making of sincere Disciples; but only counterfeits, and half Christians: But the Antecedent is false: Therefore. I am sorry to hear the Constitution of visible Churches to suffer this brand of making counterfeit, and half Christians. It is well known whose Language it is, That all charging or urging of duty upon unregenerate persons, is only to bring them to hypocrisy. Do not all know that the means necessarily conducible must be used in order to the end proposed? In order to make men sincere disciples, they must be made visible professing disciples. They may be half Christians (if Mr. Baxter will have it so) in order to whole Christians. Dr. Ames (if I do not misremember) compares visible Churches to rough stones taken out of the quarry, and invisible Christians to stones hewed and polished; I am sure they must be taken out of the quarry to be put into the building. It is said, that Melanchton used to wish, that there were more hypocrites in the world, than there were; not that he would have more dissembling among those that made profession of Christianity, but more brought in to make profession. Profession being a good step in the way to sincerity, which a man would think Mr. Baxter would not dislike, who so far speaks the mind of Christ towards men, that if they will come but only to a visible profession, he will not deny them admittance there, because they intent to go no further, but will let them come as near as they will. And what he says of Christ's readiness for admittance, I may say of Ministers endeavours, they must bring them thus far, in order to a greater work. Ministers are to be instrumental by the work of regeneration to make men babes in Christ, and by remiss heat resembling smoking flax, to bring them up to greater fervour; Shall we thence infer, that they are to make men lukewarm, which is a temper that Christ will not bear? We therefore distinguish of lukewarmness: 1. As a medium to further heat, so Ministers must bring men up to it. 2. As a terminus, or end in which men rest: So considered, a Minister's work is to bring men beyond it; the same we may say of a visible profession, as a medium, not as a terminus, it must be all Ministers endeavours. Mr. Baxter cannot be ignorant that Mr. Martial, and others that are for Infant-Baptisme, have proved, (and Mr. T●mb's hath yielded) That this enlarged Commission given here to the Apostles, is put in opposition to their limited Commission, Matth. 10.5, 6. They were first sent unto a Nation discipled to their hands; entering, as Christ tells them, into other men's labours, what that Nation was, they must by their endeavours work all to be. That was a Nation of professed, disciples, and hither they are by their Commission to bring all Nations. Mr. Baxter adds, For your Argument, I grant the Conclusion, and what would ye have more? I wish no more, so that you will stand to your word, and then visible disciples, of which whole Nations consist, according to Christ's Commission, have right to Baptism, and I think that is the thing in Question. He yet saith, I grant the Minor, taking the word disciples equivocally, as a Corpse is called a man, and I confess it usual so to take the word, but otherwise I deny the Minor. But I abhor that acceptation. Honest-meaning men do not use to say so, much less the Holy Ghost, as though I should say, that I had kept twenty men in my house these twenty years, and then come off with a tale of twenty pictures. I assert a reality in that discipleship which you call aequivocal: As for that which follows, To be Christ's Disciple (as to the Aged) is to be one that hath unfeignedly taken Christ for his Master to teach him and rule him, renouncing the contrary guidance of the flesh, the devil, and the world, etc. This is true as to the Inheritance of heaven, but not as to Inheritance of Ordinances; in order to the further work of sincerity, that qualifies for heaven. The Jew outwardly was not thus qualified, and yet he had upon that account just title to Church-priviledges, and in particular to Circumcision. There follows to your Confirmation, I deny the Minor, and I say that it is so new a doctrine to affirm, that whole Nations are not capable of being sound believers, that it deserved one word of proof: Much less should you have hid your Minor, and turned it into a Negatio Existentiae, when it should have been but a Negatio Capacitatis: Doth it follow that a Nation is not capable of sound faith, because they have it not? or will not have it? and afterwards you say, If there be any Nation uncapable of faith, than God cannot make them believers. And so in conclusion you will have stones to be in this capacity, for God can make them disciples, as well as he can of them raise up Children to Abraham. But you might easily know that I intended a Capacity to be brought into this state in God's ordinary regular way by the Apostles Ministry. And, Chap. 27. pag. 194. I had before thus explained myself, That which a whole Nation in God's ordinary way of administration is in a Capacity to attain, and enter into, is only a Covenant professed, visibly entered upon, and doth not require any inward change or work upon the soul to the being of it. This is plain, it cannot be expected in God's ordinary way, that a Nation should be brought forth at once, all inwardly holy and sanctified, such a field without tares hath not been seen, such a floor without chaff, such a draw-Net without any fish that's bad; such a feast and none without a wedding Garment. So that this is a doctrine so clear, that proof needs not, where there never shall be any futuriety we may well and fairly speak of an incapacity. Capacity is vain when it is known and confessed, Existence shall never follow: But there must never be any such existence, as appears in Christ's and the Apostles Parables of mixtures in visible Churches, and hitherto all ages have had experience. Whereas you say, Do you think Preachers yet be not bound to endeavour the saving conversion of whole Nations? If you say, No; you take them off the work their Master hath set them on. If you say, Yea: Then you think they must endeavour to persuade men to that which they have not a Capacity of. I think they are to bring them if heathens to a visible profession, and as many as may be to thorough conversion. That is somewhat remarkable which follows, Vocation uneffectual is common to Pagans. Vocation throughly Effectual is of the same extent with justification, and I think Election. A Pagan called according to Scripture, is a Contradiction in adjecto. Calling in Scripture-phrase is not a bare tender, but accompanied with a professed answer. That speech of Christ, Many are called, but few chosen, is the close of two Parables, Matth. 20.16. & 22.14. the one of Labourers called into the vineyard, the other of Guests called to the wedding. And in both applied to them that answered to the Call, that came and laboured in the vineyard, that came with other bidden one's to the Feast, and not to those that refused. According to this doctrine there is no Medium between a Pagan and a justified man, all Pagans and unjustified men are upon the same terms, the Jew outwardly (whatsoever St. Paul saith to the contrary) hath no profit or advantage above the heathen. When the Psalmist gives that Elegy to the children of Israel, a people near unto the Lord, Psal. 148.14. the same may be said of every Pagan that is an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel, if once he hath manifested so much stubbornness as to refuse a Gospel-tender. Scripture makes visible Church-Members nigh, when others are afar off, Ephes. 2.13. and in visible Churches some according to Scriptures are more nigh than others, Mark 12.34. when yet both are in an unjustified Condition.   

Argument 2. reviewed.  

Mar. 16.16. vindicated.  Mr. baxter's second Argument to prove, that only justifying Faith gives title to Baptism is thus laid down, When he saith, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, here Faith goes before Baptism, and that not a common, but a saving faith; for here is but one faith spoken of, and that is before Baptism. I have answered, that this is the weakest of all Arguments, to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture, and gave divers Instances not needful to repeat. Upon which Mr. Baxter confesseth, there may be an Hysteron Proteron: and then if Hysterons and Proterons be any a thing to our present purpose, it rests upon him to prove that here is none. 2. I know not how this figure of Rhetoric came to be talked on, I think no such thing is here to be asserted. So I should say Baptism doth always lead, and Faith follow. I only said that all that can be collected hence, is, that in God's ordinary way of conferring salvation we must have both Faith and Baptism, though (as our Divines have generally observed against the Papists) there is not one and the same kind of necessity, which they confirm by the words that follow. If Mr. Baxter will contend for an exact order, than he must say that Faith always precedes, and never follows after Baptism, against the common observation, that sometimes it precedes, sometimes it accompanies, sometimes it follows, and he must also say that without inversion of a Divine order no baptised man can be converted to a Faith that is justifying; And then he may preach in England to build up Converts, but not to convert: or at least when he hath converted, he must baptise his convert; the seal is null that goes before a Covenant. I gave instance in that place of Peter, 1 Pet. 3.21. where the restipulation or answer of a good conscience follows upon Baptism, affirming that justifying Faith is that restipulation, or at least a principal branch of it; and therefore there is no necessity that it should precede; but a necessity that it should follow; In which I did not imply that a man before Baptism may not believe, as I gave instance in Abraham to the contrary, but that it tieth him to the faith, at least to follow after. Mr. Baxter saith, I gratefully accept your Concession, that justifying faith is that restipulation, which is your Minor, (that is, justifying faith professed) and thence I conclude, that justifying faith is essential to the Mutual Covenant, and so without it God is not in Covenant with men. It is very well worth our enquiry how this can follow which is thus made good. Who knows not that ever read Civil Law, that there is no stipulation sine promissione, which you call, and so do other Divines, Restipulation. And that this Restipulation is an essential part of the Contract called stipulation, This being past doubt, it follows, that justifying faith being our Restipulation, is an Essential part of the Contract or Baptismal Covenant. They only (it seems) that have read the Civil Law, can see a necessity of this Conclusion. I, and other Divines, call this promise Restipulation; and I (though other Divines do not) say that justifying faith is this Restipulation or promise. And so the Promise being essential, Faith is essential to our being in Covenant likewise. But can Mr. Baxter think that it is the Promise or Restipulation strictly so called, or that I so intended it? then this is a true Proposition, justifying faith is a Promise; can any think that I ever intended so egregious a piece of affected nonsense? Justifying faith with me is the thing promised, or that to which we restipulate. Who that hath read Rhetoric, or heard any man speak, doth not know that the promise is ordinarily put for the thing promised? and then the Conclusion will follow the clean contrary way. If you could prove out of the Civil Law or elsewhere, that there is no Pollicitatio sine Praestatione, that every man that enters Covenant eo nomine makes good his Covenant. Then you hit the nail on the head, and till that is done, you have done nothing.   

Arg. 3. reviewed.  
Mr. baxter's third Argument is, That faith to which the promise of remission, and justification is made, must also be sealed to (or that faith which is the Condition of the promise is the condition, in foro dei, of the title to the seal): But it is only solid true faith which is the condition of the promise (of remission): 
In what sense faith is the condition of the Promise.  Therefore it is that which gives right, in foro Dei, to the seal. To this I have answered, faith is not sealed to, but remission of sins, or Salvation upon condition of faith; and when I come to speak of the sealing of Sacraments, I shall God willing make this more evident, that the Sacrament qua seal immediately respects our privileges, and not duties, and I refer the Reader thither. When I say a professor of faith may engage to a lively working faith, I am followed with this Dilemma. You mean either a professor of that lively faith or a professor of a dead, not working faith. If the first, it is a contradiction to say he professeth to have a lively faith, and he only engageth so to believe hereafter. For if he profess to have it already, than he can engage only to the continuation, and not to the inception of it. If you mean the latter, than I shall show you anon, that a man professing a dead, not working faith, is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptism, to believe lively for the future, (inceptiuè) and to believe for the future with a working faith. I shall first second this dilemma with another of like nature, and then answer. He that thus professeth to have a lively faith, either professeth it knowingly, so that he is assured that he speaks the truth, or with haesitations, doubts and fears, so that he questions the truth of all that himself says. The latter doubtless can give no title according to Mr. Baxter. For a man to profess, and remain wholly uncertain of the truth of such profession, can give no such title as is required; if the former be intended, that every man professing must know the truth of his profession, than none that are below assurance that in present they savingly believe, have any right to Baptism, and then you see how high we are gone. Some think it is too much to require a full assurance of Grace from all that enter or are allowed to possess their places in the Ministry, much more of all that enter into Christianity. For a direct answer, I therefore say, It is not profession to say that we have this faith, but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it, with engagement to it that gives this title. There follows, You suppose then, such a professor as this coming to Baptism, saying, Lord, I believe that thou art God alone, and Christ the only Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost the guide and sanctifier of thy people, and that the world, flesh and devil is to be renounced for thee: but at present there are lusts so dear to me, that I will not forsake them for thee. I will not take thee for my God, to rule me, or be my happiness; nor will I take Christ to govern me, and save me in his way; nor will I be guided, or sanctified by the Holy Ghost; but hereafter I will, and therefore I come to be baptised. If I say such have right to baptism, and you say we are bound to baptise them, how do you mend the matter? do not you conclude your forty sixth Section with these words? Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith, is larger than election, and makes men such whom we are bound to baptise. 2. I say and do profess of those that have those secret reservations wrapped up in their breasts, and not yet from under the power of lusts, yet convinced of their duty, and acknowledging the necessity, that it is the mind of God that they should be baptised, and have admission to ordinances, in order to bring them more sincerely and unreservedly to God. And this being the will of God, as you seem to yield when you say we are bound to baptise them; I say they have right in the sight of God to Baptism, and it were ill with the Church if those in Augustine's case, that would pray, Da castitatem, da temperantiam Domine, sed non modò, should be denied all investiture in Church privileges. Where Mr. Baxter says, that faith which is the condition of the promise is the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal: And I say, that I judge the contrary to be undeniable; After many words which are needless to repeat, we have his reasons, with a complaint that I have given no reason of my denial. To which I say, That which in a parenthesis without reason is affirmed, may without rendering any reason be denied. But before I come to consider of his reasons, it is necessary that the terms be looked into, and the question rightly stated, that there may be no misunderstanding. When Mr Baxter speaks of the condition of the promise, I suppose he means the condition called for, in order to the attainment of the thing promised, the promise for the object of the promise, as it is taken, Heb. 11.13. Otherwise the promise itself properly taken hath no condition. There was no condition inducing God to make promise of Christ, nor to make tender of any such promise. But he promises glory by Christ on his own terms and propositions. Now for the reasons themselves to make good that; that which is the condition of the promise, is the condition of title to the seal. The first is, The seal is but an affix to the promise: therefore that which is the condition of the promise, is, the condition of the seal. The seal is not affix to the thing promised, but it is often separated from it. It is a means to convey, and a way to confirm it upon God's terms to those that have their Interest in the Covenant. 2. The use of the seal is to confirm the promise to him to whom it is sealed: Therefore the condition of the promise is the condition of the seal. When it is granted that the use of the seal is to confirm the thing promised, it will not therefore follow that there is the same condition required for interest in the seal as for interest in the thing in promise. If a man will engage under seal to give me one hundred pounds, provided that I will come to such a place and accept it, my professed willingness will Interest me in the seal, my actual acceptance in the Moneys. 3. If the promise and seal have two distinct conditions, than there are two distinct Covenants, (for from the conditions most commonly are contracts specified; and therefore Wesenbechius and such like Logical Civilians, call it the form of the contract, or stipulation, to be either pura, vel in diem, vel sub conditiene, and those subconditions are specified oft from their various conditions) But there is not two Covenants: Therefore. I know not well how to reach this. Is there not one thing needful to interest me in a bargain, or to make me a Covenanter, and another thing to obtain the benefit accrueing by such conditional bargain or Covenant? 4. Is it not against the nature and common use of sealing that it should be in order before the promise or Covenant? And that men should first have right to that seal on one condition before they have right to the promise, and then have right to the promise after on another condition. But sure it is not against the nature of seals to be before the mercy covenanted for, and promised. And I beseech you take this into serious consideration, and do not slightly pass it. Justifying faith with you is the Covenant, and do not you preach to work men up to it? and I hope your labours are happily successful. Yet all of these to whom you preach (perhaps not a man excepted) hath this seal, and is baptised. Do you now in all your Ministerial labours go against the nature and common use of sealing? To keep a due order we must then forbear baptising, not only till men profess to believe, but are actually in the faith, in a way that justifies. 5. If it be so undeniable that that faith which is the condition of the promise, is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal, as you affirm, why then do ye build so much against Mr. Tombs, on that Argument from Acts 2. The promise is to you and your Children, arguing a right to the seal from an interest in the promise? I Argue not from an interest in the seal to an interest in the thing promised, but require something further. By this it appears that you take the promise properly, and not for the thing promised, and then I pray you reconcile this to your second reason; The use of a seal is not to confirm in this that I have a promise, but that I shall have interest in the good that is promised. 6. Where you say that an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seal; I reply then those that at present renounce Christ so it be against their knowledge, and conscience, and will engage to own him sincerely for the future, have a title to Baptism. How comes I pray you that [future] in? you manifest much reading in the Law, and I have heard this as a Maxim, In obligationibus ubi nullus certus statuitur dies, quovis die debetur, There is no day overtaken but the engagement is for present; though God in mercy except when for a long time the engagement hath been presumptuously neglected. But bring me a man that in his heart is convinced that Jesus is the Christ, with his mouth professes him, and engages for him, and in the mean space actually renounceth him, and I will do what you would have me with him; That is, a man that is falling headlong down a ladder, at the same instant he is climbing up it. When I bring this similitude for illustration of the point in hand, that a promised service and fidelity in war is enough to get listed, and to do service is of necessity to be rewarded, I am told that this runs upon the great mistake which I have been so often told of, and am further informed that the formal reason and denomination of a condition is from the donors' constitution, or imposition, giving this benefit only on the terms by him assigned, and not upon our promise to perform them. If I have been told of it often, it is well if I can be convinced of it now. I utterly deny that the denomination of conditions of a Covenant in actual being, is from the one, and not from the other, that is, exclusively to the other. I well know the donour is to prescribe, and the receiver is to accept without putting in Exceptions. But if there be no acceptance of terms, there is no Covenant; and there being no Covenant, there can be no Covenant conditions, as is plain by the usual definition of Covenants; where the Gospel is preached, and no entertainment at all given, there is no Covenant people of God, they stand bound by Law precepts, but are under no obligations to Covenant conditions.   

Argument 4. reviewed.  
The next Argument in which I am concerned, and the last which in this thing is produced, is, That the Eunuch must first believe, and then be baptised; upon his desire of Baptism, Philip saith, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. This I have confessed carries more colour than all the former; and indeed I never met with any thing, either in Scripture, or reason produced, that carries with me so much as any colour for it, this excepted. Yet this is not unanswerable. One difficult text does not use to take us off our hold of many plain ones. I answer, 1. Philip may call for that de bene esse, when the Eunuch was to be admitted, which was not yet essential to his admittance. Those that preach preparatory Sermons for the Lords Supper, call for allthat may give the highest comforts, and not barely for that which is the Minimum quod sic, to give admission. 2. As I have said, so I say still, that dogmatical faith is a true faith, and to prevent needless Criticisms, it is truly a divine faith, so that none can say that Jesus is the Christ (can believingly subscribe that Article) but by the holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12.3. And whosoever says with assent of judgement and understanding, that Jesus the Son of Mary is Christ, the Son of the living God, speaks more than flesh and blood can suggest, and is not attainable but by Divine revelation. And whereas it is objected, that it is a false faith, when it pretends to be that which Scripture calls faith in Christ, and denominateth believors; I answer, 1. I have showed before, that our procession qualifying for Baptism, is not a profession that we have such faith, (which cannot be done without an eminence of faith to assurance) but a profession of the necessity of it to salvation, and an engagement to it. 2. It denominates believers in the ordinary and common language of Scriptures, and wheresoever believer is put in opposition to unbeliever or infidel, faith of this nature is still understood. In that famous text, 1 Cor. 7.14. every man and woman is a believer, that was removed from heathenish Idolatry to the profession of Christianity, or (as Paulinus, whom Jerom so much magnifies, speaks) was a baptised person. Otherwise the case there put about the validity of marriage, and lawfulness of marriage society were not between an infidel and a professor of Christianity, but between a regenerate man whom this language only makes a believer, and one unregenerate, which in this language are infidels, which were a case never yet put to question. When mention is made through the History of the Acts of so many thousands that upon the Apostles preaching believed, it can denote no more than the embracing of the way of Christianity, in opposition to Judaisme or Heathenism. If it imply a through Regeneration of the soul, there could be no unregenerate ones among them, which is wholly against the nature of visible Churches, and all experience, as hath been abundantly manifested. As for that distinction (which seems to be hinted) between believing Christ, and believing in Christ, Mr. Ball in his Treatise of Faith, pag. 5. hath sufficiently showed the groundlessness of it, pointing out Scriptures where a preposition is added to the word believe, when nothing but assent of mind is signified; And where it is put without a preposition, when trust and confidence is employed. Abraham believed God, Rom. 4.3. (where no preposition is added) and it was counted to him for righteousness. And on the contrary the Rulers believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in or on Christ, and loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, Joh. 12.42, 43. It follows, I think if a man say, This is the Son, the Heir, Come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours, we will not have this man reign over us, that these are not true believers, nor have right to Baptism, though their belief that he was the heir be a dogmatic faith true in its kind. I am sorry that such things should be mentioned, where inquiry after truth is contended, and contention not studied. It is well known, that I speak to a faith of profession, which is theirs that take to that party which is for Christ, and not with those that professedly go in a full opposition against him, and are in a high road (any such conviction of spirit supposed) of sin against the Holy Ghost. I know not why Dr. Ames should be brought in, telling us, that in those places where saving faith is spoke to, trust in the Messiah is ever included: seeing we are speaking of a faith that is short of saving, nor yet that I should be told that words of knowledge and assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent, unless that it be to let me know that it doth not generally hold; which in case I were in a straight, and at want for a present answer, would well help me out. And whereas I am demanded, whether I do not know how ordinarily saving faith itself is denominated from the Intellectual act alone? I answer, that I do know it, and if I were ignorant of it before, Mr. Burgess hath taught me the same thing, with the same reason of it in his Spiritual Refining, page 170, 171. Pos. 8. And I know also, that it hath its denomination often from the act of the will alone; But will it follow that the understanding is never fully persuaded for assent, but the will is also (not alone somewhat moved, but) throughly inclined for consent and acceptance. If the understanding at any time be brought to a real assent whilst the will is swayed by lusts and takes to other objects, that is to me sufficient. Or will it follow that either the Eunuch did or must necessarily be presumed to understand, upon that little acquaintance that it seems he yet had in the Gospel, the whole of those choice observations? or can it be any way certainly collected, that such a Confession that he made was accompanied with a present saving work? But Mr. Baxter hath singularly engaged me to him, quoting those Texts, John 11.25, 26, 27. John 1.49, 50. 1 Joh. 4.15. he adds, Here is more than right to Baptism. Then a man may have right to Baptism that is short of those great privileges of dwelling in God, and being born of God; and I scarce know what to say more for my own opinion. It further follows, If you think (as you seem by your answer to do) that a man may assent to the truth of the Gospel with all his heart, and yet be void of justifying faith, you do not lightly err. It follows not (I think) from any thing that I have said, that I am in any such opinion. That Expression is in Philip's words, and I have told you he might require de bene esse, that which is not necessary to the esse of Baptism. But in case I be in any so heavy an Error, I am thus helped out of it. Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the regenerate, yet not with all his heart; Christ saith, Matth. 13. The Word hath not rooting in him. It is then granted, that he may believe all truths, and that which is added to prove that he cannot believe them with his whole heart, is not with me convincing. The Word had not root: not because they did not entirely from the heart assent to it; But because they received it not in the love of it. They received the light to inform their judgements, not any thorough heat for the warmth of their affections. There follows, Doubtless whether or no the practical understanding do unavoidably determine the will, yet God doth not sanctify the understanding truly, and leave the will unsanctified: which must be said, if the dogmatical faith that is the Intellectual assent of a wicked man, be as strong as that of a true believer. Here is suggested that I say, that the Intellectual assent of a wicked man is as strong as that of a true believer. I know not where I have said it, or any thing that implies it. It may be a true assent, though not of that strength. But if I had said it will it thence follow, that God doth sanctify the understanding truly, and leave the will unsanctified? I trow not. Is every strong Intellectual assent sanctified? is every Intellectual assent which is of equal strength with that in the regenerate truly sanctified? Clearness of light commands assent to truths, when corruption of affections will not suffer that at lest pro hic & nunc, that the goodness or bestnesse (if I may so say) should be believed. I believe it is as strong in the Devils as in any Regenerate man in the world. I know not how it fares with some whom God may exercise more gently respective to temptations and Satan's Buffet, I am sure that there are those that would sometimes freely give up all that is dear to them in the world, to be as clear in some fundamental truths as Satan himself; he doubtless injects Scruples where himself is without scruple. I know some question whether there be any such thing as faith in devils, notwithstanding James saith, The Devils believe and tremble. But certain it is, there is an Intellectual assent to Divine truth in the Devils, as we may see, Matth. 8.29. Mark 3.11. Luk. 4.41. Acts 19.15. and yet there is no sanctification wrought. And therefore though the wicked match the regenerate in assent in their understanding, it will not follow that their understandings therefore are truly sanctified. I am further referred to Dr. Downam against Mr. Pemble, which is not in my hands, and whether my answer be equal to silence, as is in the close affirmed, I must leave to the Reader to determine.    

Advertisements given to Mr. Baxter, touching his undertaking for Mr. Firmin.  
IN a distinct Section Mr. Baxter lets us know, how good a mind he had to have appeared in this cause for Mr. Firmin, which wonderful change in him, may well be my admiration: All know that have looked into my Birth-priviledge, that I delivered the same things there, as, in my Treatise of the Covenant, I have asserted against Mr. Firmin; and that past with Mr. Baxter (if reports have not deceived me) with good approbation. I communicated to him a considerable part of my defence of it, against Mr. T. his letter in Manuscripts, and I blush not to tell the Reader that he applauded it. And besides what I have produced already out of him, I have a witness of reverend esteem; that he hath said that I had given him in discourse full satisfaction, of the title of unregenerate men (or some phrase parallel) to Sacraments. But in case upon change of judgement, he will appear for Mr. Firmin in this particular, and that merely (as he says) in love of the truth, lest the reputation of man should cloud it; and in love to the Church, and the lustre of the Christian name, lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianity seem no better than the other Religions of the world. Further explaining himself, For I fear, this lose doctrine (so he is pleased to call it) of Baptism will do more to the pollution of the Church, than others lose doctrine of the Lords Supper, or as much. If upon these specious pretences he hath still a mind to it, I shall crave leave to offer some words by way of advice to him.  
First, To reconcile himself to Mr. F. they being as yet so far from agreement, either in judgement or in practice; both of them are gone out of the road of the Reformed Churches, but Mr. Baxters' friend (for whom he is about to undertake) as to his judgement is yet in the lower form, when he is in the upper. Mr. F. requires not truth of grace to make a visible Church-member, but declares himself very largely against it; he requires not truth of grace in a parent to entitle his child in the right of Baptism. It is enough with him that he be a man of knowledge, and free from scandal, which he well knows to be the case of many in unregeneration. And though Mr. Baxter is thus gone beyond him in judgement, yet he sits down far short of him in practice, and says that we are bound to baptise all those that make an outward profession, and consequently their children; when Mr. F. upon tender, conscientiously refuses many of them. Mr. F. and I are, as I suppose, upon nearer terms of accord, than Mr. F. and Mr. Baxter, both of us agreeing that unregenerate men have their title, and a faith that is short of justifying may give interest.  
Secondly, To reconcile Mr. Firmin to himself, Mr. Baxter much honours him (as also many others) for his book against the separation, and he tells reverend Mr. Cawdrey (who hath wrote against him in this subject) that possibly he may make use of his book about the separation against him; and Mr. Cawdrey hath in readiness (as I am informed from his own mouth) not a few contradictions to charge upon him, and this I can tell both Mr. Baxter, and Mr. F. that the best friends that I ever met with of them both, confess, that he is a far other man in these writings then when he wrote against the separation.  
Thirdly, To help him out of the principles of Anabaptism into which he is also observed by his friends to be fallen, in making the interest of the seed in Covenant-title, to be peculiar to the Jewish Nation.  
Fourthly, to take further care to shut the door against a new flood of Anabaptism, which (as I have showed) himself hath set wide open; If unregenerate persons be void of all right to Baptism, than their Baptism is null, and upon regeneration are to be baptised.  
Fifthly, To consider with himself how he will answer the breach he makes in the Church of Christ, having the whole face and practice (as Apollonius speaks) of reformed Churches against him. That Black ink which he casts, not only on me, and reverend Mr. Cawdrey, (who have appeared in this cause against Mr. Firmin) but on the face of so many Churches so glorious, is unworthy of his pen; what man of name in all the reformed Churches that is not guilty of this fearful pollution as he is pleased to call it? Amesius is a man not to be suspected here of partiality, (in some things departing from the way of discipline of those Churches where he lived,) yet he tells the world, That it is false that they require inward virtues to make a man a visible Church-member: in which he is Mr. Baxters' adversary: and what liberty he allows (which Mr. F. denies) for the Baptism of the Infants of wicked Parents, of Infants of illegitimate birth, of Infants of excommunicate persons, let him be consulted, Cases of Conscience, lib. 5. Cap. 27. Wallaeus excluding from Baptism the Infants of such Parents that profess they will bring them up in impiety, heresy, and idolatry, But out of this case (saith he) we judge that Baptism belongs to all those Infants which are born of a Christian race, 
Extra vero hunc casum judicamus omnibus illis insantibus competere Baptismum qui ex steep Christiani nati sunt, si secundum ordinem consuetum Ecclesiae ad Baptismum offerantur, etsi proximi eorum parentes vel vitae improbitate, vel haeresi laborant, vel idolatriae crimine adversus secundam tabulam; nam idololatria adversus primam tabulam potius apostasia est. En praxis manifesta & perpetua totius Ecclesiae Israeliticae in adm●nistratione Circumcisionis.  if they be tendered to baptism, according to the Church's custom, although their immediate Parents remain lewd in conversation, or lie under heresy, or the crime of idolatry against the second Commandment; for Idolatry against the first Commandment is rather apostasy: fortifying it with several arguments, the first of which is, The manifest practice of the Church of Israel in the administration of Circumcision. The Professors of Leyden in their Synopsis of more pure Divinity, are as far guilty of this supposed pollution as any, Disput. 44. Sect. 50. Neither (say they) do we exclude those Infants from participation of this Sacrament, 
Nec tamen excludimus ab hujus Sacramenti communione Infantes eos, qui ex Christiana stirpe & baptizatis parentibus nati sunt, etsi ipsorum parentes per vitam improbam, aut fidem impuram foederis in baptismo obsignati efficaciam adversus se irritam reddant; si ab iisdem parentibus aut eorum propinquis, sub quorum potestate sunt juxta ordinem in Ecclesiis nostris consuetum baptismo offeruntur; quia sub novo foedere filius non fert iniquitatem patris, & Deus nihilominus manet ejusmodi liberorum Deus, quemadmodum ipse testatur, Ezek. 16.20. Ubi impiorum Israelitarum liberos filios suos vocat, quos Deo genuerant, ersi eos Molocho offerrent; Unde & ejusmodi Israelitarum, quorum multi in impietate sua fuerant mortui, non minus quam piorum liberos circumcidi jussit, Josh. 5.4, & 6. quod etiam Ecclesia Israelitica & Christiana Primitiva faciendum esse extra controversiam semper habuit.  who are born of Parents of a Christian race, and baptised, although their parents by their wicked life, or impure faith, render the efficacy of the Covenant sealed in Baptism as utterly void to them, if they be offered by those parents or other kindred under whose power they are according to the order accustomed in our Churches, because under the New Covenant the son doth not bear the iniquity of the father, and God nevertheless remains the God of such children, as he himself witnesseth, Ezek. 16.20. where he calls the children of those wicked Israelites his sons, which they had brought forth unto God, although they had offered them to Moloch, whereupon he commanded the children of those Israelites whereof many of them died in their sin in the wilderness, as well as the children of the godly to be circumcised, Josh. 5.4, 6. which also the Church of Israel and the Christian Primitive Church never questioned. Mr. Baxter says he will consult Dr. Drake, to find who they be, that those of his judgement admit to the Lords Supper, and I would have him withal at the same time to inquire whether he do not profess that it is their practice to baptise promiscuously? which is directly against Mr. Firmins' way; and let him read Mr. goodwin's Evangelical Communicant; and how high soever he goes to keep many from the Lords Table, yet he is as large as either Mr. Cawdrey or myself, in admission to baptism; let him look upon the practice I may say almost universal in the Nation, and see what course they generally hold, and I have not heard that they have yet learned to distinguish between the Infant's right, and the Church's obligation; that the Infants of such or such Parents are without any right, and yet the Church stands bound to give them admission. Mr. Firmin doth sufficiently declare how sensible he is of his dissent from his brethren, let Mr. Baxter then undertaking for him, see how wide a breach he is like to make instead of union. If that compliment therefore which is cast upon me by Mr. Baxter, Si pace tanti viri dixerim, had been tantorum virorum, and had spoken out who those be that he so heavily charges as before, to obscure the Church, and the lustre of the Christian name, etc. and plainly told us that it is the generality of all that go under the name of Churches reform, the speech does not now appear so modest, but than it would have been as arrogant.  
Sixthly, That he make some provision for tender and scrupulous consciences that shall admit his principles, 1. In taking in of members into Church-fellowship, as it is called. A man without grace in a visible Church according to him is as a wooden leg in the body; how great a deformity this is, and how great a trouble to have such instead of those that are of flesh and bone, it is easy to judge, and yet how many of these necessarily will and must be received? 2. In baptism of Infants. To baptise an Infant is with him, not only to espouse, but to solemnize a full and actual marriage with Christ Jesus, and that in words not the futuro, but de praesenti, and what further glory than they may expect from his hand I scarce can tell. An illustrious Prince will have none but of noble and Royal blood, and Christ will have none to be thus, in marriage relation given to him but the seed of regenerate, and graciously qualified persons. How shall I get intelligence that this or that infant is descended of such a race? where shall I learn his or her pedigree, that I may thus give to Christ jesus? And in case probabilities must lead us, we have need of further help than yet we see, to judge of such probability. Must we find those qualifications in the man, who himself is for Baptism or his child, that may move us to conclude that in all reason and possible appearance here is a child of God, or an Infant of a regenerate person? Or will it serve our turn, and satisfy our consciences, that we cannot certainly conclude the contrary? If the first be required, it will put all the Ministers of Christ hard to it, and prove such a snare that I know not how they will extricate themselves; If the latter be that which we must receive, here is then a lose rule for to lead in so high proceed. For men will be so lax in their own marriage choice, as for to take any into that society, if they be not able to conclude her a strumpet or desperately wicked; we have hitherto believed that Jesus Christ is pleased to receive in a greater latitude into visible relation.  
Seventhly, I desire Mr. Baxter to tell us how he hath mended the matter, and provided for the honour and lustre of the Christian name, or made up at all that gap of which he speaks. He says the Church is bound to baptise as largely, as I say men have right to Baptism. I think here he will find little or no difference; and when he refuses none that I receive, and where I say they have right, he says, we are bound to baptise without right; how will this make Christianity to look with any better face? how much will Worcestershire Congregations, where this is received, exceed other Congregations, where unanimously it is denied? I would have him to reflect on his 18th. Argument, and see whether the force of it be not evidently as much against hinself as it is against me, against whom it is brought. It is thus framed; That doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptism, for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform, is unsound. But such is Mr. Blakes: Ergo. And after much work to explain himself, it comes to this, that unregenerate men cannot resolve or sincerely promise to love, believe or obey, and therefore upon that account are without right to baptism. Let it be taken into consideration, that when I say these men that in their present state are thus unable to love, believe, and obey, have notwithstanding right to Baptism, and he says that this inability notwithstanding, they ought to be baptised, how is the matter mended? If my Doctrine upon this account be unsound, his doctrine and practice will be found unsound likewise. Mr. Baxter saith, Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of faith, is larger than election, and makes men such whom we are bound to baptise.  
Eighthly, I shall desire some Scripture text or cogent reason to make it appear that we are bound to baptise those that in the sight of God have no right to Baptism, the command given will argue with me their right, unless I hear an injunction from heaven that notwithstanding their want of right we are to baptise them. Peter argues the right of those, Acts 10.47. for their admission to Baptism, which had been more than needed, in case without any such right the water in Baptism might have been applied unto them; and I marvel that Mr. Baxter should so tenaciously hold to Philip's speech to the Eunuch, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest; seeing he believes as well as I that faith short of this which he says these words necessarily imply, might have admitted him, and put a necessity on Philip to have baptised him, though it would not have given him right to Baptism. His actual admission, and not his right, is there put to the question. If these things be well considered, Mr. Baxter may see cause to begin with a confutation of Mr. F. before he undertakes a defence; and I suppose the Reader will see that he had small cause to censure my Arguments to be so dilute unless he himself had brought some of greater strength.  
Lastly, I would have Mr. Baxter seriously consider, whether that which we have observed already out of him, and might yet further be gathered, may not make up a forcible Argument, and conclusive of this title to Baptism, in those who yet rise not up to the Faith that is justifying, when they are separate from Paganism into fellowship with the visible Church, as he asserts, Saints Rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. pag. 105. and with them their issue, as he hath concluded from 1 Cor. 7.14. when they attain to graces real, and true, as we have seen from him; I am sure the Apostle, as hath been said, Act. 10.47. argues from such qualifications, to an interest in Baptism; when they have their interest in the Covenant of grace, as a fruit of Christ's death, as he saith, doubtless reprobates have, Treatise of Infant-Baptisme, pag. 224. when their Baptism hath all that is essential to Gods sealing, as he asserts it hath pag. 222. All of this laid together, with more that may be taken up, will in all indifferent Readers eyes conclude a title: And further, whether he have not spoken as much in plain words, terminis terminantibus for the interest of unregenerate men, or men of a mere visible profession in Baptism, let his words be considered, Saints Rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. pag. 104, 105. Where giving holy, and seasonable advice to beware the company of sensual, and ungodly men, he limits it with Cautions, lest it should be thought, that he persuades, as he rightly styles it, unto an ungodly separation, he adds, As I never found one word in Scripture, where either Christ or his Apostles denied admittance to any man that desired to be a member of the Church, though but only professing to repent and believe; so neither did I ever there find that any but convicted Heretics, or scandalous ones (and that for the most part after due admonition) were to be avoided, or debarred our fellowship. And whereas it is urged, that they are to prove their interest to the privileges that they lay claim to, and not we to desprove it; I answer, If that were granted, yet their mere sober professing to Repent and believe in Christ, is a sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership, and admittance thereto by Baptism (supposing them not admitted before:) and their being baptised persons, (if at age) or members of the universal visible Church, (into which it is that they are baptised) is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper, till they do by heresy, or scandal blot that evidence; which evidence if they do produce, yea, though they are yet weak in the faith of Christ, who is he that dare refuse to receive them? And, this after much doubting, dispute, and study of the Scriptures, I speak as confidently, as almost any truth of equal moment; so plain is the Scripture in this point, to a man that brings his understanding to the model of Scripture, and doth not bring a model in his brain, and reduce all he reads to that model. What have I spoke more than here is said? and did I ever speak with more and higher confidence? I say, that a faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptism; and he says, Such give sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership, and consequently admittance to Baptism; so that if my doctrine herein be lose, (as he chargeth it) the Reader will hardly find his to be fast; and it hears not well, to play fast and lose. The evasion of equivocal will not here serve, that will utterly spoil the whole strength of his Caution, and put men amain on this separation, as it will contradict his assertion, of their grace as real, and true: They will say, They will have no fellowship with a dead Corpse, instead of a real man; for that is his expression of the difference between what is real, and what is equivocal. Neither can he here come off by the help of his distinction of forum Dei, and forum Ecclesiae. These gifts and graces from God, these privileges vouchsafed of God, and purchased by Christ, plainly enough speak a right in the sight of God. Neither is there (as we have heard) in this Controversy any such distinction to be admitted. I am therefore in this no further to blame, than he hath been; and if he see cause to recede from, yet I see all reason to persist in my opinion.    

SECT. X. Proposition. 8.  
FOr the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 
No such vast difference between baptism and the Lords Supper: that the one should be a privilege of the Church visible, and the other peculiar, to the Church invisible.  there cannot be that vast difference and disproportion between it and baptism, that the one should be a privilege of the Church visible, and the other peculiar and proper to the Church invisible: that all in the outward administration of the Covenant (as some speak) should be interessed in the one, and only those that come up to the terms of the Covenant should have any interest in the other. Christ gave order that Disciples should be baptised, Matth. 28.19. and he delivered his Supper to Disciples, Matth. 26.26, 27. and it is more than strange that disciples should be taken in that aequivocal way, as to hold out all in outward profession, confoederation. and visible Church communion, in the one, (as is almost generally agreed upon between Paedobaptists and their adversaries) and to be restrained to those that answer to their profession in the other; so that in the administration of the one, the dispensers have a firm rule to lead them, viz. visibility of interest (as Mr. Cobbet hath largely shown in his Vindication, pag. 52. Cou. 4.) and in the other can have nothing for their guide, but an invisible work, left to their charity to conjecture. Disciple therefore respective to either of the Sacraments (which are outward visible ordinances and visible Church privileges) can be no more than a man of visible interest. When Christ sat down to the Passeover, it is said he sat down with the twelve, only they had right to eat of it in his company, Exod. 12.3. being of his family; And, as he was eating he gave the Supper, but then the phrase is changed, he gave it to his Disciples, only the twelve were occasionally there, but it was instituted in behalf of all Disciples, of which the number could not be small; considering how many John had made and baptised, and Christ had made and baptised more than he, though not in person, but by his Disciples, Joh. 4.1, 2. A reverend brother makes this practice of Christ at the first institution and administration of the Supper, to be a directory for future, to receive such only to it, as are the Disciples of Christ. To which I willingly condescend, provided that the word be aright understood. I know the word is sometimes taken in a restrained sense, for those that indeed do the duty of disciples, Joh. 8.31. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed; and, Luke 14.33. Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my Disciple. As the word Israelite is sometimes taken for those that do the duty of Israelites, and are such as Israelites ought to be, Joh. 1.47. Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile; when respective to fruition of Church ordinances (of what nature soever) all that were of Israel according to the flesh or visible Church-Members in Israel, are expressed by it. Disciple, or Israelite, is a man of outward Covenant interest. The latitude of it, according to Scripture expressions, I have shown, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 208. All that were Christ's family Disciples, did eat of the Passeover with him, Matth. 26.18. even Judas, as is acknowledged, and scarce to be doubted of but he did eat of the Supper. It is more than strange, that as a Disciple he should be taken into the Passeover, and a few hours after, as no Disciple should be put from the Supper. The Lord's Supper is for the building of those that Baptism takes in; But Baptism takes into the Church visible. Visible Church members have then interest in the Supper. When Sacraments are in their use distinguished, one for admittance into the Church, and the other for growth; one as the Sacrament of our birth, and the other our nourishment, most understand the first of admission into the Church visible (well knowing that regeneration is not tied to baptism,) but the growth many will have to be in the Church invisible, which inharmonious discord between Ordinances of the same kind cannot be suffered. To give notes of the Disciples of Christ, for discovery of a Disciple in the former sense, by their affections to him, and suffering of affliction for him, are of singular use: Christ himself hath gone before us in it. But upon the notation of the word, because Christ gave the Bread and Cup to Disciples, to make the subject of that Sacrament to be only those that reach these marks, is besides the holy Ghosts intention. All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri, and not only in facto, for the bringing of it on to Christ. I should desire to know where any outward sensible Ordinance is made, or how in reason, and according to Scripture, it can be made the proper peculiar right of invisible members.   

SECT. XI. Proposition. 9,  
THe Sacrament of the Supper (no more than other Ordinances) is not limited to those that have received a new life in Christ by the Spirit, that are actually regenerate, and in grace; 
The Lord's Supper is not limited to those that have received a new life by the Spirit.  others as they may be admitted without sin, so they are in a capacity and possbility, to receive benefit from it. This I am not ignorant that some will question: But let these consider before they censure.  
First, That it is an external Ordinance as hath been said, Arguments. a privilege of the Church as visible, put into the hands of those for edification, that are not able to discern men of spiritual life, and invisible interest. And though there be characteristical differnces, whereby a man in grace, and he that is short of it, may be distinguished; whereby all bad ground at the best may be differenced from that which is good: yet they are such, whereby a man is to make trial of himself, only they are Spirit-works; and none knows them in any man save the Spirit that is in him, and therefore no marks for any others cognizance. For a Minister of Christ to dispense by command the Sacrament to many, when he knows that it is of possible use and benefit to some few, unto these it is food and nourishment unto life; unto the others as Ratsbane, Poison, and only for death; is such a snare that may hold him in his administration, in all horror and amazement. A sad dilemma, either to lay aside an Ordinance of Christ, and so never come up in his place to the whole of his duty; or else to deliver to them that which will inevitably be the ruin and destruction of so many of them. I know no possible way that can be supposed, or so much as pretended for avoidance; but in the Name of Christ, to give warning to all, in whom this new life by the Spirit is not, to abstain every man and woman not actually regenerate, on their peril to keep off. Let them say, some know their danger in the highest terms that can be uttered, and then if they come, their blood is on their own heads, and the Minister of Christ hath by this means delivered his soul. But to this I have three things to say, 1. That it is, (as I suppose) without all Scripture-precedent, to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit, wholly to keep off from this, or any other Ordinance of Christ. I know we must warn men of their sin, and the judgement hanging over their heads for sin (in which let it be our prayer, that we may be more faithful) but that we should warn men upon this account, upon this very ground, to hold off from all address to Ordinances, I have not learned. 2. I say, this doth presuppose that which is wont to be denied, unregenerate men to be in a capacity to examine themselves respective to this Ordinance. How can we warn them upon want of justifying faith, and the saving work of repentance, to hold back, when they are in an incapacity upon trial to find themselves thus wanting? 3. Shall we not hereby pluck the thorn out of our own sides, and as much as in us lies, thrust it into the sides of many of our hungry, thirsty, and poor in spirit people? How many may we suppose are in grace, through a work happily begun on their souls? yet for several reasons are not able to see this grace, or reach to any discovery of it. Sometimes by reason of the infancy of the work upon their hearts, being yet babes, or rather embryo's in grace. The first that appears upon light received, is an army of lusts and potent corruptions, as we know Paul sets it out. This clouds for present any other weak work, that as yet in present is wrought. In this time Satan is not wanting, he did not show so much artifice before to lessen their sin, but he now makes use of as much to aggravate it: and as he was industrious before to seduce, now he is as busy to accuse. He led the incestuous man to incontinency, 1 Cor. 7.4. And we know Paul fears, lest upon continuance of the Church-censure, he would gain advantage to swallow him up in overmuch sorrow, 2 Cor. 2.8, 11. These perhaps as yet are not able to give an account of the nature of faith and repentance, or their genuine fruits; much less are they able, by a reflex act to conclude the truth of them in their souls. Sometimes by reason of some sharp conflict of temptation, being under the shock and assault of it, and therefore whatsoever they have seen of grace heretofore, or the favour of God, now it is under a cloud (which I believe was Paul's case, when a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him, and a thorn in the flesh given him,) seeing it is put in opposition to the abundance of revelations that he had being taken up into the third heavens, 2 Cor. 12.) and therefore had need of Ordinances for support. Sometimes on a soil received by temptation, of which his own heart, and not the Church is witness; and therefore is at a loss of the joy of his salvation, and stands in need of strength for recovery. Sometimes by overmuch sloth, and rust contracted on his graces through negligence, which is supposed to be the case of the spouse indulging herself too much in carnal ease, Cant. 5.2. I have put off my coat, how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them? Sometimes God out of prerogative, withdrawing the rays of his Spirit, and refusing to testify with our spirits, in which case the soul that is most upright with God, and sincere in his fear, walks in darkness and sees no light; in which there is need of all communications from God, and attendance upon him in Ordinances. When these shall hear all in whom the work of grace is not in truth, thus warned to keep back, and told of the high danger of approaching to this Table in such away aggravated, will not they put in their name, and say their souls are now spoke to? They must therefore absent themselves, and so the smoking flax is quenched, and the bruised reed broke. There, have not been a few hungry sad souls that I have known, that have born the terror of the Lord, separate themselves for this reason. But it will be replied by those that give this warning, that they mean not these, they are not at all intended in their speech; these they would tender, and with all endeared affection of love encourage, as those that have most need, and are most fit to receive food, for their strength. But all of this helps not, when this Proposition is laid down, That no man in whom justifying faith, and a new life by the Spirit is not wrought, may dare, otherwise then on the peril of his soul, to draw nigh hither: will not such a soul, necessarily assume? A new life through the Spirit is not wrought in my soul; I am conscious to myself that I am carnal: whatsoever endeavours I have used to believe, yet how far am I from faith in strength and truth? I find myself all over doubts and fears, and plunged in unbelief. And though I have made it my business to keep off from sin, yet how far am I from a true change by repentance? I find my heart hard, obdurate, even as an adamant; yea, the poor deserted soul will take to itself the state of Cain, the condition of Judas: If there be any other high in wickedness, they have matched, yea, they have exceeded them. They are to put it to the question, whether they are in grace or no? whether they have a new life wrought, or as yet are short of it? This they must either determine in the affirmative, that they are in grace, at least there are those hopeful signs in present, that they cannot but conclude it, and then they safely may come, upon sight of this they may with cheerfulness make their address; or else they must carry it in the negative, all that is yet wrought is not life, is not grace, is not faith in its power, is not repentance in truth, as they can do no other that walk in darkness, and see no light; that say, God hath forgotten to be gracious, and so they must keep off from the Ordinance, and debar themselves from those cordials, those apples, those flagons that are there tendered: and sick of love, yet dare not intermeddle with the Lords tokens that are tendered to them: or in the third place suspend, and so sit down in doubtful fears, whether they have grace or no; and than that of the Apostle, Rom. 14.23. He that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, will soon come into their thoughts, and so all that are short of fullness of assurance, must in dreadful horror separate themselves.  
Secondly, This Sacrament, in that it is a Sacrament, hath the name and nature of a seal, (as we see in the text, and God willing shall be shown) a visible seal, entrusted in the hands of man; and therefore must needs be of a more different latitude and large extent, than that seal which God reserves in his own keeping, the seal of the Spirit, The Lord knows them that are his, 2 Tim. 2.19. But man is to seek who are the Lords, God knows how to put to his seal to his own; man who hath not this knowledge must needs be here allowed a greater latitude; either men entrusted with it, must have the knowledge of God as to this particular, who they are in whom a new life is, and grace wrought; or else they must be allowed a greater latitude to take in men that make profession of God, and as members in Church-Communion may be edified by it: I know this argument is carried another way, and that we conclude the contrary upon a double account.  
1. These seals of God (outward and inward) should answer each to other. Those that have the outward seal, they are to have the inward; those that take into their hand the seal of the Sacrament should have the impress of the Spirit on their souls. To which I answer, That the writing of the Word with Ink and Paper in the Bible, and the writing in the heart by the Spirit, should answer each the other: that is, every Christian should make it his business, to hid that Word in his heart, that by the Ministry sounds in his ears: and yet Christians are not warned, not to take a Bible into their hands, till the impress of that which is there is put on their hearts. The Word is delivered in a greater latitude, and so also must the Sacrament.  
2. Some say, this Sacrament seals Gospel-promises, only they therefore that can claim the promise, and have their interest in it, can claim the seal, otherwise the seal is put to a blank; there is a seal where there is no Covenant-promise. 1. I answer, this argument thus carried, speaks sadly to the hearts of all dispensers of the Sacraments: they must see there is a Covenant-promise, or else they must not dare to put to a seal. To put any man's seal to a blank paper where nothing is written, is a vain use of that seal; It stands there as a cipher: Now to put God's seal to a blank where nothing is written, doubtless is as vain, and an high taking of God's Name in vain: according to these the Covenant is written in non-legible and invisible characters. (This inward work is that white stone with a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receives it) Revel. 2.17. and so the dispensers too often against convictions of conscience (always at haphazard) must deliver them, any thing written or not written, whether a blank or filled up, they cannot tells, but are all at uncertainties. 2. I answer, as is the seal, so is the Covenant, both of them external, and one must answer to the other: Now these in question (as hath been demonstrated at large) are in Covenant, An outward Covenant is by few questioned, and so the seal is put to no blank, but given to one interested in Covenant. It seals the grace of the Covenant, and mercy tendered in the promise on God's terms and propositions. So that the different latitude of the seal of the Spirit, and of the seal of the Sacrament, do conclude that men of no more than visible Church-interest may partake of it.  
3. The Church de facto hath enjoyed it in this latitude, not to instance in some ages following the times of the Apostles, in which the Pastors called all their people to daily Sacraments, and the use of it in Augustine's time, when wicked ones in the Church were so numerous, that they durst not deal with Church-censures; but look into the Scripture, though we are kept much in the dark concerning their practice, (little mention being made of the administration after the institution) yet we know that this Sacrament was the privilege of visible members then in being, and it is clear enough, how far many, even than were short of sincerity. If that of 1 Cor. 11. be well weighed, we may well believe that the Primitive times were not acquainted with the rigour of some persons.  
4. There is no reason that this Ordinance should stand alone, that in all other Ordinances there should be a greater latitude, (and men in an unregenerate state admitted, and not held out with limit to men, in whom a life of Sanctification through the Spirit is found) and this alone penned up in so narrow a compass. I know somewhat is said for the latitude of some Ordinances, that all are received to them, because they are Ordinances appointed for conversion of men unconverted. But this Plea in many will not serve; unregenerate men's admission to prayer, to thanksgiving, to fasts, hath been (that I know) questioned by few: And those that deny that the Lords Supper hath any influence to conversion, have not asserted these to have any such efficacy or power: unregenerate men then must be admitted to the Supper, or else they must be denied to come to fasts,  and prayer. Here some do distinguish between duties naturally Moral, and those that are of mere positive institution. Moral duties, as prayer, thanksgiving, etc. are confessed to belong in general unto all, but it is not so (as is objected) in duties of positive institution; they are given with limit to some, and are not of universal obligation. To which I answer, 1. By way of concession, positive Precepts bind not all, because they are not given to all: the Gentile Nations were not tied to the Law of Ceremonies given to the Jews, and mere Heathens are not now tied to our Sacraments. 2. For a positive answer I say, Positive Precepts were never given in charge with any such distinction as to bind the regenerate, and to exclude men in unregeneration. Men under sin, and in nature, are bound to the affirmative part of the second Commandment, to observe every way of worship that shall be instituted by God: all of which are only of positive right. All Israel were tied to sacrifice, as well as to hear, and pray; it was a sin not to sacrifice, as not to fear an oath, Eccles. 9.2. And all Christians are now under an obligation to the Law of the Sacraments, as they are to other duties. And as to the thing in hand, this distinction of Moral, and Positive duties (as I conceive) is of no use; for the positive Command being given, there is a Moral tie to yield obedience. Instance may be given in purely Ceremonial Precepts, that are seconded with this sanction, I am the Lord, Levit. 19.23, 24, 25. So that when a Precept merely Ceremonial was broke, immediately, yet the first Command was broken interpretatively, and by way of necessary consequence, the Law of nature tied Adam to abstain from the forbidden fruit, when God had given him a Precept not to eat of it; and the young man in the Gospel was also bound to sell all that he had, and give it to the poor, when Christ had manifested that it was his pleasure. There are texts indeed produced, seemingly taken of men under sin, from the performance of positive duties, as, Math. 5.23, 24. and as much may be said concerning those that are Moral, Ezek. 14.2, 3.20.2, 3. We read that the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination, Prov. 15.8. & 21.27. and as much is said of their prayers, Prov. 28.9. All which texts sufficiently imply God's dislike, when they are acted by such hands; but none of them imply man's disobligation.  
Fifthly, This limit of the Lords Supper to regenerate persons, as on the one hand it will take with the consciences of many sanctified Christians, to hold them back, as hath been said, even with all that stand short of assurance of grace; so on the other hand it will give encouragement to many unsanctified ones, to make address to it: Broken hearts under the body of sin having not yet attained to the light of God's smiling face, will be so severe in their own censure, as to hold themselves back. The generation of formal Professors pure in their own eyes, and not yet cleansed from their filthiness, Prov. 30.11. will flock to it. So that we must either find some other more sure rule, or else the hearts of many precious ones, whom God would not have made sad, will be sadned, and the hands of many in sin, upon their admission, will be strengthened.  

Objections answered.  I know there are Objections even without number multiplied, against this that I have here delivered, and such that have taken with very many, to carry them to determine the Point in hand in a contrary way: And in case I had not seen that the weakness of them is more and more discerned, and that by men of eminent parts and integrity, I should have been by the multitude as well of Objections, as Objectors, discouraged to appear against them. The duties of the Lords Supper are such, (say some) that only the sincere servants of Christ, that are sanctified by Christ, are able to perform. The mercies of the Sacrament are such, as they only can receive; and therefore only these are the fit subjects of it. And these are driven on very far. The duties preparatory to the work, cannot be done by others, (as is objected) as self-examination, self-judging. The duties executory cannot be done, that accompany the work itself. How specious soever this argument appears, and I doubt not but it is with all sincerity of heart and integrity urged, yet I desire it may yet be further considered,  
First, That this Argument, thus urged, doth disable all men not sanctified from all other duties by the command of God incumbent upon them, as well as from this duty; they must upon this account exclude themselves from every Ordinance enjoined of God as well as from this; put the argument into form, and this will easily appear. They that cannot do the duties charged upon those that are put upon a work, nor receive the mercies given in promise to it, are to be excluded from it: Now as these assume, An unsanctified man cannot discharge the duties, nor receive the comforts of a Communicant; so will I with equal reason assume, That an unsanctified man cannot perform the duties charged upon the hearers of the Word, upon him that calls upon the Name of God, or returns thanks to him; He cannot perform the duties that are charged puon him; that is, to sanctify the Sabbath, to meditate, to instruct his family, rebuke his brother, give alms, follow the duties of his calling. No unsanctified man does all that is required in the performance of any of these, neither is any fit to receive the mercies of these duties, that is unfit to receive the mercies of that duty; Therefore it follows that he must neither hear, pray, give thanks, sanctify the Sabbath, instruct or reprove any, give alms, labour in his Calling, or any other work. If any think to come off by way of distinction, That there is difference between this and other duties; Then the distinction should have been put into the Proposition, and it not delivered in that generality; and whensoever that distinction shall be put, I shall not doubt but an answer in the distinction will be suggested.  
Secondly, Inabilities to perform duties, upon the bare account of natural corruption, in a right way, and in that acceptable manner, as to receive the comforts of them, do not discharge a man from obligation to the duty: In case indeed it could be proved, that God never gave the Sacrament in charge to an unsanctified man, but left this visible Ordinance, as a Legacy or charge to an invisible Society, whom none but themselves, can distinguish, and few of them able to distinguish themselves then the argument were of some force; but from the inability to reason against obligation to the duty, to take men off from it upon that account of weakness through natural corruption, will take all men off that are unregenerate from all duties.  
Thirdly, Those that in this way disable all men in nature from these duties which are given in charge to a Communicant, upon that ground to keep them from the Sacraments, yet confess they may do this work in order at least to their own exclusion; they cannot examine themselves in order to receive, but they may and must examine themselves in order to hold themselves off from it. When the Apostle speaks to the whole visible Church of Corinth expressly, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. This few (say they) can reach; but to examine, and not to eat, is in the power of all the other.  
Fourthly, Though these reach not the highest duties, and so come not up to the ultimate end of the Sacrament, yet they perform in their measure several duties, and reach the intermediate and subordinate end of it. They see Christ there evidently set forth, and crucified before them: There they see the highest aggravation of sin, Christ wounded for sin, bruised for transgression, under the Father's wrath for man's guilt, suffering for sin, the just for the unjust. They see him bearing the sins of many, and they cannot nor may not exclude themselves from the number. They see there a ransom paid for sin, a discharge made to the Father's Justice. They see Christ tendered, and offered: They may further oblige themselves to all duties required, as well to the interesting grace, which is faith, as to the qualifications of obedience; They do believe, Acts 2.12, 13. Luke 8.13. Joh. 12.42, 43. 1 Tim. 1.19. This faith is true in its kind, they do not only yield assent, but reach to some measure of joy, and delight, Luke 8.13. They are in Christ, their way of inhesion or implantation I shall not determine; But in the latitude as he is an head, he hath members that are inherent in him, he is an head of a Church visible, and hath many members suitable, as the Reader may see in Cobbet of Infant-Baptisme, Conclus. 5. pag. 56. Whilst those hearers mentioned, Luke 8.13. believed, I cannot think it was the seeds-mans' office, who had sounded the Word in their ears, to have withheld the visible Word from their eyes, or advised them to have withdrawn themselves. And as they do duties incumbent on Communicants, so also they receive mercies, many intermediate mercies, though in that state they receive not the highest and choicest mercies. They partake of the fatness of the Olive, Rom. 11. even all that come into that state that the blinded Jews, and the worst part among them did relinquish.   

SECT. XII. Proposition 10.  
THe Lord's Supper (as all other Ordinances of Christ) must be so administered, 
The Lord's Supper must be so administered, that Communicants may be edified.  that the Kingdom of Christ may be most advanced, and the Church in her members most edified. Let all be done to edification, is the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 14.26. Not as an Apostolical Canon, (as Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy hath observed; for then, if the Apostle had been silent, that injunction had not been obliging) but as a necessary result from all that they had in charge from Jesus Christ; Prophecy exceeds unknown tongues, because it edifies, 1 Cor. 14.4. And unknown tongues are without profit, and of no use, without interpretation to edify, ver. 5. Therefore we have the Apostles resolution for public prayers, ver. 14, 15, 16, 17. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful: what is it then? I will pray with the Spirit, and with understanding also; I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks? seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest; for thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. And for the preaching of the Word, ver. 18, 19 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Matters circumstantial, and of themselves indifferent, if they be not reduced to this end, prove inexpedient, and to the doer evil. All things are lawful for me, but all things edify not, 1 Cor. 10.23. The whole of the Ministerial work, and every appendent to it must be reduced hither; what have bvilders to do but to edify? And if they edify not, what do they do? In what other metaphor soever their work is set out, this is still their business, the perfecting of the Saints, the edifying of the body of Christ, Ephes. 4.12. When they have done this, and made it their whole business, they may with confidence speak to God in the words of Christ, I have glorified thee, I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do, Joh. 17.5. This thread, which runs through the whole of the Ministerial work, is not to be excluded here. Those of whom there is hopes that they are willing to learn Christ, are to be taken into Christ's School by Baptism, and those are to be admitted to the Lords Supper that knowingly will engage for continuance, and coming on in the ways of Christ. Baptism is the entry door into the Church visible; no man must be refused of whom there is reason of expectation that they will be professedly Christ's. And the Lords Supper is the means of the growth of those that are thus visibly and in the face of the Church received; where this may conduce to their building up, it is not to be denied, so that the dispensers great enquiry must be, whom the Lords Supper may benefit, where it may edify? which according to Scripture rules may be discerned and determined, otherwise the Apostle had not given this charge, Let all things be done to edification; and where it may edify, to give it; and where it serves not for edification, to forbear it; not whether regenerate or unregenerate (which is an undiscernible work), and accordingly to admit or refuse.   

SECT. XIII. Proposition. 11.  

The Lord's Supper with the Word as an appendent to it, may be serviceable to bring a man of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant.  THere is nothing hinders but that the Lords Supper with the Word as an appendent to it, may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant interest, to the terms and propositions of the Covenant; may serve to work a man of profession of faith, unto faith saving and justifying: a man in name the Lords, to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. This I shall endeavour by Arguments to confirm.  
First, Men of that interest, that baptism receives, as the intention of the work in order to salvation; these the Lords Supper serves, to carry on by sanctification to salvation, as the end of the work likewise: But Baptism receives men of visible profession only, and visible interest, as the intention of the work into the visible Church in order to salvation: Therefore the Lords Supper carries on these by sanctification, as the intention of the work to salvation. The Proposition cannot be denied, unless we will without reason, bring in that vast difference between these two outward v●●●ble Ordinances, both entrusted in the hands of man, as that the one shall be of that latitude to receive men of visible interest, and the other restrained to invisible members; The one according to the mind of God shall let many into the Church for salvation, the other shall be in capacity to nourish, and bring on very few. The Assumption cannot be denied, That Baptism receives men of visible profession and visible interest in order to salvation, and hath been abundantly proved: we baptise infants upon the bare account of Covenant-holiness, which is only a visible interest: men of years were baptised, (and by just warrant yet may, in case not baptised) upon a visible profession. The conclusion than follows, that the Lords Supper carries on those as the intention of the work, that Baptism receives to salvation.  
Secondly, If it be the mind of God in the Gospel revealed, that men of visible interest having not yet attained to the grace of sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Table, than it must needs follow that it serves as an instrument with the Word to raise them up by faith, and sanctification to salvation: But it is the mind of God in the Gospel revealed, that men of visible interest having not yet reached unto sanctification, should have admittance to the Lords Supper: The Lord's Supper than serves to raise up men of visible interest by faith and sanctification for salvation. The Proposition is clear, unless we will make men's admission (most men's admission) merely vain, having no power, nor any capacity to advance their happiness, but being wholly in a tendency to increase their judgement. Whatsoever the secret will of God (to us unknown) is, that in the event it shall prove; yet the work itself must have a tendency and power, respective to those for whom it is appointed, for edification, not for destruction. The Assumption is evident (that those of visible interest, having not attained sanctification, according to the mind of God revealed in his Word, should have admittance) by the bars that are assigned for men's exclusion. The alone bars that are ordinarily assigned, to hold men in Covenant-interest off from the Lords Table, are ignorance, Error, and Scandal: But many that cannot be charged with ignorance, error, or scandal, are yet short of sanctification: Many short of sanctification then have no bar to their admission. Either visible interest, with capacity to improve it, or saving interest in the Covenant must be the rule for admission: But saving interest in ●he Covenant cannot; then (to use Mr Cobbets words, Vindication, pag. 54. it would either necessitate Ministers to come under guilt of sin, or anomy, breach of rule; or for avoiding of that which they must needs do with such breach of rule, never to administer any Church ordinances, since they sometimes shall break that rule in administering it to hypocrites; and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones, yet not being able to know that secret infallibly, they observe not the rule in faith, but doubtingly, and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations. If any reply, that saving interest in the Covenant, is the rule, but we are not tied infallibly to come up to the rule, but as fare as our charity can judge men to be in grace, we must admit them to this seal of grace; To this I have several things to reply. 1. God never puts men's charity to this work, (as respective to admission to ordinances) to judge, whether in grace or not, whether regenerate or in unregeneration. And indeed charity (which is assigned by some to that place) is most unfit to judge. A Judge, or Umpire in a business must be impartial, and have nothing to bias him on any hand. But charity would be ready to cover a multitude of sins, which is no blemish of the grace, but a demonstration that this is none of its office. If then man must judge, (as he is most unmeet) his reason, and not his love must take the chair for it, and go as high as conjecture can reach. 2. If charity or reason thus set up mistake, than the rule is broke; which though these will say is not the admitters sin, seeing the thing is not so scibile, or of possibility to be known, (and by the way we observe that he is therefore no competent Judge) yet a seal is by this means put to a blank, which is no small profanation, and the ordinance administered solely and necessarily for the receivers judgement. 3. Though we infallibly know a man's unsanctified condition, and were able to charge it; yet whilst it is not open, and breaks not into scandal, we cannot upon this account (as is confessed) exclude him from the Sacrament. That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper most of the Ancient held, as Maldonate on Matth. 7.6. observes; we have large lists brought to our hands of names that go that way. The greater part of late Writers are of the same mind; Ravanellus as the last man, in verb. Sacrament is peremptory in it, and there concludes also the interest of all in Covenant, yet Judas was known to Christ, to be a thief, a Devil, and yet he receives him. Christ had doubtless power vested in him for his exclusion. The non-suspition of the Apostles, nor the close carriage of his treachery, could not then have excused his receiving, in case it had not been the mind of God that a man of visible interest, though unsanctified, might be admitted. And to say that Christ acted here as a Minister, and it was not fit that he should be both Judge and witness, though it be a truth, yet it serves not to take off the Argument. Had it not been the mind of God that men of his interest should be received, than Christ would not at any hand have knowingly gone against it, and given him admission to it. And what he did, according to the mind of God as a Minister, by a Minister may be done. And to pronounce him at that time, that he received it, such that had no right for admission, yet to admit him, were such a precedent as Christ would not have given. Christ would not trust himself with some upon that account, that the knew what was in them, Joh. 2.23, 24. and he would not have trusted the Sacrament with such a one, in case he had not known that it had been the mind of God, that men of that standing should partake of it. If it be objected, that Christ knew that Judas was not in a capacity to improve the Sacrament for sanctification and salvation, being a reprobate: I answer, respective to his gifts wherewith he was endowed, he was in capacity of improvement. The Sacrament is of use to those that were his inferiors, and an eye is had to the tendency of the work according to Gods revealed will, and not to that which is in God's secret purpose. Let us sum up the argument briefly into this form, Ministers must give the Sacrament, so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction: But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified: Therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification, and not to destruction.  
Thirdly the Law and Gospel in their joint strength, applied in power to the understanding, may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms, conditions, and propositions of the Covenant: may work men of profession of faith, to faith saving, and justifying: may work a man that is only in name the Lords, to be truly and savingly his. This none can deny, if Law and Gospel cannot do it, in the way of instruments, and ordinances appointed of God, there is no way on earth in which it can be done: But in the Lord's Supper there is Law and Gospel, the epitome and sum, the strength and vigour of Law and Gospel, applied in power to the understanding: Therefore the conclusion follows, that the Lords Supper may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant, men of profession of Faith to Faith saving and justified. The Assumption is clear, that in the Lord's Supper there is Law and Gospel, the epitome and sum, the strength and vigour both of Law and Gospel. There we have the curse of the Law in the highest degree held out, Christ made a curse, and bearing all that the Law denounces against sin, even all that which sin according to the Law did demerit. There are sins bruises, transgressions wounds. There we have the sum and substance of the Gospel held out, Christ's death for remission of sin laid open. There we have Christ a curse, which is that which the law inflicts upon transgression. There we have Christ a sacrifice, which is that which the Gospel doth promise; all brought home, and applied to the understanding of the communicant.  
Fourthly, That which is high in the aggravating of sin to the conscience, and clear in holding out the pardon of sin, may work a man of Covenant interest up to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, may work men of profession of Faith to a Faith saving and justifying. This is clear, which way else are men brought up to faith and sanctification but upon the sight of sin, in its aggravations, and Gospel tenders for the removal of it? The Assumption, that sin is in this ordinance in the highest way aggravated, and the removal of it held out, is also clear, and may easily per parts be proved. 1. The highest aggravation of sin to the breaking of the heart, and the melting of the soul is the looking upon him whom our sins have pierced, Zach. 12.10. They shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn; and that we thus look upon him in the Sacrament; I shall choose to set it out in the words of the Ministers, and Elders met in the Provincial Assembly of London in their Vindication, where speaking to those that join with them at the Lords Table, pag. 104. You must so remember Christ, as to find power coming out of Christ Sacramental, to break your hearts for all the sins you have committed against him. Christ is presented in the Sacrament, as a broken Christ, his body broken, and his blood poured out. And the very breaking of the bread, understandingly looked upon, is a forcible Argument to break your hearts. Was Jesus Christ rent and torn in pieces for you, and shall it not break your hearts that you should sin against him? Was he crucified for you, and will you crucify him by your sins? And besides, the breaking of the bread is not only ordained to be a motive unto brokenness of heart for sin, but also in the right use to effect that which it doth move unto. And, pag. 105. You must so remember Christ Sacramental, as to find power coming out of Christ, to subdue all your sins and iniquities, as the diseased woman felt virtue coming out of Christ to cure her bloody issue: so there is power in an applicative and fiducial remembrance of Christ at the Sacrament, to heal all the sinful issues of our souls; there is no sin so strong but it is conquerable by a power derived from Christ crucified. And, pag. 106. You must continue in remembering Christ in the Sacrament, till your hearts be wrought up to a through contempt of the world, and all worldly things. Christ instituted the Sacrament when he was going out of the world: and when he was crucifying, the whole world was in darkness and obscurity: and he is propounded in the Sacrament, as a persecuted, broken crucified Christ, despising, and being despised of the World. And if you do practically remember the Sacrament of his death, you will find virtue coming out thereof to make you dead to the world, and all worldly things. And, pag. 107. Cease not remembering Christ, till you be made partakers of the rare grace of humility. Of all the graces that were in Christ in which he would have Christians to imitate him in, humility is one of the chiefest, Matth. 11.29. Learn of me, for I am humble. And Christ in the Sacrament is presented, as humbling himself to the death of the cross for our sakes. And what a shame is it to remember an humble. Christ with a proud heart? The practical remembrance of the humility of Christ Sacramental, when sanctified, is mighty in operation to tame the pride of our hearts. And, pag. 110. To endeavour that your eyes may affect your hearts, when you are at the Sacrament. For as Christ in the Ministry of his Word, preacheth to the ear, and by the ear conveyeth himself into the heart: so in the Sacrament he preacheth to the eye, and by the eye conveyeth himself into the heart. And therefore it is well called a visible Sermon. What can be more plain than this to set the out the power of the Sacrament to soul contrition, true humiliation, and mortification? Too many that profess Faith have their hearts lift up, and live not by faith. Here is a way to bring them down, when they see sin to be of such a provoking nature, that only the sufferings of the Son of God are able to satisfy, that their demerit doth put him upon a necessity of all these woes. These are certainly heart melting considerations. If it be yet objected, that the Provincial Assembly at London speak to their own communicants, whom they suppose to be in grace. To this I reply, that in case that should fail, and some at least should have their predominant lusts lurking, and treachery against the Covenant (as in Judas against Christ) harboured, it can be of no danger, to say that here is a means to work them on to humiliation, and brokenness of spirit. 2. If any yet say, that their thoughts are otherwise of this Sacrament: I answer, their words best speak their thoughts, and we see what they say. The very breaking of the bread (say they) understandingly looked upon, is a forcible Argument to break your hearts, and the breaking of the bread may be looked upon understandingly by an unsanctified man: if there be truth in their Propositions, as I doubt not but they are most true, than my Conclusion is true likewise. We may make up (if you please) this part of the Argument thus: A sin aggravating ordinance is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords supper is a sin aggravating ordinance: Therefore it is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance. For the other branch of the Assumption, that this ordinance is the holding out of the pardon of sin, needs no proof. This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sin, Matth. 26.  
Fifthly, That which is annexed to the Word to second it, in that very thing, which works the soul unto conversion to good, may bring the person of Covenant interest, up to the terms of the Covenant; may work one of profession of faith only, unto faith saving, and justifying. This none can deny: being added to the Word, as it's second in such a work, it well may have an hand in the working of it: But the Sacrament is annexed to the Word, to second it in that very thing, which works the soul unto conversion to God. The Assumption is manifest: If we consider what the Word does for conversion, and the whole, in which the energy and power of it (as an Ordinance) is exercised, than we shall soon see, that this Sacrament is added, as a second in that work. The Word converts, in holding out sin in its defilements and danger; in the discovery of the loathsome nature of it, and the cursed effects that follow upon it; together with Christ in the promises to save from it. I know no other way that the Word hath to bring a soul in sin to God, but in setting forth the lost and undone condition of it, and so to bring to conviction, compunction, and enquiry what to do; and then to make tender of Christ. In this method, souls (as we find on record) have been brought home to God, of which there might be frequent instances. Now that this Sacrament is added to the Word, for further discovery of sin, in the defilement and danger: to hold out Christ in his death, taking away sin, need not to be proved. It is true that the first detection of sin is by the rule of the Law, and therefore the Apostle says, By the Law is the knowledge of sin. In case the question be put, whether this, or that act be sin? then neither the tender of Christ in the Gospel, nor yet the Sacrament can have any hand in the determination of it; but they both serve for the aggravation of sin, to lay it open in the dimensions and danger of it. Sin is not where so seen in its height, as in the sorrows and sufferings of Christ, as is by all affirmed, and these sufferings we know the Word holds out for conversion from sin. And the visible Word of the Sacrament seconds the Word in this very thing, to set out Christ's death, to lay before our eyes Christ broken for us, both for the aggravation of sin, and for the pardon of it. Thus if you please you may put the argument; If the Sacrament doth the same thing as the Word doth in conversion, than the Sacrament cannot be denied to have an hand in conversion: But the Sacrament (as we see) does the same thing as the Word; it serves to the heightening of sin, and the setting out of the pardon of sin: Therefore it follows that the Sacrament may have an hand in conversion.  
Sixthly, That which by frequent experience we see the Sacrament works toward, and for aught we are able to judge works unto, that we may well conclude, it is designed and appointed of God to work. This cannot fairly be denied; yet if any think that this of itself is not of full strength, seeing our experience may deceive us, we may conceive what is not, Let these then join to it what hath been already said. This experience added to so much evidence of reason, I doubt not but will be found to have strength in it. And I put it for their sakes that say, Let any give instance of any man or woman that hath at any time been converted by the Sacrament. And that there are frequent experiences of the Sacraments working towards this thing is plain. How frequent is it with men to have affrightings, soul-shaking, tremble, strong present resolutions against sin, upon their approach to this Ordinance? being convinced of it to be a duty, that they ought to go to it. How mightily are their spirits often affected in it? If we make that an argument of the power of the Word towards wicked men in the affrighting and astonishment of them, in the terrifying and amazement, stopping for present their full swinge in sin and wickedness, as we know it is ordinarily with those that set out the power of the Word: see Dr. Reynolds on Psal. 110. pag. 150. why then should we not make the same effects that we see ordinarily produced by the Sacrament, to be evidences of the like power in the Sacrament? And as we read of an Ahab, a Felix, a Zedekiah, an Herod thus startled by the Word: so we may see and know such as these alike startled and affected at the Sacrament. Superstition perhaps works it in some: But we find the work in others, in whom such superstition hath no place. It can be no other than the Majesty of the Ordinance, the high aggravation of sin, and the glory of Christ set out in it. All this I confess many times comes to nothing, it is a fit and so over; it hath not the strength to bear down men's lusts to a full change, and through mortification, and so it is with those also that hear the Word. They are many times Sermon-sick, and yet all soon falls and comes to nothing; yet in the nature of the work itself it hath a tendency towards a change. And that this sometimes works those of Covenant-interest unto a true change, and through work of sanctification (so far as we are able to judge,) there are not few experiments; I have known some bred only for jollity and outward delights, that making address to the Sacrament have had those soul-shaking and trembling amazements, that have put them upon a serious way of enquiry, and the spark so kindled by God's blessing, hath been nourished up into that burning heat, that their whole life hath been spent in zeal for God, and their name in life and death precious.  
Seventhly, To these we add, the acknowledgement of eminent Divines of an opposite judgement, who will have all admitted, present at the consecration of the elements, to see the bread broke and divided. And to what purpose is their presence, if not for their profit? and what profit can an unconverted man find in any thing in a spiritual way, that works not towards his conversion, that is no ways useful or improvable for it? What others may judge I know not; these arguments to which some other might be added, have taken with me to conclude the position before delivered.   

SECT. XIV. Objections against the former Proposition answered.  
I Know that objections here are multiplied. I have read many, which in case they had been with me of weight, this that I am now upon, had been stifled in the birth, and more doubtless hath been said than I have seen, and more yet happily will be raised. To go about to meet with all were to make no end of words: I shall speak first to some general charges, 
General charges answered.  after to some particular arguments.  
First, In case this holds, (say some) than all upon that bare account are to be admitted to the Supper, who will hinder the conversion of any? yea even Turks, Pagans, and the vilest varlets, may then come and join in this Ordinance. To these I answer,  
First, Were it of power, 
Promiscous admission follows not from it.  as an instrument in the hand of God for conversion of all, yet all were not to be admitted, when the will and mind of God is known to be against it: The Gospel in the mouths of the twelve, when they had their first commission, might have been of power for the conversion of Samaritans and Gentiles, yet they are forbidden to make tender of it to them, Matth. 11.5. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritans enter not. The word in Paul's mouth might have been (respective to any operation in itself) the conversion of souls in Asia and Bythinia, as well as in Macedonia, yet the Spirit forbids them to go to the former, and sends them to preach to the other, Act. 16.6.7, 10. If the mighty works which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repent in sackcloth and ashes; yet they were denied to those of Tyre and Sidon, Matth. 11.21. So that though the Sacraments had a generally converting power, yet in case they be appointed of God with limit to those of Covenant-interest, they may not in any greater latitude be dispensed, and so Jews, Turks, and Pagans are excluded.  
Secondly, The Word itself (which is confessed to be the power of God to salvation, and of the most large efficacy of any Ordinance for conversion) is not yet tendered to all, in any expectation of conversion by it. Not to speak of those to whom God in his providence doth deny it, (who are out of the pale of the Church) but those, to whom the Church doth not make mention of it: Infants, Idiots, distracted one's, and deaf persons, no Minister applies himself to them, to make tender of it for conversion; so that there must be not only a commission to tender it, and a clear evidence, that men have (according to the mind of God) an interest, but there must be a present capacity in such for improvement. I am not ignorant that some (seeing it seems that this doth lie against them) have pleaded for a capacity in all these before mentioned, to receive benefit by the Word, demanding, 1. Why are Infants, and pari ratione distracted persons uncapable of the Word? An answer me thinks is at hand, because they are necessarily in the condition of the high-way-ground, to hear and understand nothing. They profit no more than those, 1 Cor. 14. that hear words in an unknown tongue. And in case they be in capacity (as is affirmed) to receive benefit from the Word, the Minister occasionally is to make out a word of exhortation to them, giving them their portion as well as others; which how it would sound in the ears of those that are of growth, and have their senses and understanding, let any judge. These further demand, Where hath God said they shall be kept from it? No more hath he said that the swallow, or the sparrow should be kept from it; by providenee they have been present, when those that would have improved such an opportunity in a Spiritual way, have been denied it. Yea, places are produced to show that God hath commanded infants to be present at Ordinances. But where is it commanded that Idiots, distracted persons, etc. should be present? Reason's may be given of infant's presence at entry of Covenants, at solemn fasts, denuntiations of blessings and curses, when yet they are in an incapacity to receive benefit by the Word. Demand is yet further made, Who knows how God may work at the Word, though not by the Word? may not the Word be an occasion of conversion unto infants, which is an instrument of conversion to elder persons? Such queries will bring in the most ignorant and scandalous to the Lords Supper; who knows but that which is an instrument of nourishment of men converted, may prove an occasion of conversion to men unconverted? So that this notwithstanding the position delivered will not bear this inference that is drawn from it. Though the Lords Supper (as an appendent to the Word) may serve to bring up those of Covenant-interest to the terms and Propositions of the Covenant; may work a man of profession of faith, to faith saving and justifying, yet there must be somewhat more to give actual admission to it. Put in these two Cautions. 1. That the persons in question have their interest and first right in it. 2. That they be in a capacity to improve it for their benefit; with these cautions, and not else, I am for a general admission.  
Secondly, It is objected, That this makes the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance as well as the Word, and how great an odium lies upon that opinion, what those be that maintain it, and what interest they drive, is very well known. To this I answer: The expression of a Converting Ordinance may be taken two ways: First, As having power of itself, 
In what sense, and with what limit, the Lords Supper may be called a converting Ordinance.  as a single instrument in the hand of God, in his ordinary way to work a change in the heart or life. In this sense the converting power of it is to be denied. Secondly, As having some influence for that work as seconding and working with the Word, so I doubt not but that it may safely be owned, and easily justified. I shall lay down my whole thoughts of it in some Propositions. 
Explicatory Propositions. Affirmat.   
First, In the Affirmative.  
First, This Sacrament carries the soul on towards conversion, in doing the same thing as the Word does for conversion, in holding forth Christ crucified, in holding him out as our sin, and as our Saviour, made a curse for us, and delivering us from the curse.  
Secondly, In further engaging the soul, or the soul upon receiving the Sacrament engaging itself to that which the Word requires and calls for. If Covenants in Israel, entered by reforming Princes, were judged to be of that force for obligation of the soul to a change in their ways, putting stronger ties on their slippery hearts, much more may we believe that the Sacraments in a due order received, may have this efficacious power. They serve (saith Mr. Hooker) as bonds of obedience to God, strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity, provocations to godliness, preservations from sin, memorials of the principal benefits of Christ.  
Thirdly, The Sacrament doth this in an ordinary way according to the revealed will of God in his Word, as the proper intention of the work, and not as any thing extraordinary.  
Fourthly, The Sacrament itself doth it, in that relation in which it stands to the Word, in its being and operation; and not the Sacramentals only, (as they have been called) as the Word preached, and prayer, which yet have a mighty influence on the Sacraments for this work.  
Fifthly, It works as a second to the Word for habitual conversion, as well as actual; In the way that the Word doth work, for the infusion of the first grace, and not barely for the exciting and stirring up of grace in the soul. Their way of working I shall God willing in due place further inquire into.  

Negat.  Secondly, In the Negative.  
First, The Sacrament converts none by the bare work done. There is no such power by receiving, to change the soul, as Papists believe there is by consecration to change the elements. There is neither reason for it, nor promise of it. I cannot believe (for I see no proof of it) any regenerating power in the water in Infant's Baptism, much less can I have reason to believe such a converting power of grown persons in the Lord's Supper. He shall be alone for me that will appear in such Paradoxes.  
Secondly, The command given, to take and eat of the bread, to drink of the cup, hath no such power to convert. None can see the reason of the change of their ways in any such injunction; Conversion were an easy work in case this could do it.  
Thirdly, The Sacrament of the Lords Supper must by no means be parallelled with the Word, in the work of conversion; but the Word many ways must have the preeminence: 1. The Word may work to conversion without the Lords Supper; There are many in saving grace, that did never partake of this Ordinance. God's engagement by word and oath holds up the faith, and is the ground of strong consolation to those that never enjoyed this seal. But the Sacrament cannot convert or do any thing towards it, without the Word. A Covenant may convey an interest without a seal, when a seal can never do it without a Covenant. 2. The Sacrament does nothing of its own strength, but by virtue from the Word; It hath its dependence on the Word for being, as a seal on a Covenant, and also for the operation. The Word may go alone in the work of conversion, yet may have assistance from the Sacrament; the Sacrament can never work alone without the Word, but as an assistant to it. 3. The Word must qualify the soul for the Sacrament, in laying open the nature and use of it; and the soul must attend what the Sacrament holds out, otherwise there can be no improvement of it for any spiritual benefit: And these things being premised, I wonder how any that seem to appear most on the contrary part can justly be offended, that I affirm, (and as I think, with so good reason prove) that the Lords Supper may be assistant towards conversion in some, and may work with the Word, to carry the soul professing Christ up to it, especially when it shall appear that I would have the door of admission to stand at least little more wide than they themselves: And perhaps not so wide, as according to the practice of many of their judgement it stands already. Most of these acknowledge, that knowing persons, free from gross errors and scandals, may be admitted; others say, none but they, that in the judgement of charity appear to be indeed in Christ, may be received; in which they yet confess that men may be easily deceived: Either of these confess, that many unconverted partake with them, even when rules of admission (according to their own mind) are most tenaciously held. And in case it appear that these may receive benefit by the Sacrament, and their conversion possibly helped on, especially if well followed on by the Word, why should they be troubled? I confess it is to me no small trouble, to see godly Ministers of the opposite way, so much ensnared in their own principles, and necessitated to let in such (where most of order is held, and discipline exercised) that of necessity further their damnation, and are in impossibility (according to their tenants) to improve it towards salvation.  
Thirdly, It is yet further objected, That in this doctrine we oppose the unanimous judgement of Protestant Divines, who generally teach, that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church, as sealing Ordinances, not to give, but to testify what is given; not to make, but confirm Saints; simply denying the instrumentality of Sacraments, that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not. And that we concur with Papists, who hold that the Sacraments are instruments, to confer, give, or work, grace, ex opere operato. But how unjust this charge is, in both the parts of it, might easily be made manifest.  

In this we Symbolise not with Papists.  First, For that charge of joining with the Papists, let any judge, who comes nearest to their doctrine of the efficacy of this Sacrament. Not to mention the opus operatum, which is alike detested of both, (whatsoever is charged) but inquire further what they deliver of the efficacy of it. Thomas Aquinas, Part 3. quaest. 73. art. 3. putting differences between Baptism, and the Lords Supper, assigns this for one; Baptism is the beginning of spiritual life, and the entrance of the Sacraments. The Eucharist is the consummation of spiritual life, and the end of all Sacraments. And further, The receiving of Baptism is necessary to begin spiritual life; The receiving of the Eucharist is necessary for the consummation of it. The Council of Florence, quoted by Suarez, disput. 7. Quaest. 62. saith, By Baptism we are spiritually born again, and are nourished by the Divine Alimony of the Eucharist. Suarez, disput. 63. Quaest. 79. lays down this conclusion. This Sacrament is not instituted, per se to confer the first grace; and confirms it by multiplicity of Authors, and the Church's custom, who never used to give the Sacrament unless it be to those whom she believes to be cleansed from sin by Baptism or penance. And thus argues it by reason. The Sacrament (saith he) doth not suppose the effect that it serves to work, but this Sacrament doth suppose the man to be just that receives it. 2. Meat (saith he) is not ordained of itself to quicken or raise the dead, but to nourish or strengthen a man already alive. But this Sacrament is instituted, as meat and drink. And though he after affirms that this Sacrament sometimes, and as by accident confers the first grace, (which according to his principles he hath much a do to make out) yet he acknowledges that many and grave Divines held the contrary, quoting, Gabriel, Alensis, Bonaventure, and Major. And their distinction is well enough known. That as a Sacrifice offered, it takes away sin; but as a Sacrament received, it only nourishes, and increases spiritual life. By all which it appears how fare those of that part are from assent to this position; and no marvel, when they will hold their communicants in that ignorance, as to look after no more than consecration, to inquire nothing into the institution. The way of the Sacraments work, as a visible Word, as a demonstrative sign in the aggravation of sin, and tender of pardon, is to them a mystery.  
As for the other part of the charge, 
Nor oppose the unanimous judgement of Protestant Writers.  which is the opposition of the unanimous judgement of Protestant Authors; I know many are produced speaking of the Sacraments, as no causes of spiritual life, or vessels to convey it; but as seals and testimonies of Gods good will towards us. To which I fully subscribe, as after shall (God willing) appear. But how fare most of them come short when they are throughly examined, of that position which is laid down as their opinion, That they are appointed to seal unto a man that saving interest in Christ and the Covenant of grace that he hath already, may easily be demonstrated. First, That position hath that confusion in it, that many of them will not own, and is inconsistent almost with all their principles. This makes interest in the Covenant of grace, and interest in Christ (which is understood of interest as a lively member) the same, when it is well known that they make Covenant-interest fare more large than interest in Christ; see Mr. Cobbet in his Vindication, pag. 48. quoting not alone Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory, Nazianzen, Jerome, Austin, among the Ancient; but also Amesius, Chamier, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Melanchton, Mr. Philpot, for this latitude of the Covenant. Pareus, (who is not looked upon as any dissenting man from the rest of his brethren) speaks fully. When it was objected that all Israel was not in Covenant with God, nor all the infants of Christians, because some among them were, and are reprobates, he answers, To be in Covenant, or to have interest in it, is taken two ways, either according to the right of Covenant, or the benefit of it. He is in Covenant that either obtains the benefits of the Covenant, which are pardon of sin, Adoption, regeneration, salvation, or which hath only the right or outward symbol of the Covenant. He applies his distinction that, that proposition, That no reprobate is in Covenant with God, is only true of the benefits of the Covenant, which heretofore were, and still are peculiar to the Elect; but being understood of the right, and outward symbol of the Covenant it is to be denied; for that indifferently belongs to all that are born in the Church, among which many are reprobates, as the event doth demonstrate; neither is it lawful for the Church to exclude any, that by their own impiety do not exclude themselves (which Israelites in times past did, and Apostatising Christians now do, to their greater damnation) whether they be of those that by a true faith receive the benefits of the Covenant, or whether they be those that remain hypocrites. All of his practice must necessarily be of his judgement, unless we believe that their practice militates against their principles. And that this is the practice of the reformed Churches in general, needs not to be shown.  
Secondly, They cannot then baptise any upon the account of covenant-holiness, but only holiness of regeneration. This is plain. If the right be theirs alone that have their interest as in Covenant, so also in Christ, only these must be baptised, or else we must baptise without right. And that they do not only baptise, but dispute for Baptism upon a bare Covenant-interest without any further title is manifest.  
Thirdly. This stands not with that which they hold concerning the way of the Sacraments sealing, which according to them can be no evidence that he does believe, as some assert, evidences of faith must be in the soul, and not in the Sacrament; neither doth it absolutely make up to the soul the benefit of the Covenant, than no man without infallible revelation (such as it seems Ananias had concerning Paul) could administer it. It seals the benefits of the Covenant upon God's terms and propositions, which when the soul makes good, there is God's seal for performance. That this is the judgement of Protestant Divines, I have elsewhere declared, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 35, 36. so that their Doctrine of the Sacraments doth not oppose the position delivered.  
Hitherto I have considered some general charges against this position; now I must look into some Arguments in form produced against it.  

Several particular arguments answered.  First, Sacraments, (say some) are signs, as appears in their definition, and not causes of what they signify; signs declaring and showing that we have Faith in Christ, remission of sin by him and union with him.  
To let that slip pass, making them no causes, because they are signs, as though no sign were a cause of the thing signified: This to me is as strange as new, that Sacramental signs declare, and show that we have faith and remission of sins. The Sacrament now in question, is a sign of the body and blood of Christ, in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know; but that it is a sign either that we do believe, or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing, (to which this engages, but not presupposes) I know not. Simon Magus had not Baptism, to signify that all his sins were forgiven; but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven. Mr. Cobbet says well, Vindication, pag. 54. The initiatory seal, which holds true of the other seal, is not primarily and properly the seal of man's faith, or repentance, or obedience, but of God's Covenant rather; the seal is to the Covenant: even Abraham's Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abraham's faith of righteousness, but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant; yea, to the Crvenant itself or promise, which had believed unto righteousness: hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. I confess it is a symbol of our profession of faith, but this is not the faith spoken to, neither is remission of sins annexed unto it.  
Secondly, That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith, doth not work conversion and faith: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith. The Minor is proved, Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.36, 37. ver. 41. Act. 10.4.7. All which texts are spoken of Baptism, and not of the Lords Supper. To that text, Mar. 16.16. I have spoken fully, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 243. To that, Act. 8.36, 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38. I have spoken, pag. 396. and there is no need that I should repeat what I have said. For Act. 2.41. They that gladly received his Word, were baptised, It speaks no more than ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel; and whether this necessarily implies saving faith, let Ezek. 33.31. Matth. 13.20, 21. Gal. 4.15. be consulted. For, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title, such gifts gave Judas a title not only to baptism, but Apostleship; such a faith may be had, and sanctification wanting.  
Thirdly, That which gives us new food, supposeth that we have the new birth, and Spiritul life; and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food: Ergo.  
Ans. 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogisms.  
2. A difference may be put between ordinary food, and living and quickening food: It may be true of the former, but not of the latter.  
3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food, 1. Pet. 2.2. and yet presupposeth not new life. If any reply, that the Word is more than food; it is seed as well as food, and it gives not new life as food, but as seed. I answer that the Sacrament is more than food. There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating, which some say may be done to edification and profit, by those that are not admitted to be partakers; where they divide I may distinguish, and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin: to carry on the work of contrition and compunction.  
Fourthly, That Ordinance which is instituted only for believers and justified persons, is no converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But this Sacrament is instituted only for believers and justified persons. The Minor is proved, Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.17. much more than Baptism; and if Baptism, much more the Lords Supper.  
Ans. Upon this account it must needs follow, that as Abraham was a justified man, so Ishmael was justified also, who according to the mind of God, and in obedience to his commands was circumcised, Gen. 17.23. yea, every Proselyte that joined himself to Israel, and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified. 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person, yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification, but a distinct text of Scripture, Gen. 15.16. quoted by the Apostle, ver. 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith, and not by works, the Apostles words only show that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant, not of works, but of faith; so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument, are a full answer here.  
Fifthly, The Apostle argues, that Abraham the Father of the faithful, and whose justification is a pattern of ours, was not justified by Circumcision. Circumcision was not the cause, but the sign of his justification. Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication.  
Ans. Though animadversions might be made on these words, yet if any will put them into form, I shall grant the conclusion, when I say the Sacrament, as an Appendix to the Word, may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith, I am far from saying it is any cause of justification; I look on faith no otherwise, then as an instrument in the work, and the Sacrament as an help, and not the principal to the work of faith.  
Sixthly, There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer.  
Seventhly, That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment, is no converting Ordinance: But the Supper of the Lord, the marriage feast of the King's Son, is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument.  
Ans. 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tenderness. But in this Argument here is much boldness, to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast. 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it, that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom, as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper, Luk. 14.15. And when one of them that sat at meat with him, heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Now those that pretend a forwardness towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it, (according to the scope of the Parable) shall be cast out from it. This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances, and yet remain in their sins, shall come to heaven; But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance, than it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word; The Word may lay as fair a claim to this wedding feast, as the Lords Supper.  
Eighthly, That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith; Ergo. The Assumption is proved, Rom. 10.14. Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the Word of God; than not by seeing; if by the Word, than not by the Sacrament.  
Ans. If faith comes by hearing, will it therefore follow that hearing can receive no help from, but must exclude seeing? Did the Bereans when they had heard the Apostles, yet nothing towards faith by their search of the Scriptures? Act. 17.11.12. or did they not make use of their eyes in the search that they made? When Christ had Preached to the Jew's not yet in the faith, and commended to them the search of the Scriptures, Joh. 5.39. can we think that this search could be no step in their way of believing? Why were miracles wrought, if they were of no use to the work of faith f What comment shall we make on those words, Joh. 2.23. Many believed in his Name when they saw the miracles that were done? If the Word do work faith, it will by no means follow, but that it may take in assistance by miracles, and Sacraments, by signs extraordinary and ordinary. That consequence, if by the Word, than not by the Sacrament, will never hold, till the Word and Sacrament are proved to be opposite, and not subordinate.  
Ninthly, That Ordinance, which hath neither the promise of the grace of conversion annexed unto it, or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath no such promise of the grace of conversion, neither is there such an example: Ergo.  
Answ. For Examples, though we could give instances of men being converted by receiving of the Lords Supper, yet it would still be denied to have any possible influence towards conversion; as the last Argument is an evident witness. We bring Examples of men that have been brought to the faith by seeing, and yet it is still denied that fight can be any help towards it. And though we could bring a promise of such grace annexed, yet we should have little hopes to be heard or heeded, seeing we can bring a Promise of blessedness to reading, which is by sight, as to hearing, Rev. 3. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy. 2. We have as many examples of men's conversion by the Sacrament, as we have of their receiving strength and nourishment: If one may be asserted without an example, than then other likewise. 3. We have no particular precedents by name (except at first institution) of any that were Communicants, and therefore we cannot expect examples of conversion, or receiving of strength by communicating. 4. The examples of conversion by the Word perhaps well examined, would prove short of such conversion as here is intended. The conversion in Gospel narratives is to a Christian profession. A man may evince calling thence, but not elctdion, and this is the work of the Word without the Sacrament, seeing it must precede the receiving of the Sacrament.  
As to that of no promise made to it, 1. When the adversary shall bring a promise made to the Sacrament for Spiritual strength, it will happily be found of an equal force to the giving of a new life. 2. Though we have no promise explicit, and express; yet we have promises implicit and virtual. Every promise made to the Word is made to the Sacrament; The Sacrament being not opposite, but subordinate to it, an appendent that receives strength from it.  
Tenthly, That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake, is not a converting Ordinance. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake: Ergo. The Minor is proved, 1 Cor. 11.27.  
Answ. This Argument well followed will take off every Ordinance from that honour of conversion, as well as this of the Lords Supper: seeing many Texts may be produced, equally calling for qualifications for them as for this, equally showing the danger of unworthy addresses. As to this for hearing the Word, see 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as new-burn babes desire the sincere milk, of the Word, that ye may grow thereby. Jam. 1.21. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted Word, which is able to save your souls. Is not the Word a favour of death unto death to such? 2 Cor. 2.14, 15, 16. Shall i. not be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon then for them? Matth. 11.24. For prayer to God, see James 1.6, 7. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth is like a wave of the Sea, driven with the wind, and tossed; for let not that man think:; he shall receive any thing of the Lord, 1 Tim. 2.8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting: Good will never be had by such men's prayers. Esay 1.15. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hid mine eyes from you when ye make many prayers, I will not hear, your hands are full of blood. Zach. 7.13. Therefore it is come to pass, that he cried, and they would not hear: so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of Hosts. Shall we now say, that neither Word, nor prayer is a converting Ordinance? But perhaps it will be said, Men unworthy must hear, must pray to be made worthy, must come in unconversion to be converted. But they must bring worthiness hither, or else this can have no hand in making worthy they must bring conversion, or else this cannot convert. This is a begging of the question. And as to prayer, there is no more ground, or colour to make it a converting Ordinance, than the Supper; we must pray in faith, before we can pray, with acceptance of our persons, and so must the Word be mixed with faith when we hear it, Heb. 4.2.  
Eleventhly, That Ordinance which is eucharistical and consolatory, supposeth such that partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given, and are such as are fit to be comforted: But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance eucharistical and consolatory: Ergo.  
Answ. And might not the Assumption. as well have been, That the Word and Prayer are Ordinances eucharistical, and consolatory? I hope none will deny the Gospel (our good tidings) to be eucharistical, and consolatory; nor yet thanksgiving which is a branch of prayer. And then in case the Proposition be of universal truth, both Word, Prayer, and Lords Supper, are excluded from any power of conversion; The Proposition than must be understood with limit, and restriction; That Ordinance, which in whole and in part is eucharistical and consolatory, can have no hand in conversion, and then (though perhaps exception might be taken at it) it had colour in it: But then the Assumption, That this Ordinance is in whole and in part eucharistical and consolatory, must be denied. It is for humbling, heart-breaking, as it is comforting: There we show forth Christ's death, and see him broken for sin; and it is no matter of consolation, but humiliation and horror to see our souls under that guilt that brought upon Christ a necessity to suffer; Though it is a matter of consolation, that guilt by suffering is removed, and an atonement made, in which there is either present assurance, or at least a possibility of future actual interest.  
Twelfthly, That Ordiinance, unto which Christ calleth none but such that have spiritual gracious qualifications, is not a converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications; Ergo. The Assumption is proved, Matth. 11. 28. Joh. 7.37. Isa. 55.1. Matth. 22.12. 1 Cor. 11.28. Cant. 5.1.  
Answ. Only one of these speaks of the Lords Supper, the rest have immediate relation to Christ, not to this Ordinance, of the Supper and positive spiritual qualifications, as preceding all coming, is not required in any of them; upon sense of want, we may come to Christ for spiritual qualifications; (as wen may come with them) though without positive spiritual qualifications there is no assurance of interest in him. 2. As to that worthiness which is spoken to, in that Text of the Corinthians, there is an usual distinction of worthiness of merit, and worthiness suitable to the work in hand; It is the latter only, that, as is confessed, is called for. There is yet a double suitableness to the work: One is complete, answering to all that the work can call for, which comprises grace, not only in the habit, but in the act; an actual improvement of our graces for the participation of it; and this is alike required in other Ordinances of hearing, praying, etc. as in this Orainance of communicating. The other is a worthiness, respecting the person that doth communicate: such a worthiness of suitableness and conveniency, whereby according to the measure of grace vouchsafed (whether common; or saving) he addresseth himself to it. Now though the regenerate man alone receives to the acceptation of his person, as he only hears and prays with such acceptance: yet a man in unregeneration may be so far suitably worthy for this work, that he may know himself called untp it, and that it would be his sin to hold back from it: and he may hopeuMlly expect blessing in it: and such a worthiness was in Christ's and John Baptists hearers, so many of them as have their commendations in the Gospel for such ready and forward hearing; and such a worthiness, as I take it, is mentioned, Matth. 10 11. Let the Learned Consider, whether either the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, indigne, or the context in that place will necessarily take in every unregenerate man, or rather the irreverend profanation of that duty; and whether arguments drawn from want of saving faith, and sincere repentance in performance of this work, do not bring unregenerate men under like danger in fasting, praying, thanksgiving, hearing, Sabbath-keeping, and every other duty of worship whatsoever.  
Thirteently, That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints, is intended only for such as are Saints, and not for unconverted sinners: But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints, and those that are members of the same body of Christ. The assumption proved, 1 Cor. 1016, 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1.2.  
Answ. Saint, is either such that are so by calling and separation for God, or else by qualifications and regeneration from God. In the former sense, unconverted sinners, professing the Gospel, are Saints: as of old they were of the people of God, and called by his Name: Saint is a New Testament-word, taking in all of a Christian profession, and outward Covenant-interest, and then the Proposition is to be denied; Saint being taken in the latter sense, the assumption is false. This Lord's Supper is a privilege of the Church as visible, dispensed by visible officers, not as invisible, as those very Texts quoted do manifest.  
Fourteen, If Baptism itself (at least when administered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance, far less is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance: But Baptism itself (at least when ministered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance: Ergo.  
Answ. This Argument seemeth to suppose an opinion of regeneration or conversion, by the very work done in Baptism, and the Lords Supper; which seeing I do not own, but in either of both disclaim, I need to give no further answer.  
Fifteenthly, If the Baptism even of those that are at age must necessarily precede the receiving of the Lords Supper, than the Lords Supper is not a converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But Baptism even of those that are of age must necessarily precede the Lord's Supper: Ergo.  
Answ. I see no necessity of this consequence, unless I should believe that all that are baptised, are ipso facto regenerate; and that not with an initial regeneration (of which some speak) that may be lost, but the immortal seed of the Spirit that abides for ever; But being not (as I am not) of that faith, I suppose a baptised man may be (to use Pareus his phrase) Christianus non regeneratus, sed regenerandus, a Christian not regenerate, but to be regenerate: and so regeneration may, as ordinarily it doth, not precede, but follow Baptism.  
Sixteenthly, There is an Argument drawn from the Parable of the Prodigal, There is a robe ring, and shoes put upon him, and a fatted calf killed for him, but this when he comes to himself, and says, Father, I have sinned, etc. But this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more especially, and manifestly then in any other Ordinace: Ergo.  
Answ. All Ordinances (as I take it) are to bring a prodigal unto such a returning posture, in the discovery of the hatefulness of sin against such a Father, and the riches that are in his Father's family. There are some Arguments of this nature follow, which may seasonably be spoke to in the close of these Propositions. I shall only here by the way, hint so much to the Reader, that in case these Arguments had been framed against the power of this Sacrament, for conversion the sense as generally the opposers of it understand it, that it works, as a medicine to heal, and hath an opus operatum in it: I should not at all have undertaken them, how inconcluding soever I had judged them: But seeing a tendency in them, to interest alone, men already in grace in this Ordinance, and denying all hope of benefit by it, to the majority of those that men, of all interests ordinarily admit to it, to the necessary ensnaring of all that are concerned in the administration of it, I could not be silent; let the Reader impartially weigh and determine.   

SECT. XV. Proposition. 12.  
THose that are in a present inaptitude, 
All of present incapacity to receive benefits by the Lord's Supper, are to be denied access to it.  and incapacity to improve this Sacrament to any spiritual advantage, but are under an inevitable necessity, either to receive no good, or much danger, and damage (whatsoever interest they may claim, or on their behalf be claimed) are justly debarred from it, and in present denied admission to it. And on the contrary, All that are in a present aptitude, and capacity to improve it for spiritual advantages are regularly to be received and by no means to be denied. This is plain, it must be administered to the Church's advantage, and edification, unto every members possible advantage; They that are in an utter incapacity to receive benefit, are in all reason to be denied it, and those of capacity to be received to it. Some would have those debarred (or at least to debar themselves) that hopefully may profit; and we may not plead for their admission, that are, in the judgement of all reason, in an incapacity of profiting. Those that stand in this present incapacity, are of two sorts; 1. Such that through inabilities cannot make any improvement of it. 2. Such that resolvedly, and obstinately will not.  
Those that through inability cannot, are of four sorts.  
First, Those that by reason of minority and nonage are not yet ripe for the use of reason, as Infants, and younglings.  
Secondly, Those that by providence are denied it, as natural idiots.  
Thirdly, Those that are bereavest of it, as distracted persons, aged persons grown children.  
Fourthly, Those that by their gross neglect in spiritual things, never made improvement of it.  
First, Infants, These the Church, as well Popish, as reform by an universal received custom denies to admit; As the Disciples sometimes rebuked those that brought infants to Christ to receive a blessing: so the Church now provides, that none shall bring them to partake of this Sacrament. And though the Disciples suffered a check from our Saviour's mouth in the one. Infants having title to, and being in a capacity to receive benefit by that Church-priviledg, as being Church-member: yet we believe the Church is free from reproof in the other, upon the ground laid down before, viz. their incapacity to improve it to their spiritual benefit. It is true that the practice in the Church for at least some Churches) anciently was otherwise: as those know, that are versed in antiquity; several quotations out of Dionysius Areo pagita, Cyprian, Austin, the Council of Tolet, may be seen in Suarez, disput. 62. quaest. 79. Art. 8. sect. 4. Though according to Thomas Aquinas Dionysius his words make not for it, as may be seen, part. 3. quaest. 80. Art. 9 This custom Maldonate in Joh. 6.53. saith continued in the Church, 600. years, but he only saith it; and Suarez in the place before quoted says, it was never received of the whole Church, and perhaps (saith he) the practice was not Common, seeing there is no more mention of it among the Ancient; and quotes the opinion of some, that day, The Fathers never observed this custom, but only tolerated it, because they could not resist the multitude. And one that speaks enough in favour of it, finds the practice of it in afric, and Europe, but can bring no testimony out of Asia for it; only he says, that he does not read, that the custom was contrary in any part of Asia. The Schools have disputed infants capacity of it; Thomas Aquinas, in the place quoted, is against it, together with many others, whose names Suarez mentions. Suarez himself is for the affirmative, that infants are in capacity of it, as that which (he saith) is fare the more probable, and hath most reason and authority for it. And in the conclusion hath much ado to excuse the Church of Rome for the neglect of it, as Jansenius hath for their Communion only in one kind, Harmon. Evang. cap. 131. when the practice of all antiquity he confesses was otherwise; and Bellarmine for their eating on fast days before the evenning against all Scripture precedent, Bellar, de bon. oper. lib. 2. cap. 2. But the Church of Rome herself hath reform this, and hath not put our Reformers to the trouble of it, though a man might wonder what moved them to it, giving so much to this Sacrament as they do, to confer grace by the work done, and to fortify the foul against Satan. But it is plain, that the high reverence they gave to their transubstantiated elements, moved them to it, lest any thing unworthy of them should befall them; upon the same account that they deny their cup to their laity, they deny the bread to those that are in minority, see Jansenius ut supra: an eminent Writer of the Protestants appears much in favour of this practice, not upon the reasons that moved those Fathers, (which was a supposed necessity of it grounded on those words of Christ, Joh. 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, understanding it of Sacramental eating at the Lords Table) but on other grounds, 1. Those that are partakers of the thing signified, are not to be denied the sign. 2. Infants are of the Church, they serve to make up that body, and Christ the Saviour of the body. 3. Christ himself saith. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of heaven. And from each of these he draws up formal Arguments for infant's admittance. And he supposeth that that text which is brought as a bar to hold them back, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, may be easily answered, that it is to be understood of those only that are in danger to eat and drink unworthily, and so to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, of which (saith he) there is no fear of infants. These Arguments undoubtedly are of strength to conclude their fundamental right and title, as to baptism, so to the Lords Supper, but they are two weak, to give them actual admission; They conclude their jus ad rem, but not their jus in re; They have upon these grounds a first right, but they must wait a further growth till they have a second. Baptism gives right in the face of the Church to all Christian privileges, and this is a Christian privilege; so also the hearing of the Mysteries of Faith, the highest of Mysteries, to be taken into debate of doubts, of the highest nature are Christian-priviledges, yet as every baptised person hath not forthwith these high Mysteries communicated to him, nor yet is admitted to such high debates, as Christ was at the age of 12. years which is recorded as a miracle: so neither are they therefore to be actually admitted to the Lords Table. And if that text of preexamination may be avoided, yet sufficient may be said for a bar to their admission. They cannot do that which is outwardly to be done at this Table, they cannot take and eat; see Whitaker, pag. 373. And in case the bread be put into their mouths, it is more like to be cast out then eaten. They cannot answer the end of the Sacrament, to do it in remembrance of Christ, or to show forth the Lords death in that ordinance; And so no possible benefit can be conceived in reason to come to them by it. In baptism it is otherwise, there is nothing required to be done by him that is baptised. It is sufficient to be passive, there is advantage by it, the person (whether infant or of age) is enroled into the society of the people of God, is a member of the body of Christ, visible, mystical: and upon that account interessed in the prayers and blessings of the Church: is enrighted, and upon that account, as growth makes fit, to be admitted to other privileges, and assoon as of any discretion to discern, they know to what society they do belong, and accordingly to apply themselves; And therefore infants have a bare fundamental right to the Lords Table, but actual admission to Baptism. And where as it is objected, that infants had not only right to the Passeover, but were also actually admitted to it, they had not only their jus ad rem, but their jus in re, and consequently infants have like right to the Lords Supper: To this I answer, 1. That infants properly so called, did not eat of the Passeover, being by reason of infancy in an incapacity, for such solid meats, as Rivet observes. 2. It not where appears, that infants did partake otherwise then as they were involved in the household. There is no Ordinance requiring infants to repair to the place that God chose for it; It is for those males (saith Ainsworth) which were freemen perfect, males in health, able to go up to the place of public worship: quoting withal the Rabbis Authority, That all men are bound, except the deaf and the dumb, and the fool, and the little child, and the blind, and the lame, and the uncircumcised, and the old men, and the sick and the tender, and the weak that were not able to go on their feet. When we read of the pains that they took to go up to Jerusalem on these occasions, through the valley of Baca, Psal. 84.6. we hear nothing of their pains to carry along their infants, which must have been their care if by Divine appointment the Paschal Lamb as a Sacrament had been ordained for infants. 3. The Passeover as Manna, and the Rock is considered two ways. 1. As common food, and means of present livelihood and subsistence. 2. As visible pledges of God's abode among them, and protection of them. As common food, and means of present livelihood, infants did eat of the Manna, and drink of the water of the Rock, and so also did their , Num. 20.8. and young ones (as soon as able to digest it) of the Passeover, when they were present with the rest, of the household: But as visible pledges of God's abode among them, and protection of them, or remembrance of their present deliverances; only professed believers, and neither infants, nor bruit creatures could make use of it, and in this sense only it was a Sacrament: so that we see infants title, and also their bar to this Ordinance.  
For those that by Providence are denied the use of reason, 

Natural Idiots.  
Distracted persons are uncapable   as natural Idiots, their case is the same with infants, as also those that are best of it, as distracted persons, and those that by age, or disease are grown as Children: Thomas Aquinas in the place quoted distinguishes of distracted persons, some wholly want the use of reason, and some have only a weak use of it; as some see not at all, and some have a weak sight. The latter in some case being restored in part to the use of reason, he would not have to be denied; In this case prudence must judge, in case before this stroke, by the hand of God upon them, they were judged meet for this Ordinance, as they were for other civil employments, and now upon recovery or upon their intervals (as many times it happens) are able in some good measure to manage their business; as way is given to them in one, so it is not to be denied them in the other.  
For those that never made improvement of their reason in spirituals, but being men of years, are still children in knowledge, they have their title or fundamental right, 
Grossly ignorant ones a rain an incapacity.  (as I said before of infants) but they are no more meet for this Ordinance than infants; such I mean, that for the time might be teachers, and yet have need to be taught which be the first principles of the Oracles of God. If I should demand, why boys and girls as soon as they can eat of the Bread, and drink of the Cup, be not received to this Supper; but all in nonage by general consent exempted, and therefore none offer themselves? No reason (to me imaginable) can be given, but their inability of improvement of it to their Spiritual advantage; years of discretion are expected, and then they are to be admitted: and this is generally acknowledged to stand with reason, And what reason is there that without any discretion they should be admitted at the usual year of discretion? At one and twenty years' men arrive at the age to enter upon their possessions: yet when it may appear that at these years they have not abilities to manage it for their benefit, the Law hath provided that they shall not be entrusted with it. The ignorance before mentioned in the several kinds was ignorantia purae negationis, They understand not, because God hath denied them understanding: It is their defect or affliction, but it is not their sin; this that we now mention, is ignorantia pravae dispositionis, a withstanding of the light that is tendered and offered. All of these are in an equal incapacity of benefit by the Sacrament: but these last in a sinful incapacity. And when the former, whose ignorance is not their sin, are confessed to be uncapable, I do not see how sin can put the latter into a better capacity of it. When a Covenant was entered in Israel, Nehem. 9.10. all sorts and sexes having knowledge and understanding entered, Nehem. 10.28. If any had sworn to the articles, and had not at all understood them, such an oath would have done no service; therefore it was provided, that only they that understood, subscribed, and sealed. They that receive this seal, and consequently put to their seal, when they know not the articles of it, or any use of these Sacramental signs, they see not themselves at all obliged, when the Covenant of Israel was to be sealed understandingly, the Covenant of the Gospel is not to be sealed ignorantly: A book in the hand of the unlearned that cannot read, is of as much use as this Sacrament to him that doth not understand. It is to these, as the painted frontispieces that we see in many books, without any key to open them; they be full of mysteries, but the ignorant beholder sees nothing but an outside. He may gaze an hour together, and be as wise as before. Such an one sees bread and wine, but what they mean, he knows nothing, nor any proportion between sign and thing signified, or what the Ministers tender, or his own receiving speaks to him. These may (perhaps) have some blind devotion towards this Sacrament (which Popish Schoolmen judge sufficient, if not obstructed with mortal sin) by reason of the Church's custom to receive it, and some high opinion of some hidden and unknown virtue in it, but it is not the least account that they can give of any necessity of it, as a reason of their devotion towards it, being scarce able to produce any command for it, not knowing either the author, time, or end of the institution of it; much less are they able to understand any need their souls have of it. When the Corinthians came unworthily to the Lords Table, all is laid upon this, that they discerned not the Lord's body: I do not think that this is alone the ignorant man's sin: All are in their measure guilty that do not considerately observe the glory of that Ordinance, and of Christ in it. A man of rude behaviour, in a great Personages presence, is told that he knows not where he is, or to whom he speaks, when he well enough knows, and needs no information; but doth not consider his distance: but I say there is a necessity of that guilt in all that are ignorant. All do not consider as they ought, that know; but none that does not know, can consider. This is to be done in remembrance of Christ, which contains in it a calling into our thoughts all the work of his sacrificing himself for sin, which is never done by the man that knows not sin, that knows not the Law, which is transgressed by sin; that neither knows the nature of sin, nor the guilt of attending it; that hath not any possible experimental sense of the danger of it, and that remains ignorant of Christ that redeems from it; being able to give no account why the blood of Christ, rather than the blood of any other should take away sin; or how this death hath any such satisfying temitting virtue, as to answer the Justice of God, or merit his Grace; neither knowing the Person of Christ in his humanity, or Deity, nor able to give account which Person in the Trinity took our nature, and gave himself a ransom: perhaps they will say that Christ was God, and Man; and as ready to say that the Father, the Holy Ghost, were God and man in like sort: knowing as little or less of his offices, what he does as a King, or what he does as a Priest, or what he does as a Prophet, for his Church. If you look on the Sacrament as a spiritual medicine, they never knew their soul's sickness, nor ever understood any healing virtue in it. If you look upon it as spiritual food, for the strengthening of graces, they never knew what hunger was, or any strengthening virtue that here can be found: look upon it as a spiritual cordial, and they never had sense of sin to any swooning fit, nor yet knew any restaurative virtue to be found in it: look upon it as an heart-breaking, soul-melting Ordinance, as the Law never discovered to them the danger of sin, so they see nothing here held out for the aggravation of sin. They see what in course the Minister does, and what the Communicants do; But any end, or reason why he, or they do it, they know nothing. If the Word which is added to the element to make up a Sacrament, were a bare Word of consecration, to be muttered over the elements for their change, so that the bare participation would serve turn, (as Physic works without any regard of the Patient's knowledge or ignorance) it were somewhat. But the Sacrament (as hath been said) is a seal appendent to the Covenant of God, and there is no improvement of it, other wise then as the Covenant and the Promise is improved, (which must be known before it can be believed and applied) ignorance is a necessary bar to all benefit by it. Though I account it the weakest thing in the world, to make ignorance of this nature in the parent, any just ground of non-admission of the Infant to Baptism. There is no necessity to conclude, that the child (who is born, and to be bred, in a valley of visions, and interested in Ordinances able to save the soul,) should unavoidably be ever held with Parents in blindness; yet I can Judge no otherwise, but that it is a just bar to the parents, when it is enough for the Infant to be passive, in his first admission, the parent must act and make use of his light, for further growth and confirmation. Some (I know) have said, Who can tell but the person deemed to be ignorant, and heretofore such indeed, yet making address to the Lords Table, and there hearing that mystery laid open, and the use of those elements unfolded, and cleared, may in that very time receive competent instruction, and be put into a capacity for this Ordinance knowingly to partake of it. Whether or no there be any absolute possibility in this, I will not determine. I am sure there is little moral probability, or possibility, that a man that hath lived under Ordinances 20, 30, 40, 50, perhaps more years, and all of this time hath been confessedly ignorant; and upon that account, in an incapacity of this Sacrament for his profit: that now at this time, in a few minutes he should grow such a proficient as to fit himself for it; And in case any such thing, if not by miracle, yet, to wonder and amazement, should happen, it will be little loss for such a one, to delay his actual participation for once, that he may give an account of his profiting, and upon a further progress in knowledge have admittance the next time with greater satisfaction. If any do desire to know the minimum quod sic, where is the lowest pitch of knowledge, that will put a man into a capacity of improvement of this Ordinance to his advantage? this of necessity must be lest to ministerial Christian prudence, in which there must be much of care and tenderness, not to make blear-eyedness, blindness, nor a dim-light midnight darkness, where the wretchedness of sin is known, and Christ (who is our remedy) so understood, that account can be given of his person, and that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved, and the Sacrament so understood, as that Christ crucified is there held but under those elements, and tendered to believers: I durst not pass a vote to have such a one excluded let this be got out of them, in language of any kind, such that we may discern that they know it, though they can scarce express it: in which also many circumstances should be prudently weighed, as the natural ingeny of the party, if ripe in other things, it is an evidence of affected ignorance, to be havy and dull here: The means that they have enjoyed for help in their knowledge, the longer at School, the better the Master, the more inexcusable the truant: The growth of years that he had upon him, when he first manifested a care to know, age is unteachable in comparison, of youth, a low measure of light sometimes draws on more strength of affections; But where sin is not seen, nor Christ known, and consequently the soul is so in the dark, that no use can be made of this ordinance, for spiritual advantage, the person may justly be judged to be in a present incapacity. In which for the most part, it will be more safe to delay, then deny to persuade the party to forbear a little time: and in the mean while to commend means of further growth, by all means to endeavour his help, that he may be fairly drawn on, and not driven back from this Supper.  
In the next place, those that resolvedly will not make improvement of this Supper, but wilfully put a bar to their benefiting by it, are to be taken into consideration. And his is done,  
1. By error entertained in their judgements, by a taint in the faith that they profess.  
2. By viciousness of life, or a profligate course.  
Now, either of both these (to speak a few words of them jointly) are either such that are so in private and secret, or else openly and professedly. Those that are indeed such, though in way most secret, in the present posture as they stand, are in an equal incapacity to make inprovement of this ordinance, with him that most openly proclaims it; Judas was unfit when he did communicate, as well as Barrabas, if he had communicated. But of these the dispensers of this ordinance can take no cognizance, 
Men wicked in secret cannot be debarred from the Sacrament.  they cannot follow men into their chambers, and closerts much less can they make a scrutiny into their hearts. Here may be a just bar, when yet none may justly debar them. Here there is almost an universal agreement; those that pretend to the the greatest care in their admissions, not dissenting, though it give no small check to that glorious homogeneity of which they speak in the Churches of Christ, and utterly overthrows the definition given by many of the Church visible. He that pleases may read Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae; disput. 67. Sect. 4. putting this to the question, whether it be lawful to deny the Sacrament to a secret sinner desiring it publicly, and by many reasons determining it in the negative, as also in the following Section, resolving the question: who is to be accounted a public, and who a private offender? And what is spoken by him of sin, may be applied to error.  
Those that are openly such, 
Excommunicate persons are to be judged to be in a present inaptitude for the Sacrament.  by sufficient detection of their error or crime, are either such that are under the Church's censure, and stand excommunicate, or else they are such that the Church doth tolerate, whether because that censure is not in use in the place, or otherwise. Those that are under the Church's censure upon account of that sentence, must be deemed in an incapacity, when the sentence, whether for error or for scandal, hath had its due work for reformation (as upon the incestuous Corinthian) it must be supposed that the Church will again restore them to their freedom: in the mean space, whether the Church hath proceeded right or wrong, be over rigid or just in her censure, it is not in any one single Minister to determine. There is a famous story related by Mr. Hooker. in His Ecclesiastical Policy, of one Bertelius, that was excommunicated by the sentence of the Eldership of Geneva, and had procured from the Senate of the place, by common consent, under their seal, a relaxation, further decreeing (with strange absurdity, as the Author censures it) that it should belong to the same Senate, to give final judgement in matter of excommunication, and to absolve whom it pleased them. Calvin hearing the report of it, said, Before this decree shall take place, either my blood or banishment shall sign it. And two days before the Sacrament, kill me if ever this hand shall reach forth that which is holy, to them whom the Church hath judged despisers. Men under public sentence must be deemed to be such, as by sentence they are adjudged. But for others that stand free from censure, their present aptitude for this ordinance is to be considered.  
First, 
Error in judgement, and wickedness in life, equally indispose to this ordinance.  As to them that are in error of judgement some (otherwise sufficiently austere) would have all indulgence shown, and men of all judgements admitted, enlarging liberty of conscience so fare, that it should exempt men (respective to their judgements) from any sentence secular, or Ecclesiastical; not considering that as we find one ordered tO be sentenced for lewdness, 1 Cor. 5. so also others under the same sentence for errors, 1 1 Tim. 1.20. 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. And concealing (if it may be) that the same words that are produced by them, for cleansing the Churches of wicked persons, 1. Cor. 5.6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, is by the Apostle applied in so many words, to set out the danger of error, Gal. 6.9. upon which account, doubtesse it is that some that profess so much zeal against looseness of life and plead for so much indulgence, in difference in judgement, ever quote those words out of Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, concealing that text to the Galatians, that it may not appear that there is a like danger in either; But whilst some are over indulgent, others must not be too severe, but carry an equal hand in regard both of errors in judgement and in practice.  
As for errors in judgement, they may be either immediately against these Sacramental ordinances or against Christ the sum and substance of them, and all Gospel promises in Christ. Errors of the first kind are, 1. Theirs that are above ordinances, either upon pretence of the Spirits immediate work, without any agent or instrument on earth, so that there needs not, either Word, prayer, or Sacraments, the opinion of Swenkfeldius; or else because all is grown corrupt, since the Apostles times, that a company cannot be found with whom they may communicate, as Musculus speaks of one in his Common places, that had not received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper of twelve ears, because he could find no pure Church in which to observe it. I fear shortly we shall have many such; But we need not here trouble ourselves with these, seeing of their own accord, they keep at a distance from us. 2. Theirs that look upon the Sacraments as matters either antiquate and obsolete, as belonging to the Church's infancy, in which it was indulged, those carnal observances, too low (as they think) for grown Christians; or else as things of mere indifferency, which may be used or neglected; such are unmeet to be received. If any such be detected, seeing though the substance of religion be not in the Sacrament so much as in the Covenant, yet a man of so low an opinion of this ordinance, of necessity debars himself of any benefit of it. a diffident opinion of a medicine, or conceit against it, is said to hinder the working; I am sure it will obstruct the working of the Sacraments, which have no innate physical virtue, nor any other efficacy further than our understanding, and faith makes improvement. For errors against Christ, the sum and substance of the Sacraments, as every error is some way against him who is the foundation and carries on the whole work of our salvation) that which I have delivered, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 232. (where I made it my business, to give rules concerning separation, when we are to stay with a Church, and when to leave it) may here be taken into consideration, weighing both the kind and degree of these errors, and the place that they have got in the affections and resolutions. Those errors that necessitate us to leave a Church, when it is in the whole face of it tainted and polluted; may justly give occasion to deny a member access, in case he tender himself to this ordinance. These (as hath been said) are either such that render Christ in an uncapacity to be our Mediator and Saviour, or such that are inconsistent in whole or in part with his Mediatorship; of the former kind are those that are against his person. 1. Those that impugn the Godhead of Christ, such that though they give him the glory to be above Angels, yet will have him to be no more than a creature, a God in title and place, as are Magistrates, not in nature or power; an opinion that involves the Apostolic Church, and all Churches in succession, in Idolatry; giving the honour of God, the worship due to God, unto him who by nature is no God; a doctrine that will make Christ an impotent, and not an omnipotent head, too weak for his work, to govern the world, to bring under his enemies. 2. Those that deny his manhood, as having not taken our flesh, and so no suitable head, but a fantastic, or seeming body. Those that are against his Mediatorship, are either such that obscure, or some way eclipse it, (as every error doth that is any way considerable) or such that race, if not utterly overthrow it, in some of the necessary parts of it, his Kingdom, Priesthood or Prophetical office. These are overthrown either directly, in terms of full opposition, or else by consequence; and this either is immediate and evident, (the truth being confessed, they cannot be denied) or else the consequence more remote, and not so easily discerned. These things being premised, we must bring it home to our purpose. 1. Where fundamental truths are not only questioned, doubted, and disputed; but abjured and denied, errors directly, 
Errors directly against the foundation, or by clear consequence, opposing fundamental truths, tender the pe●son uncapable of benefit by the Sacrament.  or by immediate clear consequence introduced, so that the fundamental truth cannot be known, but the error must be seen; Here is such a flaw in the Covenant, that no improvement can be made of the seal, to allude to that of the Psalmist, Foundations are destroyed and what can the stewards of the mysteries of God do? Such a soul hath framed to itself, such a Christ as the Gospel never held out for his salvation: These are such (of whom the Apostle speaks, Col. 2.19.) that hold not the head, from which all the body by joints and hands, having nourishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God: and how can they then find any spiritual nourishment? When they thus withdraw from Christ, they are justly denied to sit at his Table. But when the error is of an inferior nature, as neither rendering Christ in an incapacity to be a Saviour, nor yet wholly inconsistent with the work of his Mediatorship; or at least, not such directly, but only by way of consequence; and that not immediate and evident, but more obscure, and remote: so that it may justly be hoped, that in case the consequence were seen, the conclusion that they draw would be best, rather than the principle of truth denied, the case is then otherwise. As we might live in such a Church, in case doctrine of that kind were received and taught; so we may not refuse such a member, making his farther conviction, our business; where ignorance may stand with grace, there error is not wholly inconsistent with it: And where there is any fair possibility that Christ may be, there this Ordinance is not to be denied. And in case the opinion entertained, and contended for, be yet more soul, so that we have just cause, as the Apostle of the Galatians, to say, that their doctrine is inconsistent with grace; yet being not (as we can discern) fixedly settled, and resolutely received, and concluded upon; but with hesitancy and wavering, their faith rather staggered then destroyed; these should not hastily be refused; But as the Apostle gives counsel respective (as I take it) to private converse, After once or twice admonition reject: so let it be here, make essay to regain a brother rather than lose him. It cannot be conceived that the Apostle when he wrote his Epistle to the Churches of Galatia, would upon the account of their error how dangerous soever, have discontinued this ordinance as long as he saw any hopes of their reestablishment; though they were in eminent danger to be dischurched, yet he would continue Church-ordinances.  

Men of a resolved profligate course of life, are uncapable of benefit by the Sacrament.  As for those that put a bar to their benefiting by the Sacrament by their vicious life or profligate course, most men's verdict is soon of all other against them, with the Poets Peribomius, Morbum gressu incessuque fatentur, they have their faults written in their foreheads. And certain it is, that those men that are in their sin, and resolved for sin, in present can receive no benefit by the Sacrament.  
First, They that look upon Christ to receive benefit in the Sacrament look upon him pierced by their sins, and that withal sorrow and grief of spirit: The greatest grief in Family or Commonwealth is borrowed to express it, Zach. 12.10, 11. They shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that in bitterness for his firstborn: In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Had adrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. Which was the mourning upon occasion of Josiah's slaughter, 2 Chron. 35.24. But these now look upon him suffering for sins with all pleasurable delights and content in sin: they see him under all this burden for our trangression; and in the mean time, take delight to add to the weight of it, and so stand at the greatest distance from acceptance.  
Secondly, They that worthily show forth his dearh, and acceptably keep a memorial of it, will not without horror and trembling, have a thought of drawing upon themselves the guilt of it; we would hot bear the guilt of the blood of the meanest peasant in the world, not of such a one that Job would not set with the dogs of his flock, Job 30.1. Such may with David, Deliver me from blood guiltiness: How much less would we bear the guilt of the Prince of life? To have this in our thoughts, that he must be our Judge, we have been his murderers, may indeed set pricks in the heart, as it did in Peter's hearers, Act. 2.37. These men of sin that come to the Sacrament in sin, wilfully, furiously draw this guilt upon themselves, and become accessary to it: He that slightly passeth over the death of an innocent person, making a small matter of it, either he makes the innocent, to be indeed nocent, one that hath justly deserved to be slain, who being slain deserves so little regard; or at least he makes himself nocent, breeding ajust suspicion that he was, or would have been consenting to that man's death, saith M. Pemble, pag. 33. These in the sleighest way pass it over, not with the least evidence of zeal or indignation against it.  
Thirdly, They that judge Christ fit to be numbered with malefactors and transgressors, discern not his body, do not judge of him according to his glory and excellency, and so cannot with comfort come to the Lords Table: But these judge him fit to be numbered with transgressors, when in their foulest sins they dare join themselves to him, and have communion with him: This is their case that come in sin to the Lords Table.  
Here some may object, that according to the principles laid down, the Ordinance may be an hopeful means to take such off from their ways of sin; having previous light to see what they do hear they may see high aggravation of their wickedness; An heart-breaking, a soul-melting Ordinance being set before them, there may be all hopes that it may be efficacious unto soul-melting and heart-breaking; here they may see what their ugly sins have done, and who it is that their sins have pierced and crucified, whereof a Publican or Harlot may easilier be convinced then a Pharisee or justiciary. And Christ being here set out both bearing sin, and a sacrifice for sin, the sight of their just demerit in his suffering, and hopes of freedom from guile by his bloodshed; there may be expectation of conviction, and contrition, and consequently somewhat at least done towards conversion: and upon this account some would have the worst of men admitted to the view, though not to participation in this Ordinance; Others taking advantage of this admission of them to the view of it, and knowing it to be a novel thing, that any should gaze, and not partake, they conclude they are to be admitted unto both. The further improvement of it by them seems at least some way hopeful, when to the ignorant and erroneous it is impossible.  
That I may speak my whole thoughts to this thing, somewhat is necessary to be premised, both by way of concession and assertion. By way of concession it must be yielded,  
1. That there is more weight in this objection then personally hath been acknowledged, which I see upon conference with many godly learned is more and more discerned. It is not so easy to evince all hopelessness of good in a bad man's receiving the Sacrament, as in a man that is grossly ignorant; no text so fully and clearly to any grounds to put a bar to men in sin, as to those that are in ignorance; neither doth the nature of the Sacrament so clearly evince it. 2. Arguments usually brought to conclude against their admission to this Ordinance that are in ways of sin, and under no sentence of excommunication, seem to me scarce concluding. It were too long to name the Arguments, and point out the exceptions: Some of them also perilously ensnaring, and upon several accounts, 1. Their Arguments conclude equally against such men's, hearing, praying, and attendance upon any other Ordinance, as they do against their participation of the Lords Supper; the same Medium wherewith they conclude against one, concludes against all, as hath been shown. 2. These Arguments intended: only against the scandalous to conclude a necessity of their exclusion equally, conclude against all that are not actually in grace, when yet the disputants themselves will not yield, that either actual grace or positive signs of such grace should be any rule in such proceed, as to instance; some say that Ministers in holding out the Sacrament to wicked persons whom they have excommunicated in the Word, showing that no unrighteous person shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, they absolve them in the Sacrament; and if this have any force in it, it must conclude in this manner; None may be admitted but these that may be actually absolved, and while they assume that the wicked may not be actually absolved, others will alike assume, that no unregenerate man, how knowing civil and unblameable soever, may be absolved. And the same guilt that these in their reasonings conclude that Church-officers bring upon themselves in admission of the scandalous, they contract that admit of any ungenerate ones.  
By way of assertion it must be delivered, 1. 
2. By way of assertion.  That the fundamental proper right unto, or interest in, this Ordinance is not questioned, Church members lay a just claim to Church Ordinances, visible members to visible Ordinances; If this be once denied we are in inextricable snares. 2. Here can be no such profaneness in promiscuous administration of this Ordinance, as the putting of God's seal to blank paper: There is no blank, but a name legibly written where there is a Covenant entered; and that there is a Covenant entered with such, as it cannot be denied by any that will confess that the Scripture should be umpeir; so it is yielded by all of those that baptise the infants of such persons. The first right of parents that are such is taken for granted, when their children are thus received. 3. It is then an orderly edifying and prudential way in administration that is here enquired after, and this admits of a greater latitude than Covenant, and no Covenant regenerate or, non-regenerate in which if an hairs breadth should miss there were a transgression; as we discern the person to whom it is meet to give only milk, and to whom to give strong meat, so we judgeof those that we admit only to the Word and Prayer, and those that we admit to the Lords Table. And though I see not concluding strength in several Arguments produced, but suppose they are grounded on mistakes (which also apt to lead into danger, otherwise I had been silent) yet I cannot recede from that ancient received opinion of Fathers, Schoolmen, Protestants, whether of the Episcapal, Presbyterial, or Congragational judgement; that scandalous person is are justly dibarred from this Ordinance, seeing any possible hopes of gaining good is very low if any which yet is all that can be pretended tor the expediency; and Arguments on the other hand for the inconvenience and danger, are many and weighty. These Sacramental signs are not barely teaching, but engaging signs; and not barely signs, but seals, in which by acception of these seals, we engage to God to make good his terms and propositions. The Minister of Christ therefore hath little encouragement, and slender hope: to tender it to such, or to admit such to it, that are in a continual way of Covenant-breaking, and proclaim to all their resolutions in it. A continued dissolute course of life speaks no better than a full purpose, and settled resolution for sin; it can then little avail such a one to take anew these symbols and badges of a Christian profession upon him, and put himself on an hypocritical profession of  service of Christ, making discovery of such resolution, it doth appear to be in vain to give this way and freedom to him. Knights of the post, that have often forsworn themselves, are not by any prudent Judge permitted to swear; and those that have so often desperately broken Covenant, and wilfully gone against all former engagements, and still palpably appearing that way, are as unfit to engagae; And the more clearly any that is produced as deponent appears to be such, with more full resolution any prudential Judge will except against it.  
And whereas it may be objected, that such upon the grounds here laid may as well be admitted to the Lords Table, as to hear Sermons, join in Prayers, observe Fasts: They are engaging Ordinances whilst they are done by persons in Covenant, as is receiving of this Sacrament.  
Answ. First, They are not certainly so highly and explicitly engaging; The very name Christian is an engaging tye indeed to Christian duties and ways; To enjoy any further Christian privilege is more; But to take these pledges on the terms proposed, hath ever been accounted the highest.  
Secondly, Though the Sacrament serve as hath been said for aggravation of sin, yet as the Word is the alone means in the discovery of sin, so it hath infinitely the advantage in the aggravation of it. The Sacrament doth nothing at all in this work without the Word, and the Word does exceedingly much more than the Sacrament; and when it is clear, that the Word for so long hath wrought nothing for conviction, there is little hopes that the Sacrament will work any thing to aggravation.  
Thirdly, As the hope of good is either low or none at all, so the danger on the other hand is high and full of terror, as we see it by the Apostle aggravated, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28. The unworthy receiving of the Word is indeed of danger, and a savour of death to death; But the hopes are fair by hearing to be brought to worthiness. The danger of unworthy Communicants is far greater, and the hopes little, if any at all.  
Fourthly, The scandal here taken is exceeding great, and though happily sometimes weak ones take more offence than is given, and are offended above reason, yet when there is so little of good to be hoped in that in which they are so scandalised, and so much danger in the offence, it is by no means to be neglected.  
Fifthly, There is more fair hopes of good to be done them upon their denial then upon admittance to this Ordinance; when they see their own unworthiness observed, and those proceed upon it, they may more seriously reflect upon their unworthiness. When a Physician shall forbid some meats upon observation of a patient's disease, it is a way to make him more sensible that he is in danger; so when the Minister of Christ upon observation of men's ways, shall deny this Ordinance, there may be hopes of an answerable work to bring the person to some more sad and serious reflections upon his own state and condition. If any think that these arguments singly considered, not to be of that strength to evince a non-admission of men of openly sinful courses to this Ordinance, I shall answer in the words of the Assembly of Divines, unto the reasons of the Dsslenting brethren against the instance of many Congragations in the Church of Ephesus: Arguments of necessity are to be answerable to the things they prove, which as well holds in't hsis of expediency or inexpediency, to which I speak, as it doth in matter of fact, of which they speak; and so say they, Though the several particulars of this proof should be singly but probabilities, yet being joined together make a sufficient proof, as many concurring likelihoods in Courts amount to a good evidence, and many lesser stars make up a Galaxia. They are with me at least so far prevailing, That I believe that such are worthily excluded; and as they do not come without scandal, so they cannot come to their advantage. In case after a former way in sin, or sad fall to the scandal of the Church, upon admonition there appear, convictions, and serious promises, the case is otherwise; there is all cause then to take in such a one to this Ordinance, in which his sin appears in the highest aggravation, and a tender and offer is made, and the way held forth of pardon and forgiveness. Many of the Ancients were hasty enough to give the Sacrament to men at the instant of their death, as a Viaticum to heaven, when it was all too late to make any right improvement of it: But we are in the mean space too slow, and overrigid, in admission of professed penitents to it, as appears in many examples. That of Serapion is notable mentioned by Eusebius, who had lived a great while in the Church, without blame, but at last fell in time of persocution; And often desiring to be received again by the Church, no man harkened to him, till at last being sick, and ready to die, he sent a boy suddenly to fetch a Priest, who was found sick by the messenger, that he could not come to him: But he gave the boy a little of the Sacrament, and bid him put it into the man's mouth; who when he had tasted of it, presently died. That was expected here from the Sacrament, which it wanted, viz. some hidden power to carry up the soul for heaven and glory; and in the mean space that was not seen for which it was instituted, A provocation to repentance, and corroboration, and strengthening of the soul in ways of holiness; when there was hopes of good, to accrue by it, it was denied; and when all hopes were passed, it was indulged. After-ages appeared more facile, but then profession of repentance was turned into a form of auricular confession; they might confess and take penance, and be fit for the Sacrament; and sin as soon as it was over, and go again to confession; That formality of confession put the Sacrament as they thought into a posture of working, which sin unconfest did hinder. To deny penitents, where there is any fair and possible hopes, by reason of conviction wrought, is their sad discouragement; we see them lame, and weak, and we deny them a Crutch that is provided for them. And to receive obstinate ones, that without remorse carry it on in wickedness, seems dangerously to strengthen them in their ways; and not at all to help them out of their ungodly courses. From this that hath been spoken, a fair answer therefore may be given to the arguments before past by, concerning any power in this Ordinance for conversion. And first, for that from the, Directory where the ignorant, scandalous, and profane that live in any sin, or offence against their conscience, are warned not to presume, to come nigh that holy Table, it is meant of those that purposely resolve to hold their sin, and doubtless that purpose standing, here is no comfort to be put into their hands. It is no other than that counsel of our Saviour, Matth. 5.23, 24. If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remember'st that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first he reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Sacraments will not be accepted from that hand, where malice is seated in the heart, and implacably continued; but it follows not but that where the soul is startled, and such resolutions for sin do not appear, this maybe a means further to awake; and provoke to a resolution against it. As to that of Communicating to Heathens, Pagans, enough hath been said before, It can neither be done with allowance, nor any possible benefit. And for Excommunicate persons, they are supposed to be in an obstinate way of wickedness. The last is only worthy of consideration. That Ordinance that is not communicable nor lawful to be administered to any known impenitent sinner under that notion, but only as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not communicable nor lawful to be administered to any known impenitent sinner, etc. Ergo. Here I might justly except against that opposition that is still put between converting, and sealing Ordinances; as though it must be taken for granted; that not sealing Ordinance could have any hand in, or towards conversion. Gods seal added to his promise, may by the blessing of God be serviceable here, as well as his oath, added for confirmation; but this is grounded upon the mistake of the way of the Sacraments sealing, in which I have sufficiently expressed myself. For answer to the Argument itself, The major Proposition is not true, unless it be understood with just limitation; Reproof is an Ordinance that may well be reckoned among those that work to conversion, being the way of life, Prov. 6.23. and called the reproof of life, Prov. 13.31. an excellent oil, Psal. 141.5. and upon that account to be used towards a brother in sin, Levit. 19.17. And yet prudence must be used in the application of it. Every man is not a meet subject to get good by it. There is no such wariness explicitly required in the dispensing of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as there is in the application of reproofs; nor yet any so punctually pointed out not to communicate, as there is not to be reproved. The Wiseman's observation is, that He that reproveth a scorner, getteth to himself shame; and he that rebuketh a wicked man, getteth to himself a blot: Therefore he gives advice upon it, ver. 8. Reprove, not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Every Ordinance therefore that is for conversion, is not meet to be applied to every man in an unconverted condition: Rebukes set out the danger of sin, and the Lords Supper is for the aggravation of it, in holding forth the sad effects of it, yet neither of both meet to be applied to all in sin. That charge of our Saviour is deliveted in an universal way, Cast not holy things to dogs, nor pearls before swine. The Proposition there included is general. Nothing that is holy, nothing that is of the honour of a pearly, is to be cast to any dog or swine; whence we may assume; But there is no converting Ordinance, but it is of the number of holy things: Ergo. No converting Ordinances are to be given to any that are dogs and swine, which way soever any think to extricate themselves, by putting limits to any term in the Proposition, they must necessarily be brought to yield, that all converting Ordinances are not promiscuously to be applied to all in sin; But choice must be made unto whom they may with profit be delivered. And thus I have spoke my full thoughts of the subjects of this Ordinance, concluding without the least hesitancy or scruple, That all in Covenant have a fundamental, or first right to it, a jus ad rem, and making it my business to find out who they be that may be admitted, in expectation of benefit by it, and who are justly detained from it; In which I trust I have given just offence on no hand, either in giving way to the admission of any that according to any Scripture-rule, or just deduction thence should be held back, and so hardening them in any way of ignorance or sin, in giving them any encouragement. I have a witness in heaven, that I intended nothing in this but to find out the mind of Jesus Christ, and to have this Ordinance so administered, that the edification of the visible Members of Jesus Christ might be most prompted, and godliness encouraged. And in case that this which I have done, may not be serviceable this way, I desire that it may prove an abortive. I know there is a distinction used by some, and applied to admission both of Infants to Baptism, and men of growth to the Lords Table; that there is a twofold title, one in foro Dei, in the Court of Heaven, and here only the Infants of the elect regenerate have title (as they say) to Baptism, and the elect regenerate themselves to the Lords Supper. The other in foro Ecclesiastico, in the Court of the Church, and here all tiie Infants of professed believers have right in Baptism, and the knowing and not scandalous, though unregenerate, to the Lords Supper. By the favour of which; distinction, those of that judgement and I may be well enough agreed; and as I think there is small difference about the persons to be admitted to this Supper, yet for the distinction, I confess I do not understand it; Both the Sacraments being Church-Ordinances, I suppose God keeps no other Court about them, save the Court of his Church. If they have this right in foro Ecclesiastico, than it is the mind of God that the Church should admit them, and so they have right in foro Dei likewise. And I marvel how those that bring this within the power of jurisdiction, can here apply this distinction, seeing it overthrows that which they apply hither, Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Many that are admitted ma want acceptance in heaven; but having their right, and putting in no visible bar, their confessed Ecclesiastical right concludes, that their admission is with acceptance of heaven; and my great business hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admittance, that their benefiting is possible that are thus admitted, And here I might take into consideration the opinion of those that would have a promiscuous admittance, and indeed I had it in my thoughts to have given a brief answer to Mr. Humphrey's Scriptures, and Reasons, so much by some applauded, and so strongly bottomed, Because all Communicants must drink of the Cup, therefore all must communicate, with some limits, which being yielded, as I have proved they must, will draw the limit necessarily, yet somewhat more narrow. But this is by one hand already done, and I have lately had the happiness to see a second learned Piece fitted for the Press; dealing largely in it, which I doubt not may both satisfy the Adversary and the Reader, so that my pains may well be spared; only I cannot but take notice of his fourth Reason for a promiscuous admission, which he faith will arise from the vanity, formality, impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance: Look to the heart of all these separations, they come to nothing: For put the case you will have a gathered company, I pray who do you account indeed to be fit and worthy receivers? If not all that make profession, as we do mixedly, than those only that have an interest in Christ, and are true believers. Well, but how will you be able to know them? The heart of man is deceitful above all things; who can know it? And if we can hardly discover our own hearts, how shall we discern others? so that all will come, but to these that have the fairest show, those that seem such, and you cannot be secured, but there may, and will be some hypocrites; and so this true partaking as all one body, and one blood, in such an unmixed communion, as you pretend vanishes, and there can be no such matter: But now if men stand here upon a formal purity, and will have the outward purest Church they can, they go to separating again, and never leave separating and separating, (as we have daily testimony) till they are quite separated one from another; Even as in the peeling of an Onion, where you may peel, and peel, till you have brought all to nothing, unless to a few tears perchance, with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing. To this I answer, If the rule to take in this gathered company, be interest in Christ, to take in those of a saving interest, and refuse all others, if regenerate, than he shall be admitted; in case unregenerate, than he shall be refused; then I shall yield his conclusion, I shall leave that distinction to him, that knows what is in man. I should fear many a man of non-interest might be let in, and many a man of true interest refused; a glozing tongue may here carry it, further than an upright heart. And for his next of a formal purity, to get the Church as pure as we can; though this aught to be our endeavour, to get the Church as pure, not formally, but really, as possible; yet I make it no rule: But following the Apostles rule, to do, as all things else, so this, to edification; though it be a matter of much care and prudence, yet not vain and impossible in a good measure, to determine it; upon this rule I pitch, till I hear something that may take me off it.   

SECT. XVI. An enquiry into the power authorised to judge of men's meetness for the Lords Supper.  
THe adequate subject of Sacraments being found out, and some discovery made of those, that according to Scripture principles stand in a present aptitude for actual admission; A great question yet remains. Who must judge of this fitness, 
Who are to judge of men's present aptitude.  so as to approve of men as such, and Authoritarively to refuse, or pass by others; in which we may seem to be much in the dark, finding no one expressly set up for that work, nor any Scripture-precedent of any that have taken upon themselves such power. And herein men have been very different in their thoughts; 
The various claims that are made to this power.  The Church of England heretofore hath vested the Minister in sole power, as appears in Canon 26. which provides. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy communion, of his cure or flock, which be openly known to live in sin, notorious without repentance nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours, untiil they shall be reconciled. As also the Rubric to the same purpose. It is true that those that made it their business to screw up Episcopal power to that height that it could not bear, did interpret this of such notorious offenders, that by the Ordinary had been so adjudged, and under present censure, expressly contrary to the very words of Canon 27. requiring every Minister so repelling any such upon complaint or being required by the Ordinary to signify the cause unto him and therein obey his direction; In case of such a preceding censure upon the person thus refused, he had beforehand his direction, and complaint is then supposed to be made only for his obedience, in refusing those that according to command given, were to be denied. The Schoolmen generally go this way, putting the sole power into the hands of a Minister, not so much disputing it, (so fare as I have read) as taking it for granted. Suarez putting it to the question, 
a Utrum teneantur Ministri hujus Sacramenti non dare illud homini existenti in p●c●ato mortali?  Whether the Ministers of this Sacrament are bound not to give it to a man in mortal sin? answers, 
b respondetur certum esse habere Ministros hujus Sacramenti hanc obligationem simpliciter & absolute loquendo.  That they are simply and absolutely under such an obligation, mentioning none that are over them, or assistant to them in it. And in his first reason he saith, That 
c Ex quibus sequitur primo, hanc obligationem oriri ex ipsa lege naturali ac divina supposita tali Sacramenti institutione, & potestate ac munere commisso Sacerdotibus.  this obligation doth arise from natural and divine Law an institution of the Sacrament being supposed, and such commission given to the Ministers; so that he doth no more question the Minister's authority in this thing, than he doth the institution of the Sacrament itself, Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae, quaest. 89. disput. 67. sect. 1. And Thomas puts the question 
d Utrum Sacerdos debeat denegare corpus Christi peccatori petenti?  whether a Priest ought to give the body of Christ to a sinner seeking it? part. tertia, quaest. 80. Art. 6 without mention of any other in power for it. The Fathers were also of the same judgement, we need not quote testimonies from them, of exclusion of men from the Sacraments, he that will be furnished. let him read Mr. Gillespy Aaron's rod, lib. 3. cap. 17. And we read of no other joined with the Minister for that work. Dionysius Areo pagita, who is reckoned amongst ancient Writers, though not of that standing to be Paul's Scholar, Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. pag. 3 having spoken of those that were possessed with Devils and tormented, called Energumeni, and of flagitious persons, saith, 
e Primi igitur isti & quidem rectius quam illi Ministri officio & voce separentur.  Let these therefore first, and much rather than the other, be separated by the voice and office of the Minister. It was then accounted to be his office, to see to that work. That of chrysostom frequently quoted for exclusion of scandalous persons from this Supper speaks fully to the power of dispensers for it, Homil. 83. in Matth. Let no cruel one, no unmerciful one, none any way impure, come unto it. I speak these things to you that do receive, and also to you that do administer, even to you this is necessary to be told, that with great care and heedfulness you distribute these gifts: there doth no small punishment abide you, if you permit any to partake of this Table, whose wickedness you know, for his blood shall be required at your hands. Other reform Church's place, for the greater part, this power in the Eldership, preaching and ruling Elders joined together in Consistory. Those of the independent Congregational way, judge it meet, that the whole Church, even all the body of the faithful, should have their vote in it. The best way for the discovery of truth, is to hear what each part have to say for themselves, and then to examine proofs brought, together with inconveniencies that may be objected, and are like to follow from any one of these, by whom power is claimed: and lastly, to pitch upon that which we judge to be most suitable to Scripture, and to answer the inconveniences charged upon it. For that party that can speak most of reason according to Scripture-rule, and whose way is followed with fewest inconveniences, may in all reason lay the fairest claim to it. But to do this throughly, were an endless labour, in which we might take in the whole dispute about Church Government, which would be an outlet, fare bigger than this whole work. Those that vest the Pastor in this power, say,  
1. He is the steward of the Mysteries of God, 2 Cor. 4.1. 
Allegations for a Ministers sole power.  And as stewards in great families, have the care of ordering the food of the whole household: so they being called to this honour, are to have the like power in the Church of God.  
2. They alone are to dispense this ordinance, as upon a manifold account may be made good, and in due place (God willing) shall be spoken to.  
3. The administration of Sacraments belongs to the power of order, wherewith Ministers are solely vested, and not to jurisdiction, as is granted; and therefore his prudence must guide him in discerning the parties that are to partake of it. A faithful and wise steward, discerns the season when to give portions of meat to the household, Luk. 12.42. as also the persons to whom he is to impart it. This learned Mr. jean's saith, is the opinion of the Schoolmen, though he is pleased to say, They are extremely out in it, in denying the debarring from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to notorious offenders, to be an act of jurisdiction; and and so they (saith he) put it into the hands and power of a Minister to deny it those that he judgeth to be gosse and scandalous sinners. pag. 46. quoting a full and pertinent passage out of Suarez. in tertiam partem Thomae. tom. 3. disput. 67. Sect. 3. 
Haec dispensatio vel denegatio Sacramenti non est consideranda, ut actio jucialis, vel inflictiva poenae, sed solum, ut prudens ac fidelis administratio Sacramenti; & ideo non pendet ex testibus aut probantionibus, sed solum ex ea Scientia & cognitio ne quae prudenti existimatione secundum occu●entes circumstantias judicatur sufficiens ut sine inc●mmodo possit, & debeat negari Sacramentum.  This dispensation, or denial of the Sacrament, is no judicial act, or imposition of a penalty; but only a prudent and faithful administration of it, and therefore doth not depend on witnesses or proofs, but only on such a knowledge and understanding of the thing; which by a prudential estimate according to emergent circumstances may be judged sufficient that without any inconvenience the Sacrament may be denied.  
4. If this power be denied to aM inister, many times it so falls out, that of necessity, either the administration of the Sacrament must be wholly suspended, (which some of reverend worth have largely shown to be of dangerous consequence) or else the Minister must be necessitated to dispense it to those that are most unfit to partake of it. In abundance of places no such power of jurisdiction is set up, nor can be expected, and food is necessary when we want a rod.  

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

Allegations for the power of the people.  Those that plead for the power of the people, say; First, that they must in duty avoid such in their converse, that are thus under censure; and therefore are to have a hand in, and to be called to counsel about it. Secondly, That in excommunication the people are to have a hand, (we find the Apostles direction for it, 1 Cor. 5.4.) and consequently insuspension, and so they conclude, that the power is in all the faithful. I must freely profess, that the first of these (which hath been longest in use) takes most with my judgement, as that which hath most strength of reason for it, and attended (for aught I can yet see) with least inconveniences. In which (I suppose) I should yet have concealed myself, had not the present juncture of time, and state of things, put some necessity upon me (treating of these things) to speak my thoughts. Were Elderships in Congragations settled in their desired power, and that order set up, and accordingly followed, I should so have prized the peace of the Church, as not to have cast any bone of contention in a business of this nature so disputable; and where an error of that hand is, of no so great danger. As I have without scruple acted in that way, so I am not willing to cast scruples into the thoughts of any; my reasons will afterwards sufficiently appear; But things being in that posture as now they are, and for aught is seen, like enough to continue; Sacraments must be wholly discontinued, or anabsolute promiscuous liberty granted to any man, woman, or child, to receive it; unless it may appear that the Pastor according to prudence may manage it. I shall therefore endeavour, 1. To satisfy the claims that are made on the contrary for other interests. 2. I shall give answer to the objections brought against a Ministers sole and single power. 3. I shalt limit this Doctrine with some needful cautions to avoid mistake. First, I must speak to them that say, power is committed of Jesus non uni, sed unitati; not to any single preaching Elder or Pastor, but to an Eldership; preaching and ruling Elders joined together, for which (excepting the arguments drawn from the inconveniencies of placing it only in one) this is the sum of all that I find spoken; 
Allegations for the power of an Eldership taken into consideration.  That the power of Discipline is given by Christ, not to one Elder, but to the united company of Elders; and for one Minister to assume this power to himself, is to make himself the Church, it is to make himself a Congregational Pope: It is a bringing in of a power into the Church, that would have some resemblance (as is objected) to auricular confession. This argument takes that for granted which is most in question, (and that which Mr. jean's saith, the Schoolmen do deny, that this is an act of jurisdiction,) and belongs to the power of Discipline; and this being barely affirmed, or rather only supposed, it may be as easily denied. But I would give some reasons of my denial of it, and then the whole of the argument falls.  
First, 
Reason's evincing that admission to the Lo●ds Supper is no act of jurisdiction.  This power of jurisdiction supposed to be in the whole Eldership, is either respective to the whole business of the Sacrament, or else solely to the admission or refusal of men for participation of it. If it respect the whole work, than those that are not commissioned to preach Gospel-promises, may yet apply Covenant-seales. They that have no call to open and show forth the Mystery, have authority to dispense the Elements, Reason 1 which is against the judgement of the Learned of this opinion: If it barely respect admission, and not administration, than (unless we had expressly the mind of Christ to the contrary) it will appear to be the greatest of soloecisms, to give a man commission for a work, and then to leave him to the courtesy of others, not otherwise interested in it, for the exercise of it. There did a complaint lie against Bishops, giving commission in Ordination large enough to preach the Gospel; yet afterwards would not suffer it, without a licence from their Courts to be put into action. This at the first sight looks much like it; when Ministers shall receive power of order, which comprizes Word and Sacrament: the Gospel with the seal; yet may not act in it, without an Eldership to oversee it, who as to administration are wholly Heterogeneous.  
Secondly, If no other Ministerial act, is to be preregulated Reason 2 (as I may say) by any power of Discipline, or the exercise of it to be suspended, till they know the pleasure of men in juridick place and power, than there is no reason singly and singularly to subject this of Sacramental administration to it. This proposition hath all reason in it; But there is no other Ministerial act that is to be thus preregulated, or the exercise of it thus suspended; Ergo there is no reason singly and singularly to subject this of Sacramental administration to it.  
Thirdly, If the dispensation of the promises be committed Reason 3 to the Ministerial prudence of the dispensers, without any jurisdiction put upon them, or any other in a way of jurisdiction associated with them, than there is no reason to be given but that they may according to Christian prudence, in like manner dispense the seals, without any such jurisdiction or association. This I see not how any can deny, seeing the promises are delivered upon the same terms as the seals: But the dispensation of the promises is committed to their Ministerial prudence, and no other associated in jurisdiction with them; This cannot be denied. It follows then, that according to Christian prudence, they may dispense the seals, without any associated in any jurisdiction with them. If any should object, that it will follow from hence, that the Sacraments are to be delivered unto all, to whom the promises are tendered; This I shall grant with these three limits. 1. That those to whom they are tendered, professedly accept them, otherwise the Sacraments may be delivered to Heathens. 2. That there be some competency of understanding of them, otherwise the most ignorant of the Catechumeni were not only to come to Baptism, but to the Lords Supper. 3. That they do not openly and resolvedly in their course of life go against their engagements in them. In such case the promise may be tendered to Heathens, to grossly ignorant and flagitious ones, and yet the seal for present upon these grounds withheld.  
Fourthly, Where power for any work is committed to one, Reason 4 and no other named to be employed with him, there the work is left to the sole care and prudence of him to whom it is committed, and not by power of jurisdiction vested in many: But the work of administration of Sacraments is committed to one, and no other named to whom it is committed. The Proposition cannot be denied, and I know not how the Assumption can be answered. The conclusion than follows.  
Fifthly, If Ministers have not only been vested with power Reason 5 for administration, but actually also have administered with approbation, without any jurisdiction, than it is no act of jurisdiction. This cannot be denied, seeing that if it were the mind of Christ that a jurisdiction should be set up for administration, than the dispensers must have stayed for it (as Saul ought to have done for Samuel) before administration: But Ministers have not only been in power for administration of Sacraments, but have actually administered with approbation without any jurisdiction: They have done it in unofficed Churches, where no jurisdiction had place; this is evident. To say nothing of John's Baptism, instance might be given in the baptism administered by Christ's Disciples we find the Eunuch, the Jailer, and others baptised, and no Eldership consulted. Christ delivered the Lord's Supper where no Eldership was set up; and in case, Act. 2.42. be understood of the Lords Supper, (as is generally conceived) there can be no contradiction; seeing that it is not imaginable that as yet that order was established with them.  
If any shall object, Object. that a command lay upon them to administer the Sacraments, which must in this case of necessity be obeyed, and the duty not neglected, though an Eldership for a more orderly and regular carriage be wanting.  
To this I answer, Sol. Omissions seem better to me then a prohibited, or a disorderly proceeding, expressly against a Command, or Ordinance of Jesus Christ; The Ark had better stayed where it was, than a new Cart should have carried it in that disorder to the place appointed for it; Better that Saul and Vzziah had let sacrifice alone, than any to whom it did not appertain, should have undertaken it. This therefore with me is not cogent, unless it be confessed, that there is no precept respective to such jurisdiction, when there is a command for administration. I never saw sufficient reason given, that a man should break an express rule given in Command from God, rather than omit a duty of mere positive institution: Jeroboam must rather have no sacrifice then that Dan or Bethel should be the place for it: And in case such necessity may dspense with irregularities, why may we not on the other hand be irregular? and in such necessary want of a full and complete order, the Minister who is one, and the first in the number of such an Eldership, to take upon him the whole work, rather than on the one hand the administration should wholly cease, or on the other hand promiscuously dispensed, where there can be no possible benefit received. To this I confess, I was for some time much inclined, till that upon further examination and debate, reason enforced me to conclude, that the Minister by Divine appointment is authoritatively himself vested in power for admission or denial. And if I be driven out of this, and all these arguments here laid down fully satisfied, I shall rather believe that the Minister who is one party in the power pleaded for, as before, may rather act alone in such necessity, then either the authority itself be wholly laid aside, or Sacraments totally discontinued.  
Object. If any shall further object, That Christ and his Apostles had virtually all offices in them, so that if that order could not so soon be established among them; the defect in this impossible case was sufficiently supplied by the Apostolical Office.  
Sol. I answer. What power soever was vested in them, yet it appears not, that at once they exercised the power of all of them, but acted orderly in an association when it was required. Paul Ordained Timothy by laying on of hands, but not alone, but as associated in a Presbytery, his hands were laid upon him, 2 Tim. 1.6. and the hands of the Presbytery were laid upon him, 1 Tim. 4.4. He ordered the incestuous Corinthians excommunication; but this he did not alone, but with the Church-Officers, 1 Cor. 5. And if the Apostles Office had virtually all in it, yet it may be questioned whether it were so with Philip, unless we can make it good (which is by few believed) that he was Philip the Apostle.  
Sixthly, That which hath neither any law in Scripture for it, Reason 6 nor any set up for execution of it, is no Church-censure to be proceeded in, by virtue of jurisdiction; This is plain: But in Scripture there is no Law enacted for proceeding in such a censure, nor men set up for to proceed in such a juridick way; Therefore it follows that this is no Church-Censure. If any say. The Keys imply this power, and those that receive the keys, are set up in power; I answer, That Sacraments are within the power of order, which is distinct from jurisdiction, and contains no censure; and Keys in jurisdiction imply a letting in, and shutting out: now this is a Censure of those that remain within, and neither serves for letting in, nor exclusion.  
7thly, If those must be kept back from the Sacrament in a prudential Reason 7 way, on whom no sentence in way of jurisdiction ought to pass, than this rather belongs to prudence then to jurisdiction; This is plain: But those are to be kept back on whom no sentence in a way of jurisdiction ought to pass; This is also plain, Jurisdiction for censure is not, but in case of crime, & many are detained upon defect in judgement, no criminal charge being laid against them: Ergo.  
Eighthly, The detaining of that from, or denial of it to any, Reason 8 which they cannot improve for their benefit, but visibly tends to their danger, is no juridick act of penalty, but a prudential care for his advantage from whom it is thus detained, and to whom it is thus denied; This is clear. To deny drink to an Hydropic person, or flesh-meats to one in a Fever, garlic or onions to a wounded person, or full of ulcerous sores, is not to inflict a penalty, but to exercise a prudential care: But this denial of the Sacrament to, or detaining it from the ignorant, etc. is only to withhold that which visibly tends to danger, and cannot be improved for any advantage; Therefore it is no juridick penalty, but a business of prudential care. And here an Objection which carries most colour of all that can be said, is prevented, and already answered. To debar a man upon the grounds of ignorance, error or scandal from that which otherwise were his right, and proper interest, belongs to the power of jurisdiction; and is a censure: But in this a man for ignorance, error or scandal, is debarred of that which otherwise is his right, and therefore it belongs to the power of jurisdiction; and is a Church-Censure. To this upon the grounds before laid down, is answered, To debar a man of his right to his sensible prejudice, and to hold from him that which would be his present livelihood and comfort; is indeed a penalty or juridick censure; as to sequester a man from his house and Lands, to disfranchise a man of his Trade, etc. But for a Parent, a Nurse or Physician, to order diet as most for health, and to withdraw some food when digestion will not bear it, and it evidently appears to be of danger, is an act of prudence, and no censure; and so a Minister is considered in the, administration of Word and Sacraments.  
Reason 9 Ninthly, If admission to, or exclusion from other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency, to which all are not promiscuously admitted, be left to prudence, and not to the exercise of any Juridick power, than there is no reason to take this out of the Ministers hand, and put it over to any such powers: But exclusion from, and admission to other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency, to which all are not promiscuously admitted, as private Fasts, and doubtful disputations, Matth. 9 Rom. 14. is left to prudence, and not to the exercise of any juridick power: Ergo.  
Reason 10 Lastly, If this be an act of jurisdiction to admit to the Sacrament, and keep off from it, than there must be a Law of Jesus Christ in it, a Gospel-Ordinance for it; This is plain: Jesus Christ hath not left to his Officers an arbitrary Government, he hath left no Commission to rule at pleasure: as they are to speak, so they are to act according to his will, and pleasure known: But no such Law, no such Ordinance of Jesus Christ is found in Scriptures. A command we have in the Gospel for administration of Sacraments, as well Baptism as the Lords Supper; and Covenant-interest is our Directory (as you have heard) to lead us to those that have fundamental, interest in them: But concerning exclusion of any thus enrighted, there is nothing by way of Ordinance written: Therefore this can be no act of jurisdiction. The Assumption is that which many will question; It lies upon them then to quote this Law, to make known this Ordinance of Jesus Christ: But instead of that, I shall show upon what grounds it yet appears to me that there is none at all. If any such be, it is either in plain, and full words expressed, such as the Law given to Israel, to put out of the Camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, or is defiled by the dead, Numb. 5.1, 2. or else it must be such as is deduced by fair consequence from the nature and use of the Sacrament, or preparation to it, or benefit received by it; That there is no Ordinance in such plain, full words, needs not to be doubted; In all that enquiry into this so much controverted business, it would have been long since produced. In case it be deduced from any such consequence as hath been spoken, it will hardly be made good to be an instituted Law, or constituted Ordinance. Mr. Firmin hath well excepted against the proof of institutions by syllogisms, though to his great disadvantage, in that dispute of a Church-Covenant. Where there is an Ordinance in power, (as there was for exclusion from the Passeover) proof may be made up by consequence for the latitude to discern who those be that are within the verge of it, and concerned in it. But consequences will hardly prove the enacting, and instituting of it: I shall be willing to gratify Mr. Tombs in this, that parity of reason will set up no institution. A good cause is wronged, when Ordinances of this nature are pretended, and cannot be produced; and on the other hand, when a Ministerial prudence in the Stewards of Christ is undervalved, which might supply it. Let it be granted, that there is no Ordinance to debar an unexcommunicated man from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, yet a promiscuous admission will not follow; when the end and use of the Sacrament is considered, it will appear to them that have the care and charge about it, that some are not in a present aptitude for it. There is command for the preaching of the Word in a way to edification, 1 Cor. 143, 12. yet the particular way of application suitable to men's capacities, so as to give milk to babes and children, and strong meat to those of growth, that have their senses exercised, to discern between good and evil, is not done by any virtue of any specific particular institution, but the Minister's prudence: Which prudence was exercised by Paul, 1 Cor. 3.1, 2. Heb. 5.12. by Christ himself, Joh. 16 12. There is no Ordinance for admission to, or exclusion from private Fasts, or punctual direction, who are to be called, and received, or who past by; yet our Saviour Christ from the high nature of the duty, concludes that it is not for novices in the faith. And as it is a point of prudence, not to put a piece of new cloth in an old garment, (unwrought cloth some understand) there will be a double inconvenience, the weakness of the one will not bear the strength of the other, and so the rent that was before will be made greater, and the whole garment become uncomely and unsuitable: nor yet to put new wine (which is windy, and working) into old bottles, the weakness of such a vessel being not able to bear it: so neither had it been a point of prudence in our Saviour Christ, to have put such an austere discipline upon the necks of his newly entered disciples.  

Matth. 7.6. vindicated.  If any shall object that Text, Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine, as I know it is produced as an Ordinance for the withholding of this Sacrament from those that are ignorant, and scandalous; I shall desire the Reader, for answer, to take it into consideration, whether it be not more agreeable to the Text, to make it an exhortation to an holy prudential circumspection in the dispensation of holy things in general, (whether in a private, or a public way) then to make it a distinct peculiar Ordinance about any one piece or part of worship. Making it a peculiar Ordinance, we shall run ourselves upon inextricable difficulties: Our Saviour laying it down in an indefinite way, All whatsoever that is holy, must there be understood; and pearls, and holy things are the same, one being exegetical of the other; holy things excelling other things, as far as pearls excel acorns. And by dogs and swine, both which were unclean in the Law, we must understand all that Scripture comprehends under those names; they are both put for one, 2 Pet. 1.21. and so the result of all is, that no person in visible uncleanness must taste of any thing that is holy. From which it follows, that as Christ thought it not fit at that present to gratify a Heathen with a miracle, when he said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it unto dogs, Matth. 15.26. So it will at no time be meet, or lawful to preach the Gospel to any heathen, or impenitent and unclean Christian, they being no other than dogs or swine, and the Gospel the most precious of holy pearls; but understanding it as an exhortation to Christian prudence, and observing the reason added, lest they trample them under feet, and turn again and rend you, these absurdities and snares will be avoided; and the result of all will be only this, that the holy things of God, and rich Gospel-pearles, are not to be communicated, where there is no possible expectation of doing good: But all the issue of it will evidently be danger to him that doth impart them, and all scorn and contempt of the holy things themselves; which was the Apostles way of dealing, when the Jews were filled with envy, contradicting and blaspheming, Act. 13. and is frequently given in counsel by the Wise man, Rebuke not a scornor, lest he hate thee: He that rebuketh a sconer, getteth to himself a blot, Prov. 9.7. And the words being thus understood, though the Sacrament be not solely intended, yet it is not wholly excluded, being of the number of those holy things, about which there should be all Christian prudence.  
That Text also, 1 Cor. 5.11. is produced by some, 
1 Cor. 5.11. vindicated.  as holding out an Ordinance for suspension from the Lords Supper, But now I have written unto you, not to keep company. If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat. But it is more than strange, that when the Apostle speaks not at all of the Lords Supper in that Chapter, that he should in those words (in such a sort delivered) make an Ordinance about it. And it is clear in the Text, that the Apostle gives direction about the common course of our life, to shun all voluntary and free converse, out of choice for that end which he specifies, 2 Thess. 3.14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. I will not stand to dispute any consequence that may be drawn from civil commerce to that which is religious, seeing (as I have said) consequences will not bear any institution, or new setting up of Ordinances; and here I know there can be none at all, seeing this which the Apostle forbids, or rather from which he dissuades, is in our own choice, where we may forbear; and that at the Lords Table is of necessity, where we must obey; we are not to forbear our duty, though another that should be kept back doth obtrude himself. If those, Numb. 9 which were defiled by a dead body, had come in their uncleanness unto the Passeover, as those of Issachar and Zebulun did, 2 Chr. 7.30. others for their sakes should not have kept absent. Neither of these Texts therefore hold forth an Ordinance, but both of them Christian prudence: one of them respecting things civil, the other that which is sacred and religious. Thus I suppose that argument is taken off which is drawn from a supposition, that admission to the Sacrament is an act of jurisdiction, in which I have been large, seeing I well know that many are of a different judgement. If any can produce reasons of more strength on the other hand, I shall be ready to yield. In the mean space these with me are cogent, and force me to conclude, That this in question is an act prudential, not juridical.  

Inconveniences objected against the sole power of the Minister.  As for the Objections that are brought from the inconveninces following from a Ministers sole and single power in this action;  
1. That before mentioned, that to put the Minister into any Object. 1 such power, is to set him up as a Congregational Pope, is already answered, in denying it to be any act of jurisdiction, and many other things will difference him from any Lordly or Pope-like rule: 1. He may err. In his administrations he is not infallible. 2. He may be called to question upon maladministration, and by an authoritative juridick determination be ordered to reform. If a Minister Pope it in all that he doth alone, he will be found Pope-like in many things that he doth according to the mind of Christ Jesus.  
Object. 2 2. As to the other that hath been mentioned, that it hath some resemblance of auricular confession; This resemblance will be found to have very much dissimilitude in it. We inquire after knowledge in the mystery of Christ, and not acknowledgement of sin. We declare to men known crimes, and do not adjure any by way of whisper to make them known. Interlocutory Catechisms that are by question, and answer, may be called by that name, as well as this practice.  
Object. 3 3. Whereas it is said, It is for one man to make himself the Church, it is a mistake: It is no more than to make himself a steward in the Church; that is, to act in his own person, as a steward set in the Church by Christ Jesus.  
Object. 4 4. Men would not put their lands, nay, their goods and  into the hands of any one person; And we cannot then think that the Lord hath put the intererest of his people in the body and blood of Christ to a private discretion. Answer 1. Men are many times put to it, to put their lands, goods, and  to the arbitrement of one and many judge it better to be in the hands of one, in such a case (if of worth and place) then of many associated; and have had experience of it. 2. It is not a Christians interest in the body and blood of Christ, that is thus referred to the discretion of any. I would not put that into the hands of a general Council; none but God is to be trusted with it: Nay it is not their interest in the elements, but their aptitude at present to partake, in which some must judge, or else all promiscuously must communicate.  
5. It is objected, it is like this way to go ill oftentimes with Object. 5 the deserving members of the Church, and such as most deserve shall lest feel the severity of this censure; wicked Ministers would keep back whom they please. Answer 1. We can trust it not where, but through corruption there will be danger, and no where so much as in the Congregational way; when a faction shall gain a plurality of votes & it becomes a Church, than all is without redress, and Elderships oftentimes are as likely to overrule a Minister for corrupt proceed, as to ballast, and keep him from them. 2. What freedom soever the bad may hope to gain from any single hand, the good for the most part may be without fear, seeing that in public administrations goodness so far overawes, and men's own reputations that dispense them so prevail, that they are in little danger of suspension. 3. Such a supposed wicked Minister acts either where there is a government over him, to call into question his irregularity; so that the wronged may have right upon appeal and complaint, or else, where there is no government at all, but each man's will may be a rule. In case there be such a government, there is a redress; and what he would willingly do, that he is kept from doing. In case there be none such, but all disorder prevails, than there is no more danger in his administration at pleasure, then in his delivery of Doctrine at pleasure; there is more fear of him from the Pulpit, then from the Communion Table. And when it is committed to his prudence to divide the Word, I see no reason but that he may divide the Bread and Cup. So that all things considered, I suppose it to be most consonant to Scripture, that it be left to a Ministers prudence, according to Scripture-rule to manage it.  
It is further said, that this is to assume a power without any Object. 6 warrant, or power from Jesus Christ. No text can be produced in which any such power is given.  
To this I answer, None that would take this power from the Minister, can own this objection: It is of equal force against any other hand. Let them show where any other is set up for it, and we will presently yield it. Those only that are for promiscuous administration, can with any pretended colour in this way object it: and to these I suppose enough hath been spoken, that it is a necessary result from that power that is given for administration of this Ordinance: All Ordinances must be so dispensed, that they may profit; where profit cannot follow, there is to be no dispensation.  

Allegations for the power of the people taken into consideration.  As to the claim of those of the Congregational way before mentioned the former failing, this falls with it: They both agree that it is an act of jurisdiction, in which one party will have all to vote, the other only the Eldership. But when it appears that it is an act of prudence, and not of juridick censure, either of both are at loss for their interest. If these have power by their vote to let in, and keep from the Sacraments, it is either as dispensers of these Mysteries, or by virtue of a juridick power of rule and government vested in them. That it is not as dispensers, themselves will acknowledge, for they cannot in a joint way thus administer: neither can it be by virtue of any juridick power of rule and government. In case it were granted, if all are in place of rule, where then are those that are ruled, and under government? If every member be an eye, where is the foot? The Apostle salutes the Saints, and those that rule over them, Heb. 13.24. Here are no Saints but what are Rulers: Obey them that are over you in the Lord, saith the Apostle: these must obey one another. If these thus govern, and this be an act of their government, than no man must be admitted to the Supper, but together with it he must be vested in Church-power, and rule; None must be a member, unless he be a Commander: Christ's Army must have all leaders, no followers; all Commanders, no common Soldiers: by this means either worthy Communicants must be shut out, or men unfit for rule promoted, seeing every godly man that hath the spirit of sanctity, hath not presently a spirit of rule. Hence will follow, that confusion by the experience of many found, and complained of by Mr. Blackwood, Mr. Firmin and others, not to be suspected of partiality; And when they argue from their power in excommunication, to their power in barring from this Ordinance, as the antecedent is to be denied, so the consequent is false. All the faithful are not to decree excommunication: The meeting together mentioned, 1 Cor. 5.4. was not of members, but officers, there being more Congregations than one in Corinth, as is justly presumed, and in some Churches is undeniably proved; and therefore their members could not meet about any act of government, but officers only. So also the consequence is false, and though excommunication were in their power, yet the power of administration of Sacraments, and men's admission may be in an other hand, as a prudential act. And so every part of the argument is found faulty. It is true that excommunication being a juridical suspension from all Church-Communion, and Participation in Church-priviledges, comprizes in it suspension from the Lords Table, as he that is cast out of the house, is no more ordered for his diet in the house, but kept from it. Yet there may be a non-administration by the Minister where there is not any such Church-censure. A Christian in his minority (suppose of the age of ten, or twelve years) is not upon the account of his minority to be excommunicated, yet he is not of that age, as to be admitted to the Lords Supper. And whereas it is said, that it is their duty to avoid such in their converse, that are thus denied; I answer, that were it granted to be a Church-censure formally executed, Mr. Rutherford hath sufficiently answered, that their duty to avoid them under censure, is no argument that they are to have an hand in the censure: But being denied to be any formal censure of the Church, there needs no further answer, and they are to avoid them no further than the manifestation of their condition, according to Scripture-grounds, gives them occasion: So they must avoid children, youth and all others that are not competently instructed in Gospel-wayes, and (according to the principles of many of them) all those that are not highly versed in Christian Mysteries. And as for crimes that carry the name of scandal, the Minister is in a public way to debar none, but upon known manifest evidences openly seen; of which any may be competent witnesses. And in case they suffer wrong by the Minister's imprudence or otherwise, they are not to suffer farther by other men's avoiding their society, and communion. The community of the faithful therefore having no power of juridick censure, they have no colour of claim to it under any such a notion. And being no formal censure, Elderships that have that power, are not formally qua rulers vested in it. It therefore remains, that it is an act of prudence in the dispenser, and no act of jurisdiction in them that have right of censure, or inflicting of penalty.  
Some cautions are here needful for a right understanding and to avoid mistakes in that which hath been delivered. 
Cautions to be observed in these proceed.   
1. This which hath been spoken, must not any way be understood Cauti. 1 to be prejudicial to Church government, or the power of Church censure. For though Governors are not to be consulted before these seals be dispensed, yet government still stands in due power notwithstanding; of this we have all cause to be tender, seeing whilst some dispute in what hand to place it, others take their advantage quite to abolish it: But that Scripture speaks of a Government distinct from that which is in the hands of civil powers, is a truth that carries such evidence, that it can with no colour of truth be opposed. As the Romans divided that state into Senatum populumque Romanum, implying that some were in power of Governing, and others were to yield subjection; the Spirit of God himself makes like division of the state of Israel into Elders and people, Ruth. 4.9. So the Apostle to the Hebr. in like sort distinguisheth Christians: Salute the Saints and those that rule over you, Hebr. 13.24. Some were without any power for rule, and these are styled Saints without any further addition; others are in power for Government, and these have their just title given them. The same title that is given to Cyrenius in Syria, to Pilate in Judea, Luke 2.2. Luke 3.1. is given by the Apostle to these here mentioned. A military or political word (saith one) which is spoken of a public person who is possessed of power either in Common Wealth, or Army. And if those other texts of the Apostle be consulted, Hebr. 13.17. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Tim. 5.19. 2 Cor. 2.6. and 5.12, 13. 1 Thes. 5.12. (to mention no more) so much will easily be found in them, that speaks a government within the Church itself, not going out of its own limits. Whether some texts ordinarily produced hold out so large an enumeration, as is by some bottomed upon them, may happily be disputed; but that there should not so much as any government at all be spoken to cannot be imagined: which thing in reason is also plain, 1. The Church is a society, a visible Kingdom, an incorporation, a body, and when all of these have their laws, governor's, censures, punishments, it cannot be thought that this society should herein so fare differ, and be so fare inferior to all other societies, as to be wholly destitute: when all others enjoy government, governor's, for their strength. defence and more complete being, the Church alone shall be like that City which the Wise man speaks of, broken down, and without walls, Prov. 25.28. 2. The Church consists of men, as do other society's subject to failings, yea, to enormities, and exorbitances in judgement and practice. There hath no age passed in which the Church hath not had her schisms, errors, and scandals. No society or body politic is so like to run upon miscarriages, seeing the laws to which Christ ties, are so averse to our natures, when we can bear others; we are apt to say, we will break these bonds, and cast them away from us. Satan envies no other society, or bond of men, as he doth the society, or bond of Christians. His kingdom will consist together with all other states and kingdoms; they may rule, and he rule likewise; only this of Christ's Kingdom, is wholly averse to Satan's; and militates against it, for the ruin of it. 3. The Church from the beginning hath exercised this power within itself, when all other powers were adverse, and contrary to it. How long was it before the Church had a Christian Magistrate, and lay under the persecution of heathen states? in all which time a discipline was yet kept up. If the Church had no such power, how could it then exercise it? 4. The Churches that have been remiss in their improvement of this power, have had their check from Christ himself in glory. He manifests his displeasure from heaven against the Church of Pergamos, that they had those that held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; and against the Church of Thyatira, because they suffered Jesabel to teach and seduce his servants, Rev. 2.14, 15, 20. The censure that lies upon the Kings of Judah upon neglect of reformation in their time, argues that they were in power for it. So the censure of these Churches upon like account argues their power in like manner. Even those that plead most for freedom of conscience, and liberty in religion, with all impunity from the civil power, yet confess from these and like texts, a power within the Church itself for censure of delinquencies. To all this some are ready to subscribe (as being not able to gainsay the clear Scripture evidence of a power Ecclesiastical) and confess, that it was so in those times, but now they contend that the case is otherwise. Providence hath ordered a change of things, and all is swallowed up in the hand of him that is chief in power, since the time that the Church hath enjoyed Kings for her nursing fathers, and Queens for her nursing mothers, not barely accusing them of error that dissent in opinion, but charging them to resemble those sons of Belial, that upon the Israelites institution of Kingship, were ungratefully ask this question, How shall this man save us? 1 Sam. 10.27. Making good their assertion of a change of this nature by this similitude, As in the first Church among the Jews whilst they were in a wand'ring condition, as their need was greater, so God's personal providence, and guidance of them was more express, and apparent, and therefore whilst they were in this Theocraty, their government was not to be managed by any settled universal authority, besides that of God himself, or any one who took not in all weighty things immediate direction from him, until such time as being throughly settled in peace, and security from their enemies he might make his recess, and permit and appoint to them a King of their own Nation; So in the first founding of the Christian Church during the time of their persecution, as their weakness required, were in a Theocraty too, guided by the express direction of our Saviour himself given to the Apostles during the time of those forty days that he was conversant with them upon earth; but now after the time that God hath perfected the time of the Church's deliverance, and free establishment in peace, and rest from all about her, and the Prophecy is fulfilled by appointing Kings her nursing fathers, and Queens her nursing mothers, and having sons to be set as Princes in all Lands, so that now under Constantine the uproomes, and wand'ring Tabernacles, (as formerly under Solomon) are converted into stately temples, for men now to think of their running into their Wilderness, and persecuted condition, by entertaining those temporary forms which unto that condition were most fit, doth import both ingratitude and murmur against God, and imprudence towards themselves. Thus fare this similitude. But those of this opinion I doubt would take ill that free dealing toward themselves, which they use toward others, and that upon their casting off all Ecclesiastical government, under the notion of temporary forms, we should apply that speech of the Lord himself to Samuel, concerning the people of Israel upon their resolution to make a change in government, 1 Sam. 8.7. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. And to make the dissimilitude in this simile further apparent, it should I suppose be taken into consideration, that when God was pleased first to permit, and then appoint a King over Israel, that the former fabric of Government written in the Law was not taken down, but the whole Levitical order still stood, as to all purposes prescribed of God; the change was no more, nor further but in him that ruled in chief. Instead of one raised by an immediate hand of God, as their exigence required, they now had one after the manner of other Nations, of constant standing. And God forbidden that we should murmur, that the Church hath her sons for Princes, and that those that rule over us, serve the Lord Jesus with us. But we think that these servants of Christ thus raised in honour, should see that what Christ hath set up should be aright managed, and that they should have that inspection, as the Kings of Judah had, to rectify what they find out of order, but not to pull down any thing that Jesus Christ had raised up, no more than the praiseworthy Kings of Judah, did that which Moses had prescribed; especially seeing the Lord Christ, even in the space of those forty days before mentioned, asserting his pleni-potentiary power that he had received from his Father, and giving power to his Church, declares it to be of that lasting tenure, to continue to the end of the world, Matth. 28.18, 19, 20. And because these words which import this continuance, are variously interpreted, and some will understand them with limit to the end of the Apostles age, seeing the age of a man is often set out by the word seculum, the sports at Rome which were seen once in man's age, were called ludi seculares, and so we have this text against us. But against this interpretation let the Reader observe, 1. The frequent use of the phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the end of the world by this Evangelist, chap. 13.39. The harvest is the end of the world, ver. 40. So shall it be in the end of this world, ver. 49. So shall it be in the end of the world; and, Matt. 24.3. Tell as when shall these things be, what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? none of all which can be understood of the end of one, but of all ages. 2. Let the context there be considered; Christ there promises his presence in the work of discipling all Nations, but that was not the work of one age only, many ages are passed over, and yet many Nations are not discipled. His presence is promised in the Word and Sacraments, which must have their continuance till Christ's second coming, 1 Cor. 11.26. The Apostles words, Heb. 9.26. may well serve for a comment on these words of our Saviour; the alone place (as Gomarus notes) where this phrase is used, excepting the texts out of Matthew mentioned: But now once in the end of the world he hath appeared, to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. There are two ages of the world, one determining upon Christ's suffering, resurrection, and ascension; the other commencing at that time, and concluding at the end of all time; and therefore the space betwixt Christ's first and second coming is ordinarily called the last days. Christ died at the consummation of the first, and the promise of his presence is made till the consummation of the second; and the power given and received, is no otherwise temporary.  
Cauti. 2 2. Neither is this to make for the prejudice of the office of ruling Elders, 
Ruling Elders not hereby prejudiced, Various opinions concerning them.  concerning whom there is in the Church so hot dispute. Some own no such power, but make it to be a new device not heard of before this last age. Others plead a divine right for it, and produce Scriptures that appear to speak very fair that way, though they meet with very shrewd objections. A third not insisting upon any such formal institution, being jealous that the texts held forth will scarce bear it out, yet concluding that the whole body of the faithful have their interest in government (Church Government being neither Monarchical, nor purely Aristocratical, but mixed with a Democraty) they bring in ruling Elders, not as officers set up by any immediate institution, but as representers of the people. So that as Knights appear in Parliament, not in their own names (as the Peers of the realm heretofore have done) but in the name of the respective Counties, and Burgesses in the name of their respective Corporations; so ruling Elders chosen by the vote of the people, have no other power, but what they exercise in the name and right of those that set them up. Pastors have their power primitively vested in their own persons by immediate appointment of Christ Jesus. These have power by way of delegation from them that authorise and appoint them; others yet are not at all displeased with this power, but upon neither of the former grounds, but as a prudential course for the more easy and orderly regulating of the affairs of the Church, in case either the chief Magistrate shall set them up, or the Church itself by his appointment, allowance or connivance: Asserting a liberty in the chief Magistrate, or Church for this purpose, That as in the Jewish Sanedrim, there were of the people appointed to assist the Priests, both in civil, and sacred affairs, so when nothing to the contrary appears in New Testament-times it may be still so provided. As the Church might set up some to determine Controversies, and prevent law-suits, 1 Cor. 6.4. and might appoint a brother to be joined with Apostles, to receive and disburse the Church's Alms, 2 Cor. 8.9, 10. And the Church of Antioch might delegate some to be present at the debate, and determination of the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem in a case then controverted, Act. 15.2. so it is not unlawful with prudent limits to appoint some that may be assistant to carry on Church Government. I shall not determine on what bottom it is safest to fix them; I only say, that I do not see how the Church can well want them. And though Mr. Mede (whom some adore as their oracle for antiquity, 
Apparet ex his quae diximus in munere adsessorum, qui nonnullis in locis in usu sunt (quos distinctionis causa temporarios aut laicos praesbyteros appellare possumus) nihil esse quod possit reprehendi. Non deesse in pia antiquitate exempla, quae si non plane conveniant, certe ad hunc morem accedunt. Quae urbs, si non prima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, certe praecipuos ejus defensores edid●t.  and all deservedly magnify) calls it a new device, yet Grotius of no less esteem, speaks with more favour, Imper. Summar. potestat. circa Sacra. Cap. 11. After a large discourse about them, He saith, that it appears by that which we have said, that in the office of Assessors, which are in use in some places (whom for distinction sake we may call temporary, or lay Elders) there is nothing that may be blamed. Affirming further, that there is not wanting in Sacred Antiquity examples which come very near to this custom, though not wholly up to it. Neither does he make Geneva, with some others, the first Authors, but only the chief defenders of this order, instancing in the benefit that may hence arise both respective to the civil Magistrate, and Church Pastors. The second of these with me is very rational, and being fixed upon that bottom, though those exceptions hold that are usually taken against those texts, on which their Divine authority is usually built; yet the order may still stand, and those negative arguments which are brought against them, from the Apostles inscription of his Epistle to the Philippians directed to Bishops, and Deacons without mention of ruling Elders, as also from the distinct qualifications required in Bishops and Deacons with their wives and families, when as to these Elders there is all silence, may be more easily answered in case it appear that these had not any constant standing in this work. I only here say that on what bottom soever they stand, this which I have said can nothing prejudice them.  
3. Neither must this exempt admission to, or exclusion from Cauti. 3 the Sacrament, from all cognizance of Church power, nor quite take it out of the verge of their censures, 
Not to be wholly exempted from all cognizance of Church-power.  though those in juridick place be not aforehand consulted or taken into association in it. For though it be left solely to Pastors to discern those to whom they may distribute these Elements, as it is to divide the Word, and give every one his portion, yet upon maladministration they may be called to question. If pro imperio they shall keep back those that are duly qualified, or admit such that evidently according to Church-determination should be denied; they are liable to censure, as they are for corruption, or imprudence in doctrine. And therefore it was well provided, Canon 27. That he that shall repel any from the Sacrament, upon complaint, or being required by the Ordinary shall signify the cause to him, and therein obey his direction. Presupposing Church power to be vested in him (who for the most part was a mere lay person, which might cause ruling Elders to stand more right in the eyes of some persons) this was well determined. Should Pastors be set up for this work, without any appeal or control, it migbt then indeed be spoken to as a grievance.  
Cauti. 4 4. It is a Ministers wisdom, if it may be, to see with more eyes than his own, 
A Minister's prudence to take in assistants.  and to take in to himself, if they may be had, assistants in this work; especially to judge of men as to their conversations, and to be witnesses of their promises and engagements in case admonition be needful for amendment and reformation. More eyes see more than one, and reason itself suggests the convenience of all helps to be taken in to lighten the burden. Paul tells Timothy of the profession that he had made before many witnesses, 1 Tim. 6.12. as a Motive to be constant. An engagement made before witnesses, carries authority with it, and possesses with shame upon violation of it. Thus the Pastor also shall in a great part avoid that charge of partiality, that notwithstanding all circumspection he is like to suffer. If any object that this is to set up officers pro arbitrio, which will make way for the introduction of any upon like grounds of supposed prudence; I answer, this were somewhat if he should make over his power from himself by delegation, being himself in office; But discharging his duty in his own person, he may doubtless take in all useful helps. Paul may make use of Tertius to write Epistles to Churches, and yet not make him an Apostle; Aaron and Hur may stay up Moses his hands, and yet not usurp Cauti. 5 Moses his place.  

Where an Eldership is erected to embrace them as helpers.  5. Where an Eldership is erected, then gladly to embrace them as helpers in the work. Happily they may think their power weakened, and their right denied in case they join not in it. If the Pastor be of another judgement, it is not yet his prudence to raise stirs about it. If others come in as assistant to carry on what he might otherwise do alone, he hath small cause of grievance; it favours too much of arrogance, and of the spirit of such as love pre-eminence to affect to be alone, though it is ordinarily most seen in resolving, and attempting to overrule all where a man confesses himself to be no more than in association with others. And for those that refuse to come where an Eldership sits, it argues too sullen an humour. Were I an inhabitant in London or like place, I should take myself to be bound to pass through all the Elderships there, rather than hold out of Communion.  
6. In making scrutiny into the knowledge of them that offer Cauti. 6 themselves to deal with all gentleness, 
To proceed with all gentleness in trial of men's knowledge.  especially towards such as have been of a more mean education; many times such know that which they can scarce express, and strength of affection is often seen in plain hearts without any great light. Let these be helped in their words, and let speech be to them in words fitted to their capacity. Let not a question be put of any thing save that which is needful to be known; when it appears that the creation is known, and particularly man's estate by creation in the image of God, and his fall by sin, and redemption through Christ; so that the party can distinguish the Persons in the Trinity, to give an account which of them is the Saviour of the world, that each person is God, the second God, and man in assuming our nature; and withal able to give an account of the death of Christ in satisfaction for sin, our way of interest by believing, the necessity of repentance and a new life, as qualifications of those that shall be saved: knowing the outward signs in the Sacrament, and in some competent measure their signification and use; Such may be exhorted with tenderness to grow in knowledge, but not to be kept back as ignorant ones.  
7. Neither is a Minister upon whisper of any scandal, 
Not to refuse but upon known crimes. Nos a Communione quemquam prohibere non possumus nisi aut sponte confessum aut in aliquo judicio Ecclesiatico vel seculari nominatum atque convictum  to set Cauti. 7 upon proof by witnesses, much less to undertake the giving of oaths to that purpose, as hath been observed out of Suarez: But upon evidence of knowledge of a way in flagitious practices known to him, and scarce doubted by any. That of Austin is famous, We can forbid none Communion, unless he voluntarily make confession, and be called and convicted in some Court, either Ecclesiastical or Civil. I know this is produced by some, to prove that a single Minister may not in any case withhold the Sacrament from any person. But this is a great mistake, it only proves, that upon any particular charge it cannot be done without due proof, and proof cannot be made without power of judicature, either Civil or Ecclesiastical. Aquinas quotes this of Austin, Sum. 13. quaest. 80. art. 6. and yet he never doubted of the sole power of the Pastor in it. It plainly thence appears, that there were both Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts, then appointed to take cognizance of crimes, which some would make to be inconsistent; And that Ministers did take occasion upon convictions there, to deny Communion. It doth no more prove that a Minister hath no such power, otherwise in an Ecclesiastical Consistory, than it proves that he hath no power without strength of a secular Judicatory. It indeed proves that which it is brought to overthrow, which is the Ministers single power: The Minister makes equal advantage in either Court in his prudential proceed in administration of the Sacrament.  
Cauti. 8 8. As it is concluded by many that place power of admission in an Eldership, that a Minister wanting that assistance, may then deliver the Sacrament to those from whom otherwise; he should withdraw his hand; and a learned Treatise is written to that purpose wanting authority to do what regularly might be done; He is not withstanding (as is said) to do his duty in administration. So I might, I think, with as much reason say, that in case a Minister be overborne with power in his people, that he cannot do that in debarring of those which his judgement leads him to deny, 
When a Minister cannot do what he would, he must do what he is able.  without evident hazard of the utter disturbance of the peace of his place, he is scarce to run the hazard; when he cannot do the good that he would, he must do the good that he can; he is to do so much the more in public warning of the sin, and the danger, as he can do the less in authoritative denial, and withholding his hand from them. If it might appear to me that God hath vested an Eldership, and no other in that trust, I think it were scarce safe to put a man's self without them upon administration, last it should be like to that of Saul, when he forced himself to offer a burnt-offering, because Samuel came not in the appointed time: But no such thing appearing in Scripture, nor any sufficient reason evincing it, I take it to be in the Ministers hands so to dispense it, as the Church may receive most of edification by it. And when he is so overruled that he cannot act as he would, he must act as he can. A Steward set over the house, and a Commander or Leader in any Army is sometimes put upon such necessities. Suarez is as zealous as any other against the delivery of the Sacrament to those that are unworthy of it, yet bounds it with this caution, If the Minister may do it without inconvenience; And putting the objection, That not to give the Sacrament to an unworthy person is a negative precept, that binds ad semper, to all times, and therefore never to be done. He answers that this Precept is not simply Negative, but is to be reduced to an Affirmative, which is prudently and faithfully to dispense this Sacrament, which being formally taken is always to be observed, as often as this Sacrament is administered, and so it comes to pass that if it may be, it is to be denied to those that are unworthy, not that it is always to be denied upon any inconvenience whatsoever.  
Nor let any charge me as being too indulgent to such men, seeing none that I know of any party is of another mind. They that stand for Elderships, will have this done by the Minister, when the Eldership overrules it. And those of the Congregrational way, when the Congregation in the majority, votes for it. And may not the Minister do the same thing when he sees that he is put upon like or greater necessity in it? The Church's edification in the first place should be considered, but the peace of the Church by no means neglected; always provided, that unworthy ends of self-advantage, pusillanimity, base compliances (which may be as soon seen in the majority of a multitude, as in one single person) do not overrule it, and may be our temptation in dispensation of the Word, as well as the Sacrament, and with all care, courage, study, prayer, to be avoided; That the Apostles severe charge, 1 Tim. 5.21. may be conscientiously heeded, Doing nothing by partiality.   

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

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

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

CHAP. VIII.  

SECT. I. Of the necessity of Sacraments.  
THe next Observation that the words offer, is, 
Sacraments are not arbitrary but necessary.  That Sacraments are not arbitrary, but necessary; the Covenant-people of God, not only may, but must partake of them. As God appointed, so Abraham received this sign of circumcision: And as he received it, so all in confederation with him received it likewise, Gen. 17.23. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And the stated time for circumcision of those children who were born of parents in Covenant, being the eighth day, the text tells us, That Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God Commanded him, Gen. 21.4. And when Moses had a son born in his exile, and had neglected this duty; The Lord met him in his way from Midian to Egypt, and sought to kill him, Exrd. 4.24. he appeared in some formidable way of death to him, in that way (as many do conjecture) that he appeared to Balaam on his way, Numb. 22.23. Not that God really intended his death whom he now employed in that great work to deliver his people out of Egypt, but he appeared in this posture, to let him know what his sin deserved, and by these terrors to bring him and his wife to take the course after mentioned, for prevention of it. And though there have been some that have gone about to assign other causes of God's anger against heath, and this apparition in such terror, yet no other in the text appearing, and God departing from him, upon the child's circumcision; the neglect of that Command was undoubtedly the cause of it. Whatsoever reason moved Moses to this neglect, whether the fear of displeasing his father in law, or his wife, (which Rivet judges to be most probable) certain it is from the Lords displeasure against him, that it was his sin. This was after given in charge by Moses to the people of God, Levit. 12.3. speaking of the birth of a manchild, he saith, The eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. This the Israelites (except the intermission of it in the wilderness) exactly followed; when the eighth day happened on the Sabbath, that work was yet observed, as Christ notes, Joh. 7.23. On the Sabbath day they received circumcision, that the Law of Moses might not be broken; John Baptist therefore on the eighth day was circumcised, Luk. 1.59. and Christ himself on that day was circumcised, Luk. 2.21. as also Paul, Philip. 3.5. That of the Passeover was appointed 400. years at the least, after circumcision. It had its first institution in Egypt, Exod. 12.3, 4. etc. to be observed as a feast to the Lord, throughout their generations, to be kept as an Ordinance for ever, ver. 14. It was again commanded by Moses, and inserted into the body of the Law, Levit. 23.4. Numb. 28.16. This was carefully observed by the Israelites in their generations, though at some times when Idolatry prevailed, sinfully neglected. We read of many famous Passovers observed; viz. In Joshua's time, in Hezekiah's, in Josiah's days, also by Ezra upon the return of God's people out of the captivity of Babylon, Ezra 6.19. It is observed of the Lord Christ, that he kept four Passovers after the time that he publicly appeared as the Messiah. The last was the evening before his death, concerning which he said, With a desire have I desired to eat this Passeover with you before I die, Luk. 22.15. With extreme earnest affection he was carried towards it, and then he put a period to it, and did institute his Supper in the place and room of it. That heavy menace, so frequently threatened in the Law, of being cut off from among their people, is given out against the neglect of both of these Sacraments, Gen 17.14. The uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant, Num. 9.13. The man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passeover; even the same soul shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin; which commination however we do interpret it, whether of the more immediate hand of God, as dying childless: The case of Jeconiah, Jer. 22.30. or being cut off by untimely death: The case of Er and Onan, Gen. 38.1.9. and of Nadab and Abihu, Levit. 10.2. or perishing everlastingly: The case of all presumptuous and inpenitent siners, 1 Cor. 6.9. or whether the execution be committed to man, and that either the temporal Magistrate, which was the case of Achan, Josh. 7. and of Shelomiths' son, Levit. 24.14. or by Ecclesiastical censure, which was the case of the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5.13. As there be that appear for each of these, which way soever it is understood, it sufficiently proves a necessity of these Ordinances. For the Sacraments of the New Testament when John baptised, and the Pharisees did refuse to submit to his Baptism, the text saith, They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves, Luk. 7.30. and the Commission given to the Apostles, to disciple all Nations, baptising them, Matth. 28.19. implies a necessity of all discipled one's, to submit to Baptism, Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. Faith is of absolute necessity in all that hear the tender of the Gospel, and therefore it follows, He that believeth not shall be damned; and Baptism is the ordinary way set up of God, that leads to it. Peter counsels his converts, when he had them in an hopeful way, Repent and be Baptised, Act. 2.28. And Ananias counsels Paul, Arise, why tarriest thou? and be baptised, Act. 22.16. For the Lord Supper we find it under a precept, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. Luk. 22.19. Do this in remembrance of me, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, implies as a preparation for it; so also a necessity, that we eat and drink of it; so that every Sacrament hath its injunction upon it.  
First, The institution of it is a sufficient proof of the necessity. God did never institute it to have it neglected; There is strength in that argument from the gift to the use, 
Arguments evincing the necessity of Sacraments.  from the fruition of any thing from the hand of God (as the servant the talon from his Master) to the improvement of it. These are instituted of God for his people, and therefore for the use of his people. That which the Apostle speaks respective to Gospel ordinances in general, may be applied to any one in particular; We beseech you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6.1.  
Secondly, Frequent explicit commands are added (as we have seen in the Scripture proofs) respective to either of the Sacraments; and though no other reason could be rendered, yet the Sovereignty of heaven must be obeyed. When the young Prophet that came from Judah, 1 Kings 13. did eat bread upon his return, expressly contrary to the command of God, we know the judgement that followed, when the like command is broke in refusal to eat, there is the like danger; God hath power in positives, as well as negatives, in commanding of eating, as he hath in forbidding.  
Thirdly, As it is a duty, so also a privilege; we obey a command when we receive a Sacrament, and also take a gift. And the slighting of God's favours, equals the evil of disobedience to his commands. What sin suffers more than theirs, that upon call, refuse to come to the wedding supper? The gift is annexed to the duty. Take eat, this is my body; they that do not eat, have not the promise.  
Fourthly, Our necessity calls us to it, we have proved the Supper to be an heart-breaking ordinance, and there is none that deny it to be a soul strengthening ordinance. Hunger will make haste to run to meat, guilt to pardon, and pain to ease, and sorrow to comfort; were we as sensible of our hunger, or guilt, we should make equal haste to Christ in each ordinance, in this ordinance. Those that are agreed about the necessity of Sacraments, are yet at difference about the degree, or kind of their necessity. That distinction of necessity by precept, or command of God, and necessity as a means whereby salvation is gained, is well known 
a Adversarii fatentur Sacramenta esse necessaria quia praecepta, et etiam necessaira ut media utilia: non tamen agnoscunt ullum Sacramentum necessarium, simpliciter ut medium.  Bellarmine says, we yield to them the former, that there is the necessity of a divine command upon them, And they also yield to us that no other Sacraments of theirs are any otherwise necessary, except Baptism and repentance. And we further yield that repentance is of necessity in the most absolute sense; being understood of the change of the heart or conversion to God. But not under any notion of a Sacrament. As to their Sacramental repentance, standing in confession in the ears of a Priest, taking penance, and receiving absolution from him, we do not so much as acknowledge any command of God concerning them; All the dispute than is about Baptism, In which also we cannot grant, that there is a command given of God concerning it, but we must yield that it is necessary as a means whereby God in his ordinary way, carries us on by his grace to salvation; only we deny such an absolute necessity of it, as that no salvation can be obtained without it. They yet yield that desire of Baptism doth supply the want of it, and we yield that those of years, that neither have it nor desire it, cannot be excluded from contempt of it. This growing out of error, as in Socinians, 
The kind or degree of necessity in Sacraments.  and others, we say it is dangerous, but do not presently conclude it damnable. But the want of it, where there can be no desire of it, as in infants, they make damnable; in which we wholly are dissenters, and cannot yield a necessity of that height in it. We have our reasons.  
First, Salvation was not tied to Sacraments in the Old Testament; not to circumcision, in room of which we have baptism, and is by the Apostle called by the name of Baptism, Col. 2.11. This is clear by the delay of it, according to God's command, to the eighth day. If those perished that died in the mean space, which was the case of David's child, their parent's obedience of Gods command brought them to perdition. And salvation being not tied to Sacraments, but attainable without them, in the days of the Old Testament, there is no cause to believe, that in the New Testament, there should be restraint. The promulgation of the Gospel did not straighten grace, or make the way less passeable to life and glory.  
Secondly, They that are in Covenant with God, are upon that account in capacity of Salvation. This is plain; what advantage is gained by Covenant, if salvation be denied? But such are in Covenant, many such that never were baptised. This is as clear. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed; assoon as Abraham had a child, he had a child in Covenant, which howsoever Jesuits, and after them Anabaptists would understand of the spiritual seed, yet God (as we see through the Old Testament) owns them as his in a greater latitude. Those to whom he gave the land of Canaan, are his seed there mentioned: But he gave not the Land of Canaan to the spiritual seed only: Therefore they only are not the seed there mentioned. The New Testament holds it out, in as great latitude, as I have abundantly showed.  
Thirdly, As Abraham the Father of the faithful came into a state of justification, and salvation, so others may attain to it in like sort; This is evident of itself: But Abraham was in a state of justification, without application of any Sacrament in his state of uncircumcision, and not of Circumcision, as the Apostle argues, by computing the time, when it was said of him, that he believed the Lord, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, Rom. 4.9, 10.  
Fourthly, If Baptism be of this absolute necessity, that regeneration is affixed to it, and none can be saved without it, than it is in man's power to save; and destroy, as is said of Nabuchadnezzar, whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, Dan. 5.19. which was the highest pitch of prerogative in regard of the outward man; so it may be said of man respective to eternity of bliss, or misery; according to them the meanest midwife may Baptise them ready to give up the Ghost, and save them, neglect them, and damn them. The Infant set out in type, Ezek. 16. And Moses in the flags, lay sadly at man's mercy for this fading life; but thousands of infants, are alike at mercy, according to this tenant, for eternity.  

Joh. 3.5. vindicated.  The great objection which is made on the contrary, and that only which is worthy of consideration, is drawn from Christ's words in conference with Nicodemus, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. The water there, is meant of Baptism, that laver of regeneration, without this there is no entrance into heaven. When Paul said, Except these stay in the ship, ye cannot be saved, Acts 27.31. all will presently understand that their abode in the ship was of absolute necessity to safety; and so also baptism according to Christ's words for eternity.  
Answ. Though it be not easy to determine, what is the right meaning, (and genuine interpretation of those words, yet it is of no great difficulty to vindicate them, from them that would fasten this sense upon them, and gather this consequence from them; And before I come to a full answer, I shall premise two things. 1. That it is a wonder that Nicodemus coming to our Saviour in the night, and as yet knowing nothing in the Mystery of Christ, should hear that from him, that others in the open light, and fare more knowing in Christianity, could never hear from his mouth. 2. Bellarmine himself (as Amesius doth observe) confesses (and if I do not much mistake, Suarez somewhere) that at that time of Christ's conference with Nicodemus, there was no such absolute necessity of Baptism. He puts the question when baptism began to be necessary, and determines it in four propositions. 
Baptismus Ch●●sti non fuit necessarius necessitate medii aut praecepti ante Christi mortem. Baptismus Christi coepit esse necessarius necessitate medii & praecepti a die pentecostes.  The third is, That it was not necessary before the death of Christ, neither necessitate praecepti, or medii. The fourth is, that it was not necessary, necessitate me dii, & praecepti, before the day of Pentecost. And let any judge whether it be probable, instructing that novice in the faith, Christ would in the first place inform him, not what in present, but what afterwards would be of necessity, especially seeing that after that time by him set down, when the absolute necessity should commence, we hear of no such necessity of it. For more full satisfaction, I further answer,  
First, That text which names not Baptism, and cannot be concluded by an argument infallibly cogent to speak of Baptism cannot enforce an absolute necessity of it; This is clear: But this text names not Baptism, neither is there any argument to conclude infallibly, that it speaks of baptism; probabilities are mentioned, but no necessary concluding argument is by any produced.  
Secondly, A Scripture-text carrying like colour, hath been urged for a like necessity for infants to receive the Lords Supper, John 6.53. But this is agreed on all parties not to hold: This then how eagerly soever it is pressed, may fail likewise.  
Thirdly, Either water there must be taken for Baptism of water, or else by way of Exegesis to hold out the same thing that was expressed before by the birth of the Spirit. If the latter will hold, as there are many parallel instances given, and multitudes of Divines so interpret it (Gerrard in his common places reckons up many more than I have to consult) than this text comes to nothing in this particular. And that this should be the meaning, Chamier with fair probabilities argues, seeing in this sense, the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation. All being of a corrupt birth there is a necessity of a new birth, and that by the Spirit, there being no more births then that of the flesh (which is corrupt) and that of the Spirit, that comes to heal corruption. If the former stand, that water must of necessity hold out Baptism of water, as Papists and Lutherans generally contend, and many Protestants yield, then either the words must be taken in an absolute way, without any limit at all, or else with their just and due limitations; If limits must be put, than no absolute unlimited necessity can be concluded; and to understand it without any limit at all, our adversaries themselves see to be liable to dangerous absurdities.  
Some therefore understand it of the Baptism of water, or some other that supplies the place and room of it; and it is on all hands granted, that Baptismus flaminis & sanguinis, the Spirit, or blood in Martyrdom, may supply the room of it for salvation. And this Chamier says, is the limit that Arboreus puts. Others understand it of Baptism of water, if it can be had, and it be not contemned and despised, and this Chamier says is the limit that Lombard, Bonaventure, Gorran, Carthusian, and Villagadus put to it. Others understand it of that regeneration, that is ordinarily by baptism of water, though by other means it may be wrought. And this limit Alexander of Hales puts to it, as Amesius observes, either of actual Baptism, or else of the desire of it, and this Suarez says is the opinion of all Divines, and charges it for an heresy to hold, that none of years can be saved unless actually baptised, notwithstanding their earnest desire of it; and in his time, he says, one a Michael Baius a Divine of Louvain held it, But as (he says) Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. in their letters published did condemn it. And this text being subject to so many limitations, our adversaries being judges; I hope I may without any just exception add one, that it be understood of men of years, such as Nicodemus was, to whom it was spoken; seeing so many helps are provided for men of years in the want of Baptism, it is altogether unreasonable to leave Infants in such exigents, as to be irremedilesly under damnation for eternity, when it is not in their power to make provision of it, and so are helped by Lombard, and those of that party: Any man may be their Compurgitor that they are not guilty of contempt of it. Besides this Text, there are many high speeches alleged out of some of the Ancient for the necessity of Baptism, and heavy doom of those that pass out of this world in the want of it. But these are not only under the dislike of Protestants, but of those that these lay claim to be of their own party. Bernard, Epist. 77. is large against them; and Vossius hath a full quotation out of Petrus Blessensis, who was Bernard's contemporary. 
c Sufficit Spiritus & aqua: Sufficit Spiritus & sanguis, si aquam non exclusit contemptus Religionis, sed articulus necessitatis: Sufficiet solus Spiritus, quia testimonium ipsius pondus habet.  The Spirit and water sufficeth; The Spirit and blood sufficeth, if instant necessity, and not contempt of Religion depriveth of Water. The Spirit alone may suffice, for his testimony hath weight in it. And whereas Austin of all other is most frequently quoted for this rigid sentence, as being in name most eminent, my author sets Austin against Austin, having in his 5th. Book against Donatists these words: 
d Etiam atque etiam considerans in venio, non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi, id quod ex Baptismo decrat, posse supplere, sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi, in angustiis temporum sufficere non potest. Neque enim latro ille pro nomine Christi crucifixus est, sed pro meritis facinorum suorum; nec quia credidit passus est, sed dum patitur credit: quantum it aque valeat etiam sine visibili Sacramento baptismi quod ait Apostolus. Rom. 10.10 Cord creditur ad justitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem, in illo latrone declaratum est: sed tunc impletur invisibiliter cum mysterium baptismi, non contemptus Religionis, sed articulus necessitatis excludit.  Again, and again, considering I find, that not only suffering for the Name of Christ, may supply what is wanting in Baptism, but also faith, and conversion of the heart, if peradventure straits of time will not permit the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism. But to hold the Reader no longer in this controversy; in avoiding the Popish necessity of Sacraments, for a more distinct understanding of this necessity of Sacraments, I shall lay down some rules.   

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


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

Arguments evincing this necessity.  First, There was a leading Sacrament for initiation many years in the Church, before any was ordained to follow after it. Circumcision was given in charge 400 years before the Passeover; that of Circumcision was not long after Abraham's call, and the promise of the land of Canaan being before Isaac's birth, which was only 25 years distant from his first removal out of Haran for Canaan, as appears, Gen. 12.4. & 21.5. compared. The Passeover was given in charge upon Israel's departure out of Egypt, Exod. 12. one year before the Law was given, which was 430 years after the promise to Abraham, Gal. 3.17. All this time the seed of Abraham entered into the Church by Circumcision, and enjoyed no other Sacrament properly so called.  
Secondly, God's displeasure never shown itself so high, upon the neglect of the Passeover, as upon the neglect of Circumcision, though the penalty threatened is the same in both, Gen. 17.14. Numb. 9.13. God never appeared, that we read, for the death of any, upon that account, as he did for the death of Moses, upon the neglect of Circumcision. Reverend Mr. Cotton makes the like danger to be in the neglect of Infant-Baptisme, as we may see in the Preface to his Book on that subject.  
Thirdly, To be utterly out of the Church, must needs be of greater danger, then to want some one Ordinance in the Church. 
i Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus.  Out of the Church there is no salvation, is an old Rule, which Acts 2.47. Ephes. 2.12. Jer. 10.25. abundantly confirm, that is, without it, and all right of relation to it, and to be without right, and to live in the neglect and despisal of it, (being convinced of the necessity of it) are alike dangerous.  
Fourthly, No such brand can lie on the want of the one, as the other; none equal to that of uncircumcision, can be fastened upon the want of any other privilege: But lest excusing à tanto, I should be though to excuse à toto, in comparing the danger, I should be though to deny any danger in the want of this later, I shall cease.  
Thirdly, As the Passeover in Israel, both in the wilderness, 
The Lord's Supper may occasionally be delayed.  and Rule. 3 the Land of Canaan, was sometimes discontinued, and not in the time prescribed observed, by reason of the Church's disorder, and present unpreparedness of the people; so likewise it may haply sometimes fall out on like occasion, to be thought needful for a time to delay the Lords Supper. For the disuse of the Passeover by the children of Israel in the Wilderness more happily may be said, then for the time when they were settled in Canaan, seeing Circumcision at that time was also discontinued, whether by special command from God, or upon inevitable necessity by reason of their often removals, for which the knife of Circumcision would have disabled, or their sinful neglect, I will not determine; and yet more is said for ommission of it in that time, then perhaps can fairly be defended. A Reverend Divine saith, He wonders why omission of the Passeover in the wildernesses is alleged; for after the first celebration thereof, all future celebrations were by express and plain command to be only in the Land of Canaan; quoting Exod. 13.4, 5. with an etc. Deut. 16. from ver. 1. usque ad 8. and confirming it at large with the authority of Rivet, inserting his words. But with due reverence to men of their eminencey, I may suggest also my wonder, how it can be said, that by express and plain command all future celebrations of the Pass, after the first, were only to be in the Land of Canaan, seeing, Numb. 9.1. a famous Passeover was observed in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the Land of Egypt. If it be said, that this Passeover in the Wilderness was by especial command from God, and otherwise should not have been observed till they came into the Land of Canaan, as Ainsworth on Numb. 9.1. in favour of this opinion doth indeed say, The cause why God commanded them to keep the Passeover in the Wilderness was, (saith he) for that by the first institution they were bound to keep it when they came into the Land of Canaan, and therefore without special warranty could not have kept it in the desert. I answer, That Circumcision when it was first taken up again in the Wilderness, was by especial command from God, Josh. 5.2. and in all probability the Passeover that then was observed with it, ver. 10. was by like command; which doth not argue, but that by virtue of the primitive institution they might have kept it; neither is there any Text urged evincing any such limit to the Land of Canaan: for the place quoted, Deut. 16.2, 5, 6. verses, only looks that way, 
Deut. 16.2, 5, 6. vindicated.  and the words are these, Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passeover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd in the place in which the Lord shall choose to place his Name there; thou mayest not sacrifice the Passeover within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee; But at the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his Name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover at even, at the going down of the Sun, at the season that thou camest forth out ●f Egypt: and there the place prohibited is not all places out of Canaan, but their own gates, though in Canaan. And the place prescribed is not Canaan, but the place wheresoever God should fix his Tabernacle; upon the same account no sacrifice could have been with warranty offered in the Wilderness, but only in Canaan, there is the like reason, and like Law for both, Deut. 12.5, 6, 7. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his Name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come, and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave-offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks, and there ye shall eat before the Lord your God. Yet we find sacrifice offered in the Wilderness, and there they did eat before the Lord, as is plain, Levit. 10.1. ver. 16, to the end. As for Exod. 12.25. & 13.45. where the command for celebration of the Passeover is given in charge to be observed, when they came into the Land of Canaan, They being to have Canaan by the gift of God for their habitation, mention is made of that place, where it was in all their generations to be observed (and no notice taken of any such halt, that they were to make in the way, which their sin did afterwards occasion): But it is no prohibition of it in the way thither, or warranty for omission, when the time was thus protracted for their arrival there; having the Tabernacle with them, they had their liberty for observation of it: which is clear to me, from Deut. 12.10, 11. When ye go over Jordan and dwell in the Land, which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety, than there shall be a place, which the Lord your God shall choose, to cause his Name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you. But before they passed Jordan, while Moses was with them, as you have heard, they had their offerings, which is further plain, Numb. 16.17, 18, 46.47. and so might have had their Passeover likewise. As the Passeover was discontinued in the Wilderness; so it was also oftentimes in the Land of Canaan, we read of no more Passovers than one, that was kept by Joshuah. Josiah in the eighth year of his Reign, began to seek after the God of his Fathers; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah, and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved Images, and the molten Images, 2 Chron. 34.3, 4. But it was in the eighteenth year of his Reign that he could reach to keep a Passeover, Chap. 35.19. Hezekiah, as appears, hasted to keep a Passeover, yet durst not be overhasty, he could not keep it on the day which originally in the Law was appointed. But upon advice put it off to the second month, because the Priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, 2 Chro. 30.3. Ezra kept a Passeover upon the return out of the Captivity, Ezra 6.19. and the reason is given, vers. 20, 21. For the Priests and Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the Passeover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the Priests, and for themselves; and the children of Israel, which were come again out of Captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them, from the filthiness of the Heathen of the Land to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat. Had not the Priests and Levites been thus purified, and the people thus separated, the Passeover it appears had been longer delayed. As these saw necessitating occasion for omission of this Ordinance, which yet is not charged as their sin; so may also the Ministers of Christ see like occasion for delay of administration of the Lords Supper. And there is advantage on their part, seeing there was a prescript time in the Law for the observation of the one, but no limited time in the Gospel for the administration of the other. Sometimes a Minister by providence is cast upon such a people, that scarce three are able to discern what they have in hand, when they are about this duty, and therefore he sees no more reason to call them to it, than Christ saw to call his disciples newly chosen unto private fastings, or the Apostle to give meat to babes; edification is their great business, their whole business; they may stay the time that they may administer it to edification; sometimes it evidently appears that the rent is in a way to be made so great by their administration, through the observance of some working error upon the judgement in others, that are so principled, that none but high Saints are for this Ordinance, that they see danger in proceeding in it. And though I do not doubt, but that it is often forborn out of sinful neglect, and by truly conscientious Ministers, sometimes out of overmuch indulgence of their brethren's weakness, and their own overrigid principles: yet as I do believe that all conscientious Pastors, who for some space of time forbear, do judge that there is cause for such forbearance, so I do believe that upon some occasions pro hic & nunc, it may justly be forborn. And whatsoever exception is taken against Arguments drawn from Analogy, as not concluding, of which I need to say no more than I have already spoken, yet I shall conclude, that this which is drawn from the Passeover (which is rather from example, than analogy) is cogent. If that of the London-Divines in their Divine Right of Church-Government, pag. 20, 21. (quoted and approved by Reverend Mr. Jeanes, pag. 21. of his Treatise) be of weight, That whatsoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture, upon such grounds as are of moral, perpetual, and common concernment to one person as well as to another, to one Church as well as to another, these actions are obligatory to all, and a rule to after-generations, than this Argument; grounded on the example of such actions, is not to be charged as not concluding; yea, though we had no such Example to lead us, (as perhaps they had none, to be a precedent to them) yet those reasons which led them, or those that are equivalent, may lead us likewise.  
Fourthly, 
4. Rule. There is no prescript for the time, or frequency of the observation of the Lords Supper.  There is no definitive time in the Gospel for observation, nor any precise determinate prescript for the frequency of the Lords Supper. But when and how often Christian prudence must order, yet being an holy exercise, the day which we are to keep holy calls for it, being the Lords Supper, what time so meet as the Lords day? The whole community of the faithful being interested in it, it is to be observed at the time of their public meetings, which occasionally may be at other times, but must be at that time. And in case breaking of bread, Act. 20.7. be meant of the Lords Supper, (as most affirm, and I will not oppose) it is out of question. But yet I cannot think that every holy duty is always to be the work of every holy meeting, so the word should never be preached, nor prayer publicly made without a Sacrament; I believe there is somewhat extraordinary in a Sacrament, comparative to other duties, as there is in a Fast. And though the Law for the Passeover, and day of Atonement, tie not us to annual observations only of Sacraments, and Fasts, as it tied the Jews; yet me thinks it speaks somewhat more than ordinary in them, and that Fasts and Sacraments are not to be done in that frequency, as daily addresses to God in prayer, and our hearing from God in his Word. And though I subscribe to Mr. Pemble and others, that the Apostles words, [As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup] implies that it should be often. A Christian should not seldom in his life partake of this Ordinance, yet I suppose it doth allow, if not imply longer intermission than is to be in other duties. The primitive times, perhaps in some places at least, made this Ordinance over-common, celebrating it (as is said) every day, in other places every Lord's day. Mr. Pemble who religiously pleads for the frequent celebration of it, says, It is true, that as in other, so in this Divine institution, Satan hath done much by his malicious policy to corrupt men's hearts in the observation of it. When the Sacrament was administered often, he brought it into contempt by the commonness of it: Now that it is administered seldom, through ignorance it is thought unnecessary. How truly his observation is verified, we see in two extremes into which different parties are run at this present time: One part breaking bread almost at all their meetings, and make no more of it then common bread, looking after no Minister set apart for that work, not so much as of their own making, any one whom they will call a gifted disciple (and such with them is every dipped disciple) is set up for it; They act it while some walk, some talk in their presence, with less reverence than befits grave persons at common meals. I fear there was never more rudeness in Corinth, then may be seen here in Sacramental observations. On the other hand, the Sacrament is almost forgotten, and looked upon as a Ceremony antiquated, and obsolete; Christian prudence should interpose, and discern a mean between both. To quicken and put us on against this last, of which the most had need, instead of a Book of Canons, 
Directions for our guidance about it.  or compulsory Laws. Let us, 1. Affect our souls with an ardent love of Christ, and then we shall not be so slack in celebration of this memorial of him: We will keep up the memory of an endeared friend, this way Christ hath commended to endear his memory to us. If love be such as it ought, we shall not desire that it be seldom, if it may be possibly often. Peter had it three times in charge from Christ, to feed his Lambs, to feed his sheep; how often he must preach Christ he is not told, that is left to his love; If thou lovest me, feed my sheep. Love would not let him be slothful. 2. Let us take into consideration our own necessities, of which here we may have supplies, first our want of humiliation, and heart-breaking, how slight and overly is all our feeling, and sense of sin? if let alone are we not in danger to grow past feeling? which was the case of the Heathen, when they had arrived at the greatest height of wickedness, Ephes. 4.19. Here is an hammer for that purpose, when once the Law hath discovered, by the light that is given, that we have sinned. No way to this for the aggravation of it. Here we see God's detestation of sin, that would not spare it in his only Son, as he spared not the Angels that sinned, but having no Mediator to bear it for them, they bore the punishment of it in their own persons; so he spared not his own Son, when he had taken upon him our sin. Here we see the desert of sin in all those torments which Christ bore for us. If we would know sin, and be sensible of wrath, study the Sacrament, the dead soul may be here awakened. Secondly, our spiritual weaknesses and wants, which I shall set out in Mr. Pembles words, Let them look inward, and see how great need they have of many and often confirmations of their faith, renovations of their repentance, of stirring up the graces of God in their souls, to add an edge, an eagerness to all spiritual affections after holiness, to get unto themselves the most powerful provocations unto obedience. Every one that hath grace knows how frequently the power thereof is impaired by temptations, weakened by worldly distractions, even of our lawful employment, and overmastered by the force of sinful lusts, so that they must needs discover a great deal of ignorance in their spiritual estate, that feel not in their own souls a proneness to astonishment, as well in their souls, as in their bodies, at least they bewray intolerable carelessness, that finding the emptiness and leanness of their souls, yet neglect to repair often to this holy Table, whereon is set forth the bread of life, whereof when they have eaten, their spirit may come again, 1 Sam. 31.12 their hearts may be strengthened, their souls may be replenished, as with marrow and fatness. These considerations may quicken our appetites after this spiritual food. And such a meal extraordinary, with the help of our ordinary refreshments, in hearing, prayer, and meditation, may carry us on more than 40 days, towards our heavenly Mansion. That we hasten not too fast on the other hand, Let us take into consideration our inabilities for a suitable preparation, and fitness for address to this Ordinance; we have fasted so long in course, that we have scarce known what humiliation of our souls in fasting is; yea; some would be every day at ●t, as we can rise in our spirits to the extraordinary weight of it, and fit our souls with suitable preparations for it. These that I have named are the best gauges, that I know, to regulate us in it, that in over-eager haste in duties extraordinary, we do not run ourselves out of breath; nor in overmuch sloth, give ourselves over to faintness, and leanness.   

SECT. III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine.  

Men called to the Sacrament may not otherwise then upon weighty reasons absent themselves from it.  THen it will follow by way of necessary inference from this consideration of the necessity of Sacraments; that, When Sacraments are dispensed, Christians should see weighty reasons, such in which they may have confidence, that they will bear them out at the day of Judgement, for their omission of them. This duty is in the number of affirmative precepts, which always bind, A man is never from under the obligation of that Precept, Do this in remembrance of me; though it doth not bind to all times, A man is not to be ever in the doing of it, and he is never to be found in the neglect of it; Loco & tempore debitis, in due time, and place they must be done. A journey would have dispensed with a man for absence from the Passeover, so it will (when necessity of a man's calling makes it necessary) from the Lord's Supper; so also will sicknesses, imprisonments, or like providences. But when the servant comes, and calls, and says, All things are made ready, then take thou heed how thou makest excuses. They that were called to the wedding Feast might have pleaded, that other businesses lay upon them, that they could not always attend weddings: But when the King sends, and says, All is ready, come, there is no time for other occasions td be looked after. It were an endless work, to find out the reasons that men frame for absenting themselves. 
Excuses for absence from the Lords Table removed.  Some see that it is a duty above them, neither their knowledge, nor their life doth answer to that which is required in a Communicant; and so despair of coming up to it, and therefore keep off, lest they should (as they fear) increase their judgement: In case these speak out of a serious consideration of the work, with a sad reflection on themselves, upon a diligent scrutiny into their hearts, and ways; and so take a day over for it, and in the mean time dig for knowledge, as for hid treasures, and do strengthen their resolutions to withstand all temptations to sin, they are by all means to be encouraged, and helped; every Christian of strength should commiserate these weak souls. But in case they clearly see all to be so, as we have said, and resolve to let all alone, as a man that sees himself near to a bankrupt, regards not whether end goes forward. This is then a sad and saddening reason; It lies upon these to take their state and condition into further consideration, that by the good hand of God it may be better with them. To provoke these to further care of their eternal state, I shall put to them these questions:  
First, What is it that thou dost respective to other duties, 
The excuse of unfitness examined.  the duty of Prayer? dost thou pray ever, or never? resolving to keep back from the Sacrament, dost thou resolve wholly to forbear to call on the Name of the Lord? If thou resolvest in this way, and perishest, thou hast upon thee the brand of the wicked, Psal. 14.4. They call not on the Name of the Lord; and the sentence of the wrath of God, Jer. 10.25. If thou canst pray with hopes to be heard, thou mayest then have hopes to receive the Sacrament, to be accepted; and if so qualified, as to be out of hopes in the one, than thou art altogether void of hopes in both. Paul speaks much of the danger of an unworthy Communicant, which should awaken all that intent to receive. And multitude of Scripture-Texts speak the same of men that pray in such a condition: What can be worse than for the Lord to say, when they pray, he will not hear, he will hid his eyes? Isa. 1.15. to reproach their praying, by the name of howling? Hos. 7.14. to account it an abomination? Prov. 28.9.  
Secondly, If it be above thy hopes to sit down with acceptance at the Lords Table, Is it not then as much above thy hopes to sit down in heavenly places with Christ Jesus? If thy state of ignorance, unbelief, and wickedness keep thee from participation with visible Church-members in this Ordinance in the way, how wilt thou be fit to join with the Church Triumphant in glory? Thou must be made meet for heaven, Col. 1.12. if thou come to heaven: and thou art meet to partake of this Supper, when thou art meet for heaven; unfit for this, unfit for salvation.  
Thirdly, If the danger be great to come unworthily, is it any lesse not to come at all? It is hard to determine of the sins of despising, and profaning the worship of the Lord, whether is greater, or lesser; Judge whether are in better case, those mentioned, Matth. 22.7. or him that is mentioned, ver. 12, 13. and then thou wilt see that there remains nothing, but to endeavour to be such a one that may come, otherwise thou perishest in coming, and perishest in absenting.  
Others profess their willingness, and readiness to come, in case they could have things to their minds when they come: But things being as they are, they are compelled to forbear. Now these keep off out of several principles, which in case they be well laid, they may justify their practice; but in case they are found erroneous, their way must needs be faulty. These are in two extremes.  

Want of a wont Leiturgy may not excuse.  Some would come in case the ancient Liturgy were held, and the Book of Common Prayer anciently in use in England might be observed; in the mean time till that be, they do forbear▪ To this I say, It is wonder how so much stress is laid on this as to invite to the worship of God in case they may enjoy it, and to persuade a total neglect, if they want it. Give me leave to desire of these (there being so many that harp upon this string) a few things for satisfaction, that so we may either prevail with them, to hold Communion with us, or else that we may forbear with them.  
First, Is not this an honour far above all, that is due to any labour, or composure of man, to turn the scale in this manner, whether an instituted worship of God must stand or fall? An humane work it is, this cannot be denied; we are to receive nothing as Divinely inspired, upon pain of adding to the Word of God, but that which is contained in the words of the Scripture. For this, so to steer my course, that when my liberty of use of it is granted, I will worship; and when denied, I will forbear; This I say is too high an honour, a work of man is thus made of the very essence and being of an Ordinancie of God. Hezekiah indeed put that honour upon the Altar at Jerusalem, that he would admit no sacrifice elsewhere, (as Rabshakeh could observe to his reproach, Isa. 37.7.) But he had a Word of God for it, Deut. 12.5, 6. To give the like honour to this book without a word from God, is to idolise it; These opinions of it, were that which outed it.  
Secondly, Is it for the excellency of the work itself, that thou thus prizest it? or from the Sanction, that from higher powers hath been put upon it, the Law that did establish it? It must needs be one of these, that moves thee to put such an honour upon it. That no such incomparable transcendent excelleny, to cause so high a price to be put upon it, can be found in the work itself, may seem several ways to appear, if we consider, 1. The time of composure, immediately upon the first dawning of the Gospel light, and beginning of the knowledge of God in the midst of us. 2. The persons for whose use it was composed, such that for the generality had scarce stepped one foot out of Popish blindness. 3. The end at which the compilers aimed, to frame such a piece that might draw on a people wholly held in Mass Idolatry, to be content to accept somewhat in their own tongue, where prayers are directed to God in Christ, and not (as before they had been trained) to Saints, and Angels; So that they made not that use of their own gifts for such a work, as by the light received from God they might have framed, but such a one that they judged most meet for the Churches present infant condition, and so contented themselves, in a great part, with that which they found in the Breviaries, and Portuises of Rome. In so much that B. Davenant one of the gravest and most learned of Prelates, saith, Deter. 37. 
k Quidam exipsis Pontificibus Romanis, formulam illam sacrorum officiorum qua not utimur, probare voluerit, modo nos ab ejus autoritate hac in rependere voluissemus.  that some of the Bishops of Rome have offered to approve our form of prayers, provided that we would accept it by their authority. This is sufficient, if no more should be said, to make it appear that it did never come up to that excellency, that one might reach, that were composed in greater light, and for their use that were of further growth. But letting it pass without exception, and yielding (as must be granted) that thousands are in heaven that received the Sacraments not otherwise then according to the directory in it, yet doubtless, as must also be granted, that many more thousands are in heaven, that never knew it, Christ and his Apostles never used it. It was not in use in the primitive times; How many Liturgies may be read, as we may see if we go no further than Cassander? and this of ours is none of them. None of the reformed Churches in the world except England hath made use of it. Had it been of such a glory that men would deny themselves the benefit of the Sacrament, rather than want it, all should at the greatest cost have procured it. As our forefathers in England sent over into Germany for Bibles, at least New Testaments with hazard of their lives, so should they out of Germany have sent for ourt Liturgy Whereas some ignorantly say, that that was the Protestant Religion, Protestanisme lives and dies with it; This is damnably injurious to all Protestants in all the world, but ourselves; The want of this Liturgy strikes them out of our Communion; It on the other hand as much gratifies the Church of Rome, whose emissaries whisper this into ignorant ears; they use to charge us, that Henry the eighth brought in our Religion, but according to these we are not so old, Edward the sixth must be the father of it. It is not then from the excellency of the work that men can warrantably refuse this ordinance of God, upon the want of it the Sacrament may stand in its glory without it. But it is from the sanction that is put upon it, the law that hath established it, to which the people of England, though not others, must be subject. This many learned in the laws much questioned; while it was most in use with us upon grounds not easily answered; the act that imposed it under so strict penalties, refers to the book authorized by Parliament in the fifth, and sixth years of Edward the sixth, with two only alterations; now the alterations from time have been many more, and therefore the book is not the same. And whereas we should have recourse to the standard, the original draught among Parliament-records, that for many years hath not been found. 2. When we have suffered so great a change, as we see in our laws, divine providence so ordering, and yet keep silence, and in submission to divine will, conform to that which is in present; How is it that this should be as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which changeth not? When it is taken from us, we must not leave an ordinance of God, to keep hold of it.  
Others would receive it, in case they might keep up their wont gesture when they come to it. 
Variation from a gesture or posture may not excuse.  But seeing that that in many places is not born, therefore they keep from it. Answ. When some heretofore did forbear the Sacrament upon the account of kneeling, being so prejudiced against it (as no Scripture-posture) that they durst not use it, what clamours and invectives were raised against them, that they left (as was wont to be objected) a necessary duty for that which was arbitrary and indifferent, and upon so small an account made a breach of that unity, which ought to be among the people of God? Was it not an usual language in reproach of these, to say that they would receive it lying along; if it were possible standing on their heads, rather than want it? and when these made it their complaint, that they were accounted schismatic Puritans, and worse than Idolaters, for not kneeling at the Sacrament, Abridg. pag. 39 Bradsh. arg. 11. He that took most pains, and wrote most largely in defence of kneeling, answers, As for the imputations of Puritans and Schismatics, so far forth as the same be cast upon you for refusing to kneel, it is because you refuse and oppose the Church in a matter indifferent. For to strive against a National Church, and break the peace of it unjustly (as to break it about such mutable gestures in God's worship, as are truly indifferent both in nature and use, is to break them unjustly) was ever held for a Schismatical course. Paybody of kneeling, part 3. pag. 226. That which was then so blame-worthy, that men upon it were scarce judged fit to live in the Nation, is it now so innocent, and praiseworthy? will this be a good plea at the day of judgement, to speak to God in this language? Thou hast commanded the celebration of thy Supper, enjoining us to take, eat, and to drink of it. Thou didst annex a promise of the body and blood of Christ for the pardon of sin; now there is a gesture which I would take in, which thou commandest not; in case I may not have my will in the one, why shouldst thou have thy will in the other? Let thy great promise go, rather than I will take and eat it, in any other posture then that which I have used. When so many and great troubles were in the Church about this gesture, which are not yet forgotten, many pious men yielded to it, though they saw inconvenience in it (seeing they durst not make a schism in the Church, or be at the loss of a Sacrament) but were fare from believing any necessity of it, or in it. The party that urged it had never more to say then the command of authority, to put an obediential, not an inherent necessity upon it, (as Dr. Sanderson distinguishes) and the indifferency of it in its own nature to warrant it; If a gesture (which some have judged sinful, and all have confessed to be unnecessary) now be waved, none should be so much offended.  
Others yet would break through all of this, 
A call by Church-officers for an account of knowledge and profession of faith is no warranty for absence.  to come to this ordinance, neither want of Liturgy, nor change of gesture should keep them back. But there is a further bar in their way, that which Peter requires of every man, to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh them, a reason of the hope that is in them, 1 Pet. 3.15. is now called for, in case they will communicate. Here is their grievance, and therefore they will absent themselves, and here is a double exception. 1. The thing itself. 2. The manner of proceeding. As to the thing itself; It is objected, that the Apostle says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of his bread, and drink of this Cup, etc. Every man than is to be left to his own private examination, and not to subject himself to the examination of another. For answer to this grievance, I say,  
First, In case that this examination, or account taken, did shoulder out that of self examination, the objection were then to purpose; if these can be proved opposite, and not subordinate, one of them must then be waved.  
Secondly, Let us then agree in this, that self examination is necessary: and that it is to be done in order to the worthy receiving the Lords Supper; and all that would communicate, to be ready to engage themselves for this self-examinrtion, and then I shall only demand these questions.  
First, Whether they will examine themselves, or engage for examination, that cannot examine? Whether they will make a search, that have not eyes to see? Whether they will prove themselves, whether they be in the faith, that know not faith? Whether they will examine their humiliation under sin, and return from sin, that know not sin? If a Minister of Christ should call upon his people to examine, before they eat of this bread, or drink of this cup, he must upon that account take care that they be so fare knowing as to do it. If he must administer it for edification, he should see (so fare as he is able to discern) whether they be in a capacity to be edified by it. If this knowledge be wanting, then by their own confession they are unmeet, in case they be of knowledge, it is easily signified, and made known, especially fundamental necessary principles being alone demanded.  
Secondly, Among other graces, wilt not thou in this self-examination look for that grace of humility? that of hungering after Christ Jesus evidenced in the love of his Ordinances? If thou art wholly wanting in the grace of humility, thou standest unfit for this Table, God resists the proud, The soul that is lift up is not right. If once this be obtained, than thou wilt, as to thy guidance in heaven-way, not be too high to obey those that are over thee in the Lord. Those speeches that we have heard of scorn and comparisons entered, never came from an humble heart. If thou wantest an hungering fervent affection after Christ Jesus, thou than art not meet for this Table, as being without a spiritual appetite; If thou hast attained to it, no such bars will be pleaded, or spoken of to hold thee from it. Hunger will break stonewalls, iron-bars: This is a hard weapon that will break through all obstacles.  
For the manner, some say, 
The association of Elders in the work, no warranty for absence.  If this were done by the Minister alone, they could easily bear, but others associated they do not like. Ruling Lay-Elders they suppose are not of God's institution. To this I say,  
First, What do they say to all the Reformed Churches almost in the World, that have that way of Discipline; if thou wert a member of the Church there, wouldst thou upon this account separate and leave Church-Communion?  
Secondly, What sayest thou of our Government in this Church, when Bishops were in power; who acted then in Government but Chancellors, and Officials, who were for the most part lay-people? If such could rule over a whole County, perhaps three or four Counties; three or four may then with the Minister have inspection into one Parish. The 26 Canon required Ministers to keep back notorious offenders from the Sacrament; and Canon 27. provided that he should give his reason upon complaint to the Ordinary, and obey his direction. This Ordinary was for the most part a Lay-person, and he was set over both the Ministers and Communicants of many Congregations.  
Thirdly, In case any judge that according to Gospel-order, no others should join with the Minister, but that he should act alone in admission; what prejudice is this to the Sacrament, when he that is confessedly called to the work, acts alone in the administration of it? And in case a Minister see it expedient to crave assistance in so weighty a business, especially where he is cast upon a large Congregation, for his further information, and advice; where then is the evil? When Ministers this way go alone, than it is auricular confession, shrift, and whatsoever profaneness can devise; then partiality is objected, that out of spleen they put men from this Ordinance; when to avoid these even by consent help is chosen, that on the other hand it is such a grievance, 
The mixture of such that are supposed unworthy, no warrantly for absence.  that it is thought a sufficient reason of men's absence.  
These that we have hitherto seen are extremes on the one hand. There are those of an opposite party, that have their Objections likewise, and would come, as they say, to this Table, in case they could meet with suitable guests there, and those only that become such a Feast; such that are holy, and no other; but looking for others there whom God never called, they resolve upon that account to keep absent. I answer, 1. Let these take heed lest they take too much upon them, in passing sentence upon all that come to join in this duty, and think better upon it, whether that, or somewhat else, ought not to be there their business? 2. Whether they go not higher than the Word of God will bear them out in the principles that they lay for the qualification of such a one that is admittible to this Supper? and take heed that their great ambition be not to find out a Church in that purity and glory, that Christ hath altogether denied to be enjoyed on earth. 3. Where it is that they can have hopes to go to join, where all give evidences of regeneration, and no other are received? These betake themselves all their days to the Society of Seekers. As those under the famine of the Word threatened by the Prophet, shall wander from Sea to Sea, and from the North, even to the East, and shall run to and fro, seeking the Word of the Lord: So may these, seeking a Church of their own fancying, but shall find none. But for more full satisfaction, let these take these following Arguments into consideration.  

Arguments evincing the lawfulness of communicating in mixed Congregations.  First, There is never an approved example in all the Scripture, of any one man that did separate, or withdraw himself from an Ordinance, which God hath enjoined upon the account of the impurity or defilement, either of him that did administer, or of those that were to join in it. It is true that it is said, 1 Sam. 2.17. as the aggravation of the sin of Hophni and Phinehas the sons of Eli, that men then (and as appears for their sakes) abhorred the offering of the Lord, and therefore in all probability absented themselves from it; but Elkanah and Hannah did not so, as appears, Chap. 1.3, 7. and Mr. Hildersham. Lect. 29 on John, pag. 129. observes from Chap. 2.24. that it was their sin that made any such separation.  
Secondly, There are many approved Examples of the people of God to the contrary; how much do we read in the Prophets of the people's wickedness, and corruptions in the State Civil, and Ecclesiastical? yet which of them for that cause did make separation? We see what company did resort to the house of God in Jeremy's time. Jer. 7.9, 10. and yet we see Jeremy ready, when he had liberty, to resort to it, Jer. 36.5. Much was out of frame, and little in due order in Christ's time; yet as he acknowledged, that even then salvation was of the Jews, Joh. 4.22. they had then saving Ordinances among them, so he held Communion with them, as he religiously observed other Feasts, so some have observed (as we have heard) that he kept four Passovers, after he appeared in public, for the work of man's Redemption.  
Thirdly, One man's sin must not keep another from a necessary enjoined duty; if one man will make himself by his profane addresses guilty of Christ's death, another must not therefore forbear to show forth his death. This is such a duty, and the sin of another will by no means excuse neglect of it: this were to sin, because another sins; to despise an Ordinance, because another profanes it: when one came without a wedding garment, no invited guest for his sake did keep from the wedding.  
Fourthly, No one Communicant is bound to examine what all are, that are his fellow-Communicants; there is neither express command for it, nor yet reason to evince it; each man is bound to see himself arrayed, as he ought, and not to find fault in others addresses, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat; though he be to admonish as his brother's visible sin gives him occasion.  
Fifthly, The penalty of him that comes unworthily, reaches his own self, that comes in his unworthiness, and extends no further. Legal uncleanness defiled the man, that was personally unclean, and not his neighbour: so it is here, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, etc.  
Sixthly, If one man's sin this way do defile another, the sin of one Communicant doth defile all other Communicants; than it must be either from the nature of sin, thus to defile all in so near Communion, or from the nature of the Ordinance thus to be defiled to all, when one in defilement comes to it; or from some positive precept forbidding all to come, when any that is unclean is there. I doubt not but this is a sufficient enumeration. But, 1. It is not of the nature of sin, thus to defile all, in such communion, than it would every where thus defile, wheresoever any have society, or do accompany together. Then the chief Priests had done well, to keep out of the Judgment-Hall, that they might be clean, to keep the Passeover, John 18.28. and the Pharisees to wash, when they came from Market. 2. It is not of the nature of the Ordinance to be thus defiled to all. It is not so in other Ordinances: Cain's offering defiled not Abel's, nor did Hophni and Phinehas in their offerings defile Elkanah and Hannah when they offered. 3. Nor yet is there any positive precept, forbidding a cleansed soul, upon the account of the uncleanness of another, to come to this Table.  
Seventhly, If one man's presence in this way defile another, than it is either his simple presence, such a one's being there in his infection, or else a willing and witting presence with such a one. If simple presence do defile, than there is no man that can be secure. The closest hypocrite that creeps in unawares would be the undoing of all; when Christ said, Ye are clean, but not all, Joh 13.10. according to this opinion it had been a contradiction, the uncleanness of one had been the defilement of all. Neither is it willing, or witting presence, that can in this way defile, than it must be in every single man's power to determine him to be such, and exclude him thence, or else of necessity exclude himself. When the Eldership hath judged and received according to the general way of Reformed Churches, or the plurality of votes of believers, as it is with men of the Congregational way, he must make an after-search, a further scrutiny; he that one judges fit, that most judge fit, some will judge unworthy, and upon that account must shut themselves out of Communion. Men of such principles must everlastingly avoid all Church-fellowship, or act against their principles; and we need not to speak it, it is too plainly visible what manner of persons men of such high pretences have in their Congregations. There are multitudes of Arguments heaped to nourish this scruple, but I shall not further trouble the Reader; there is nothing, I think, can be said, but that which here hath been spoke, will afford a sufficient answer.    

CHAP. IX. The being of Sacraments depends upon their use.  
Another Position yet follows from the words, The being of Sacraments depends upon their use, they are no Sacraments to those that do not partake of them.  
This is grounded upon this act of Abraham appointed of God, and accordingly done by him, 
The being of Sacraments consists in their use.  He received the sign of Circumcision. All that he did was in obedience of the Divine Commandment, Gen. 17.11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. It was not the foreskin, but the foreskin cut off, that was the token of the Covenant. So also in that of the Passeover, Israel had a command from God, to take every man a lamb, and to eat the flesh roast with fire, and unleavened bread, and with bitter herbs ye shall eat it, Exod. 12.3, 8. It is not barely the Lamb, but eaten in the way that God prescribed, that made the Sacrament. In Baptism, the command is, Baptise them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It is not water that makes up Baptism, but water applied to the subject, or the subject to the water. In the Lord's Supper there is bread and wine in their significancy held out, not for bare sight, but a Command is added; Take, eat, drink ye all of this; bread and wine makes not up the Sacrament, without breaking, giving, taking, and eating. In those Sacraments extraordinary. The Sea was no Sacrament, but Israel's passage through it. The Cloud was no Sacrament, but Israel's guidance by it, or the cloud guiding Israel, and Israel following after it. Neither was the Manna a Sacrament, or the rock considered in themselves; but the Manna eaten, the water of the rock drunk by the Israelites. Even the fictious Sacraments of the Church of Rome consist in their use: Their Order is no Sacrament, where there is none Ordained; and Marriage is no Sacrament, where none are married. Their Chrism in confirmation, oil in extreme unction not applied, are of no use, or efficacy. This is plain in Reason. 
Arguments to evince it.   
First, The being of Sacraments depends on their institution; Take away their institution, and they have no being at all. But the institution leads us not barely to an element, but prescribes the use; not only to a sign, but the application of it; not only to water, but to be baptised with water; not only to bread and wine, but the eating of bread, drinking of wine, and the beholding of both.  
Secondly, the being of Sacraments depends upon the relation of the sign to the thing signified, with the analogy and proportion that is held between them. This is plain; Take away such relation, and the element is a common element, and not a Sacrament; set aside, the consideration of the blood, and Spirit of Christ, and water is an element for common use, to take away the filth of the flesh, but for removal neither of the guilt, nor filth of sin. Take away the consideration of the body and blood of Christ, and bread may strengthen nature, but not nourish the soul. But the relation is not barely in the signs, or elements, but in their applications to the subject; water bears no relation to the cleansing of sin, but washing with water; and bread and wine, no relation to the setting forth of the Lords death, remembrance of him, or life by him, but the breaking, eating, and drinking.  
Thirdly, That which being removed nulls a Sacrament, that is necessary to the being of Sacraments. This is plain; Nothing can destroy being, but the want of that which is necessary to being: But the removal, or taking away of the use nulls and destroys the bring of Sacraments. Let not the foreskin be cut off, nor the Lamb roasted, and eaten; the water not be applied to the person, nor bread and wine eaten and drunken, there is no Sacrament; therefore the use of Sacraments gives being to them.  
Fourthly, All benefit of, and in the thing signified, consists in the application, therefore the Sacraments for their being, use, and benefit, consist in their application likewise. The consequence is grounded upon the analogy that is between the sign and the thing signified. The antecedent is clear, the blood of Christ, the sufferings of Christ not brought home to the soul, and interest obtained by application, doth not benefit, or profit.  
Fifthly, That which enters the definition of a Sacrament, is of the being of it. This none can deny: But the use or office of a Sacrament enters the definition of it: Ergo. The Apostle defines it to be a sign and seal, which plainly speaks not the nature, but the use of Sacramental elements.  
Here is no Conroversie in this thing among parties, save with the Church of Rome; neither is there any with them, save in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. They confess that the being of Baptism doth so consist in the use, that without it, it is no Sacrament. Only the Lords Supper (for Transubstantiations sake) though never used, is still a Sacrament, when they reserve it in a box, carry it about for pomp, hold it up for worship, it is still a Sacrament. The body of Christ is still there, and if a mouse falls upon it, the mouse receives a Sacrament, knows upon Christ's flesh. But when worms breed in it (as they may by their own confession) they are hard put to it. They cannot breed upon accidents, the shape, the colour of bread cannot give being to worms. And to say that the substance which remains there, which is the flesh of Christ, breeds them, is no low blasphemy. The generation of one is the corruption of another, and God will not suffer his holy One to see corruption. I remember an answer to this great difficulty, (when I first read Philosophy) out of Conimbricenses Physics; That learned Society did determine, that God by miracle did create matter, and laid it by the consecrate host, and that did putrify, and not the consecrated bread, and so Worms were generated. They sure believe that it is an easy thing to put God upon miracles. Against this permanency of this Sacrament out of the use of it, we say,  
First, If the use of this be instituted, 
The Sacrament of the Lords Supper equally transient with Baptism.  as well as the use of Baptism, and given in command; then this Sacrament consists in the use, as well as Baptism. This cannot be denied, for the institution, and Common of Christ must equally lead us in both. But in the Lord's Supper, as well as in Baptism, the use is within the institution, and given in Command by Christ; Therefore this Sacrament of the Lords Supper consists in the use, as well as that of Baptism. Whereas Bellarmine replies to this, that Christ commanded the bread to be eaten, but not presently after consecration; therefore to delay eating is not against the institution. To this we answer, 1. Neither did he command water, as soon as set apart for Baptism, to be applied to the party to be baptised; yet till it be applied, the party is not baptised, water is no Sacrament; and so the bread and wine in that interim still applied, still wants the nature of a Sacrament. 2. He did command it then to be eaten, by Bellarmin's confession, though not instantly to be eaten; and he gave the like command of the cup, as of the bread, yea, with more exactness a note of universality added, Drink ye all of it; yet their Laity have a Sacrament, and never drink of it. 3. That which the Apostles did, that Christ enjoined (as Amesius well replies;) they understood Christ's intimation, as well as the most nimbleheaded Jesuits, but they did not reserve it, but did eat it.  
Secondly, If there be no footsteps in all the holy Scriptures, of any other way of dealing with the elements of the Lords Supper, than the eating and drinking of them; then, according to the institution, they must be eaten, and drunken: But there is no footstep there, of any other dealing with the Sacrament, then eating and drinking; Therefore according to the institution it is not to be reserved, but to be eaten and drunk. Indeed Chamier quotes Croquet replying, that some of the Ancient have said, that Judas took one part of the Sacrament, and reserved the other for scorn; but this may be well reckoned among others of like nature in their Legends. And I would advise all those that believe it, if they be ambitious to be disciples of Judas, to follow it.  
Thirdly, The promise in this Sacrament is not to be divided from the precept, by any that will expect a blessing. But where the promise is, This is my body, this is my blood in the New Testament; in the institution, There is a precept, Take, eat, Drink ye all of this; therefore they must eat, and drink, that will have benefit in the promise. It would little I suppose please the Reader to hear Bellarmine, Suarez, and other Jesuits to exempt this Sacrament from the common nature of Sacraments, and to make it permanent, when the other (as they speak) are transeunt. Thomas Aquinas, Part 3. Quaest. 73. art. 1. resp. ad. 3. makes this difference between the Eucharist and other Sacraments, This Sacrament is perfected (saith he) in the consecration of the matter, other Sacraments are perfected in the application of the matter to the person to be sanctified. Suarez, disp. 42. Sect. 4. quotes it with approbation; and Scotus in quanto Dist. 8. quaest. 1. as he is quoted by Amesius, All the Sacraments except the Eucharist consist in their use; so that in them the Sacrament, and the receiving of the Sacrament is the same. He that pleases may read Bellar. Arguments, lib. 4. de Eucharistia, Cap. 2, 3, 4. Suarez in the place named with Whitakers, Amesius, Vorstius in 3. Tom. Bellar. Thes. 9 pag. 406. Chamier against them both, with others of that party, de Eucharistia, lib. 7. cap. 4, etc. I shall desire to take up the Reader with that which I judge more necessary; Gerard in his Common places, Cap. 4. de Sacramentis, makes it his business to find out the Genus in the definition of a Sacrament, in which the general form of Sacraments, he says, is to be included; and concludes, 1. In the negative, that it is not to be defined a sign, and in the affirmative, that it is an action. Though this perhaps might rather have been taken into consideration when we spoke of Sacramental signs, and laid open that part of the definition, yet being slipped there, it may not inconveniently be spoken to in this place. In this determination of his, he supposeth, he meeteth with a double error; One, of the Papists, but now examined, that the Eucharist is a permanent thing, and not transient; which it cannot be, in case it be an action. And the other both of Papists, and the followers of Calvin, (as he calls them) both of which affirm, that it is a sign, and that must supply the place of the genus in the definition; and though he professes willingly to yield, that Sacraments may be called signs, in respect of their office, and end; yet he will not have it put into the definition, forgetting it seems (for he doth not once take notice of it) that the Apostle in the Text so defines it. His Reasons to conclude, that Sacraments are not to be defined, as signs are: 
1. a Aliud est res ipsa, aliud ejus officium ac finis, aliud appellatio ejus ex officio, aliud definitio ex essentia. Definitio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ergo genus in definitione peti debet ex rei definitae essentiâ; jam vero esse signum non pertinet ad quidditatem, sed ad ejus finem & usum.  A thing itself is one, and the end, and office is another. The appellation of it by the office is one, and the definition by the essence is another: Now to be signs, and seals, is the end and office of Sacraments. To which I answer; That Sacrament denoteth the office and use for which such and such an element, according to Divine appointment, serves. If we should go about to define bread or water (which are appointed to be signs) to be signs and seals, we should run upon a great error. For it is neither of the essence of bread, nor wine to be a sign. But defining a Sacrament in that way, we hold forth the very essence of it.  
2. He says 
b 2. Definitio debet constare ex prioribus & notioribus; Sacramenta esse signa & sigilla ex prioribus & notioribus, quia ipsorum cognitio pendet ex actionibus & ceremioniis, hae enim cum fine, qui est signare, conjunctae, dicuntur signa & sigilla  The definition ought to consist of that which is before, and better known then the thing defined; But signs and seals are not before, and better known then Sacraments. The minor which every one will be ready to deny, he proves, Because the knowledge of them depends on actions and Ceremonies, as though the Elements alone were signs without consideration of the actions which in the institution are enjoined. His third reason is, because 
c 3. Proprium genus debet esse propinquum; signum autem est genus Sacramenti remotum, tum quia à fine petita est haec denominatio, tum quia mediantibus actionibus certo verbo & externo elemento constantibus signant.  to be a sign is not the immediate, but the remote genus of a Sacrament, which he proves in that it is no sign oterwise then by reason of actions accompanying. Where we meet with the same mistake as before. If it be by the help of actions that they are signs, it is then by help of themselves, Elements with their actions and not otherwise are signs. 4. He says, 
d 4. Pars rei non est genus rei ut totius; signa in oculos incurrentia sunt pars Sacramentorum, una terrena scilicet, cui adjuncta res coelestis invisibilis Sacra mentum proprie dictum constituit.  One part of a thing is not the genus of it, as whole: But signs are but part of a Sacrament, There being two parts, one terrene, and the other heavenly; and therefore it is not the genus. To which I reply, 1. The action which he puts into the definition is but one part sure, and the earthly part, whether it be the action of the dispenser, or receiver, that he understands by action. 2. It seems that he would have a definition of an outward Element, and Christ put into one notion together. 3. We define that which lies upon our hand by divine institution, which is the office of such, and such Elements with the actions about them, leading to the thing signified. Lastly, He saith 
e 5. Genus non debet esse ambiguum; at qui vox signi est ambigua, etc.  that the genus in a definition must not be ambiguous: But this is ambiguous, for men speak of signs ambiguously. But this is nothing to those that speak distinctly of signs, when they put them into a definition, and make it to appear what signs they mean; So that the Apostles defini-nition making Sacraments signs, is yet . And defence being made that they are rightly defined to be signs, all that is said to prove that action is to be the genus, may easily be answered.  
1. The author by an induction proves, that actions are enjoined in all Sacraments, which we easily yield, and as easily prove that those are significant actions, and so make up the sign, and that they are Sacramental, not quâ actions, for then as often as we eat bread, or drink wine, we should be at a Sacrament; and as often as a woman puts water upon her child's face, she should be about baptism.  
2. Sacraments (saith he) are actions; Circumcision is an action, so the Paschal Lamb, Baptism, and the Lords Supper. The first is the cutting off the foreskin; the second is the roasting, and eating of a Lamb; the third is dipping or sprinkling with water, and the fourth eating and drinking bread and wine. Answ. 1. And all these are significant actions in and about an outward element, and so we are where we were. 2. These instances are no proofs that Sacraments are actions, but that action is required to the making up of a Sacrament. It is not simply action, but an action with restraint to such an Element, in, and about such a subject; Circumcision in any other part could have been no Sacrament, nor yet eating of any other creature in the time of the law then a Lamb of the flock, or of the herd; nor yet any other eating and drinking of bread and wine, then in the manner prescribed. And so we may say of dipping, pouring, or sprinkling 3. He does not tell us, whether it be the dispensers action, or the receivers, that makes a Sacrament. In Circumcision, and Baptism he speaks nothing of any action in the receiver. In the Passeover and Lords Supper he says nothing of any action of the dispenser. And it is for the receivers sake that the Sacrament is appointed, and Isaac's Circumcision, and every infant's Baptism (if not Abraham's Circumcision, and Baptism of men of years) may rather be defined by passion then action. And passion may as well challenge the seat of Sacraments, as action, where he placeth it. He concludes, that ancient and modern Writers, yea, calvin's followers call them by the name of rites, and Ceremonies, which we know to consist in action. Here is a manifest mistake, rites and Ceremonies are not always actions, neither humane, nor divine Ceremonies. The high Priests Ephod, with the rest of those holy garments prescribed, were Ceremonies, and so was the surplice while in use in England, and yet these were in the predicament of Habitus and not of Actio. It is true that the putting them on was an action, but that was not the Ceremony, but the wearing of them in the work of worship, and the putting it on was no act of him that wore it, but his that waited upon him. And kneeling at the Sacrament was esteemed a Ceremony with us, yet no action, but a gesture, or posture of the body, and in the predicament of Situs, Dr. Burges indeed in his rejoinder defines a Ceremony to be an action, pag. 29. But presently he explains himself, and says, I call it an action, because nothing is or can be a Ceremony in respect of existence, or being, but only in respect of acting or usage thereof, as a ceremony: so that he takes action abusive, for any manner of usage whatsoever; upon the publishing of the book, I spoke with the author of this thing, and he acknowledged action strictly taken, was too narrow to be the Genus of a Ceremony, and that it was helped by the word usage. So Dr. Sanderson, that renowned Logician, speaking of the execution, done by Phinehas in the division of his text, calls his standing up an action, but presently adds. Though I call it an action; yet it is a gesture properly, and not an action, so that when rites, and Ceremonies may be postures, or habits, it cannot be said that they consist in action; so that it is clear, that Sacraments consist in their use, and though actions be seen in every Sacrament, either done by the dispenser, or receiver, or both; yet those actions being upon, and about some visible element, and the Elements themselves, with the actions being all significant; Sacraments are yet rightly defined to be signs, and not actions.  
Then it must necessarily follow by way of Corollary, that there is no holiness remaining in the elements, 
There is no continued holiness in Sacramental elements.  no relative holiness abiding upon them, further than according to the institution they are applied and received. The water in the vessel that contains it is no further (as I may say) consecrate then as it is applied to the person baptised. The river of Jordan, nor yet the waters near Aenon, in Salem, had no more holiness than other waters in Jury. The relics of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, have no more of holiness, when they are taken from thence then they had when they were brought thither. Tippling off of the wine in the place where it was immediately before received as a Sacrament (of which I have heard) is undecent, and unsuitable to the work that they have been upon, yet it is no other than common wine that then is taken. Care should be taken not to defile the person who remains consecrate to God, and in participation of these elements makes profession of it, no such fear of profaning the elements themselves. But for a great part these are well contented to be profane, provided that the elements may be esteemed, and honoured as holy. This high opinion of holiness in the consecrated wine rob the people of it. Many of the Laity have beards that may lick some drops of it up, and the number increasing it must pass through so many hands, or be put to so many mouths, that some may be spilt; and those fears here so wrought, that they may not meddle at all with it. And how great disputes there have been, what shall be done with it, if a weak stomach vomit it up while the species of it doth remain unchanged; they that are versed in Popish Casuists well know. And all this from that monster of Transubstantiation. But when a right use of the Sacraments is understood, all these superstitious conceits will vanish, and come to nothing; when a sealed indenture hath done its office, we no longer look much after the wax, and parchment.  
Secondly, 
Their touch or abode upon any thing or utensil does not make it holy.  If their Sacramental nature remain no longer than their use, so that themselves are no further holy, than their touch, or former abodes cannot make any place, or utensil holy; it cannot leave any such remaining holiness (as some conceit) behind. So it would follow that in case the words of consecration be pronounced over all the bread in the greatest pantry, or to be sold in the market place (which men of that opinion say may be done) than not only every bit of that bread is turned into Christ, but all the binges or panniers that receive the bread in them must have an holiness remaining, and abiding upon them, and so in like case all the Wine in the cellar, yea, all the earth of the Land of Canaan would remain holy by reason of the Manna falling upon it, which was spiritual meat, therefore a profaning of it, to tread with the foot upon it, much more for beasts to dung and graze it. As much is said to prove that the rock was Christ, as there is to prove that the cup is Christ's blood. If that had such a sanctifying power, than all the ground on which the water ran, yea, every beast that drank of it, was made holy. The thought of this might have silenced that talk of bowing to the place of God's special residence, by which they meant the place where the Sacrament hath been celebrated, which of a Table they made an Altar, which then according to our Saviour Christ, must make holy the body and blood of Christ, offered upon it, and the body and blood of Christ must not make it holy, Ye fools, and blind, whether is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Matth. 23.19. But with us the gift did put the sanctification upon the Altar, that from the time that the gift had been upon it, men must upon sight still worship ad, versus, coram, amazing those that were offended at it, with their distinction of inhesive and abstractive holiness.   

CHAP. X.  

SECT. I. Sacraments are seals.  
HEre follows a second use and office of Sacraments; which being added to the former, makes up the whole for which they serve. As they are signs, so they are seals; from whence a double Observation follows.  
Sacraments are seals.  
All that the Sacraments work on the souls of receivers is by way of sign and seal.  
First, Sacraments are seals.  

Sacraments are seals.  Before this can be proved, by reason of the ambiguity of the word, it is to be distinguished; Seal is sometimes taken properly, and that is yet twofold: 1. A seal sealing, or making an impression, and so the instrument used for that purpose is called a seal, or signet; so, Gen. 38.18. Judah delivered to Tamar his signet, 
Several acceptations of the word.  or seal; so, Dan. 6.17. 2. A seal sealed, or receiving an impression; so the Letters that we send have their seals upon them, when we yet keep our signet, or sealing seal, to make thousands of impressions: so in the vision, Revel. 5.1. there is a book with seven seals. Sometimes the word is used Metaphorically. And that is also twofold; 1. By way of allusion to the signet, or instrument sealing; and so those things that are of great esteem, and highly prized, are called by the name of seals, or signets, Jerem. 22.24. As I live, saith the Lord, Though Coniah the son of Jehojakim the King of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence. So, Hag. 2.23. 2. By way of allusion to the use and office of a signet, or seal, as making impression on things sealed, that is, as doing the office of such seals: Here it is taken metaphorically, not in a proper sense, but in allusion to the use of seals, not the signet itself. 
Several uses of a seal.  Now the use of seals is various.  
First, For secrecy, 
For Secrecy.  to keep things close, so that while the seal is upon them none may look into them. To that end we use to put seals on our Letters, that they may not be read by any but those whom they concern; so the chief Priests sealed the stone, of Christ's Sepulchre, Matth. 27.66. To this use of a seal the Prophet alludes, Isai. 8.16. Bind up the testimony, seal the Law among the disciples; and John also in that vision, Revel. 5.1. I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the Throne a book written within, and on the back side sealed with seven seals.  
Secondly, For warranty 
For Warranty.  and authority in the discharge of any business. Haman had Ahasuerus his seal for the slaughter of the Jews, Esth. 3.12. And Jezabel had the seal of Ahab to bring Naboth into question, 1 King. 21.8. and to this use of a seal the Lord Christ alludes, where he vouches the authority of the Son of man to give life to the world, Him hath God the Father sealed, Joh. 6.27.  
Thirdly, For distinction, 
For Distinction.  or separation, to mark out things that are to be known, and distinguished from others. Commodities allowed to pass, have the public Officers stamp; and the Merchant puts his mark on the wares that he buys, as the Grazier on his beasts, the Shepherd on his flock, to distinguish them from those that belong to others. To this the Apostle alludes, 2 Tim. 2.19. Having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.  
Fourthly, For security, 
For Security.  to keep things inviolable, and free from harm. To that end daniel's prison-door was sealed, Dan. 6.17. To this use of seals Solomon alludes, Cant. 4.12. A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Water was precious in those parts, therefore they shut up their Wells, and sealed them, that none might draw out water from them. The like allusion we see in that vision, Revel. 7.2, 3. And I saw another Angel ascending from the East, having the seal of the living God, and he cried with a loud voice to the four Angels, to whom it was given, to hurt the earth, and the Sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the Sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in the foreheads.  
Fifthly, For ratification, 
For ratification.  and confirmation; for further, and more firm assurance. In the grants and conveyances of men the seal is to make the title unquestionable, Jer. 32.10. I subscribed the evidence, and sealed it. The Corinthians conversion to Christ, did evidence the Apostles Call to work of an Apostle; and therefore he says, The seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. 9.2. We find a seal, and earnest given, Ephes. 1.13, 14. 2 Cor. 1.22. to be one and the same; and the use of earnests we know is for confirmation, to ratify a Covenant, or bargain: what the Apostle saith of an oath for confirmation, that among men it for end of all strife, Heb. 6.16. the same we may say of a seal, that puts an end to differences, and contentions. And what an oath is to a promise, a seal is likewise; and God's oath added to his promise, is of the same use as his seal, that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we should have strong consolations, Heb, 6.18. yea, Abraham the leading man in Covenant had from God both oath and seal added for confirmation of his promise; The Apostle makes observation of his oath out of Scripture-history, Heb. 6.13, 14. When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And here he makes like observation of his seal, God having entered Covenant with Abraham, and his seed, adds this for ratification, Genes. 17.10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, Every manchild among you shall be circumcised; which the Apostle here interprets to be both a sign, and a seal. He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness, etc. And in this respect Sacraments are called seals, to ratify and confirm all that the Covenant doth hold out, and promise. That which doth the office of a seal, or earnest between man and man, that is fitly called a seal between God and his people: But Sacraments do the same Offices between God and his people, as seals and earnests do between man and man; seals and earnests ratify man's Covenant, Sacraments ratify and confirm the Covenant of God; and therefore Sacraments are fitly called seals.  
But exceptions are here taken by those that do deny that Sacraments have any such office as to be for seals.  

Objections against of Sacraments.  First, This is the alone place where any Sacrament is called in Scripture by the name of seal; This Sacrament is only once, and no other Sacrament any where ever so called: And therefore it will not hence follow that Sacraments are seals. 
Sol.   
Answ. 1. This will conclude them to be no signs, as well as it will conclude that they are no seals; Circumcision is here called a sign, and no other Sacrament is in any Scripture-Text called a sign; yet all confess that they are all signs. They may therefore notwithstanding this objection be seals as well as signs. 2. The calling of it a seal, doth not make it one, but only declare it to be such: Before ever the Apostle had given it these names, it was both a sign and seal, as well as after: other Sacraments are likewise seals, where there are like Sacramental expressions, notwithstanding they have no such name in Scripture. And as the Apostle infers from the institution of Circumcision, and Abraham's acceptation of it, that Circumcision was a seal, so may we infer in like manner, that other Sacraments are signs and seals. Compare that which the Apostle here deduceth from Gen. 17. concerning Abraham's Circumcision, with that which may be deduced from Acts 8.34, 35. concerning the Eunuch's Baptism; Abraham believed, and was justified upon believing, and then received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being uncircumcised. And the Eunuch did believe on Philip's preaching, and afterwards received Baptism. May we not well then say, He received the sign of Baptism, a seal of the righteousness that he had being yet unbaptised? so we may say of Paul's Baptism, and the jailors, upon their miraculous conversion to the faith they received the sign of Baptism for the same reason.  
Secondly, It is demanded, whether the Covenant of grace, and promises of salvation be complete, valid, and firm in themselves, Object. without these things annexed to them? or whether they be merely void, and null in Law, as Kings, and men's Deeds, and Charters, without a seal to confirm them? If incomplete, infirm, and invalid, this is extremely derogatory to the Covenant, and therefore they are not properly seals.  
Answ. 1. Sol. If there be some dissimilitude between civil seals used by men in Charters, and conveyances, and seals of God put to his Covenant, will it then follow that upon that account they are no seals? There are dissimilitudes between the Ambassadors of Princes, and the Ministers of Christ respective to their functions, are Ministers then no Ambassadors? There is difference between servants of men, and servants of God, are Christians then no servants? Sacraments are seals by way of metaphor, because they do the office that seals do among men, and if they do not per omnia quadrare, as no metaphors do, yet in case they agree in the main for which that serves from whence the metaphor is borrowed, it is sufficient. Ministers are fitly called Ambassadors; being sent of God to treat from him with a people, as Ambassadors are sent of Princes, notwithstanding that those to whom Ambassadors come, may treat, or not treat at pleasure; may give in Propositions, as well as receive them; when they to whom God's Ministers are sent, must give audience, must take the Propositions delivered, and not stand to Capitulate. If Sacraments ratify to us the promises of the Covenant; That is enough to denominate them seals, though wit could devise twenty differences. And yet I read some differences assigned, which I confess) I do not understand to be any differences at all. 2. I know not that it is absolutely true in Law, that men's grants are void altogether, without a seal; I have heard of Leases: parol, and Wills nuncupative, which I am sure have no seal. And seals sometimes by the injury of time are utterly broke, and lost; and in this case I suppose the Covenant may yet stand. 3. What is objected against this office of Sacraments, as seals, may also be objected against the oath of God made to Abraham for confirmation of his Word. That will admit the dilemma; Either his Word of Promise was true, and firm without it, or else (which I am loath to speak) subject to change. The application is easy. The same thing was revealed to Pharaoh in a dream for seven years' plenty, and seven years' famine, by a double sign; If there was truth in one, we may argue the second needs not; if untrue, neither have cause to be heeded, or regarded. If we will undertake such kind of reasonings, we should make no end. 4. The Covenant is complete, full, firm, and valid, in case we should never more than once hear it, or never have any seal put to it, nor any oath for confirmation; yet our unbelief, and distrust is such, that we need ingeminations, inculcations, oaths, seals, and all from God to uphold us.  
Object. Thirdly, It is yet demanded, whether these seals are inseparably annexed to the Covenant, and promises of grace in the Old, or New Testament, as parts, or parcels of them, as seals are annexed To the Charter? If yea, then show us to what Covenants, and Promises, and in, and by what Texts they are thus inseparably annexed, and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant, and promises of grace, who do not actually receive these seals of grace? when as yourselves with all Orthodox Divines must grant, that many who were never baptised, and infinite who never received the Lords Supper, are and may be saved, and are made partakers of the Covenant, and promises of grace, without receiving, or enjoying these seals of grace. If not, then how can these be termed seals of the Covenant, and promises of grace, which are not inseparably affixed to them, as seals are to Charters since many receive the Covenant, and promises of grace, without these seals; and other receive these seals, without the Covenant, or promises, the benefit whereof they never enjoy.  
Answ. They are inseparably joined respectu praecepti, Sol. as being enjoined of God (and here all the Texts brought to prove the Sacraments not arbitrary, but necessary; may be brought in to witness) though not so respectu medii, The Covenant may have its effect without them, The Covenant is entire in itself without them. They are not inseparable quoad esse, yet they have their necessity (though not simple, and absolute) quoad operari, for the Covenant to have its due work on our hearts. God saw them necessary, helpful, and useful, and therefore gave them in charge, as many Scriptures witness, and we of necessity must submit to them, in order to obtain the end to which they serve; and for which they are designed, and appointed.   

SECT. II. Rules for a right understanding of Sacramental Seals.  
FIrst, These are outward, visible seals; 
Explicatory Propositions touching the sealing of Sacraments.  and privileges of visible Churches, and Church-membership, committed to the Stewards of God in his house to dispense, and apply to their people. And so different from that other seal of God frequently mentioned, the seal of the Spirit which is internal, invisible, proper only to the elect, regenerate, reserved in the hand of God, according to prerogative to give. That these are external, and visible, needs no more than our eyes; and that they are the privilege of visible Churches, and Church-members, sufficient hath been spoken. And therefore they both agree in the general nature of a seal, both are for ratification, and confirmation of the truth of God's promises, yet in a different way, and different latitude; They have the former, that never reached the latter; and the former is serviceable to attain to the latter.  
Secondly, They are seals not to confirm any truth of God in itself, or to work in us any assent to general Scripture-Propositions, But as general truths are brought home by particular application, so they seal men's particular interest in the Covenant. He that hath the Son hath life; He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. These are Scripture-Propositions, and he that is to seek here hath no cure in the Sacraments; They can give no direct remedy. These signs and seals take this for granted, and cannot make proof of it. But when this is assented to in the general, He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that feeds upon him, shall live for ever; Here souls are confirmed in their particular interests, that the Son is theirs, and that they feed upon him for life eternal.  
Thirdly, we must distinguish the outward sign in the Sacrament together with that which is done about them, or any of them, and the Communicants act in the bare beholding of them, from our act of receiving of them. In the former sense they are no more than signs. The Lord's Supper thus considered is no more than a remembrance, memorial, or representation of Christ's death and passion. In the latter it is a seal, pledge or earnest. And therefore to say that Christ ordained it to be a remembrance, memorial, and representation of his death is a truth. But to say that therefore he did not ordain it to be a seal, is a manifest error. If Christ had taken bread, and broken it; taken the cup, and poured out wine, and had said, This is my body, this is my blood, here had been a sign, a memorial, a representation, and no more: But when he says, Take, eat, this is my body; This is my blood in the New Testament, drink ye all of this; it is, as Circumcision was, both a sign and seal: As a sign, remembrance or representation; the beholding is sufficient, as the Israelites did the brazen Serpent, and as Papists look on their Images, for which if they had an institution, as they have a prohibition, they might be defended; and if we were to do no more, it would be no more than a sign, memorial, and representation; But being to receive it, It is a seal, and pledge of that which it represents, and brings to our minds.  
Fourthly, They are not absolute seals, but conditional; They do not make it good to all, that Christ is theirs; but upon God's terms, which is expressed by St. Peter to be the answer of a good conscience towards God; Of this I spoke largely, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 34, 35, etc. which by Mr. Baxter in his Apology hath been examined, Sect. 60, to Sect. 82. which here must briefly be taken into consideration.  

A digression for vindication of chap. 7. of the Treatise of the Covenant, from Mr. Baxters' exceptions, touching conditional sealing in Sacraments.  
HAving in my Treatise of the Covenant, showed at large that the Covenant of grace is conditional, In my seventh Chapter I inferred, that the seals of the Covenant are as the Covenant itself conditional; making it good with six several arguments, as I had before asserted it in my answer of Mr. T. chap. 15. p. 100 This reverend Mr. Baxter is pleased to take notice of in his Apology; and to put the question in opposition to me in these words, Sect. 60. Whether the Sacraments seal the conditional promise absolutely; or the conclusion conditionally; when only one of the premises is of Divine revelation: and whether this conclusion be de fide, I am justified, and shall be saved? Which terms I leave to the intelligent Reader to consider. He is not pleased to take notice of any one of my arguments whether it is because he judges them unworthy of his answer, or for any other reason, I cannot tell. I produce likewise the testimony of many of our Divines, speaking the same thing, and he takes as little notice of any of their authorities. As I then spoke what reason enforced me to believe, so I have the same reason still, to believe what I have spoke; and when all is examined, which may be found in that apology, from p. 115, to p. 144. I think more is spoken for me then against me. He is pleased, pag. 139. to say, The difference is so small, that were it not for some scattered by-passages, I would scarce have replied to you. I therefore shall return no other rejoinder, but only to observe such passages as may best serve to clear the truth in question; He goes about to take away the subject of the question, and says, I never heard of, nor knew a conditional sealing in the world; which to me is very strange. Besides what I have spoken of it, he hath doubtless read Mr. Marshals answer to Mr. T. (and, pag. 224. of his Treatise of Infant-Baptisme, he makes us know that he hath read it,) and he expressly calls it, a conditional seal of the receivers interest in the Covenant. He confesses the possibility, but asserts the vanity of such sealing. As if a man (saith he) Sect. 77. pag. 140. should set the wax and material Seal to a deed of gift, with this addition, I hereby seal to this, or own it as my deed; if such a man be now living in France, or if such a ship be safe arrived, or if such a man shall do such a thing, otherwise this shall be no seal. Here I think an impossibility is found out; Is an actual Seal made no Seal upon any condition in the World? Hath he never heard of that Maxim, Quicquid est, quando est, necesse est esse: or that other, Quod factum est, infectum reddi nequit? And we are wont to say, that this is not within an omnipotence to make a thing that is, whilst it is, not to be: unless Mr. Baxter means that such wax with impression made, is formally no seal, before the time that in law it hath its efficacy, as he seems to say, Sect. 72. where he hath these words, To say, I conditionally seal, is to say, It shall be no seal, till the performance of the condition. So a bond sealed and delivered in presence of witnesses, is unsealed till it be forfeited; which is a manifest absurdity. And I speak not of a conditional seal as opposed to actual, I should call such a seal not conditional, but potential; I speak to conditional sealing, as it is in the question, that is, when a man ties himself by seal to such or such a thing, not absolutely, but upon condition; and such sealings I think are common in the world. A Master seals to his Apprentice, and binds himself at the end of his term, to apparel him, to make him free of his mystery, etc. but all this upon terms and condition of true and faithful service. If Philemon in his way had sealed to Onesimus, his seal had not tied him to make good such engagements. I have always thought, As is the obligation, so is the seal; and if there be no such conditional obligations, we have been long abused with such forms: The condition of this obligation is such, etc. But if any list to say, that Sacraments absolutely seal upon conditions as it seems Mr. Baxter chooses to speak, and some of his friends have said is more proper, (though I do not see it, yet) I will not contend about it. He tells me that he confesses, that neither promise nor seal bind absolutely, till the condition be performed, pag. 140. and this is the whole that I desire; I am there taken up for saying, [That the conditional promise is not any absolute undoubted truth, but upon supposal of the condition put.] If the Reader compare the context either in the precedent or subsequent words, he may easily see [truth] there should have been [tie]; and I think he could scarce have miss the sight of it, had my sentence been fully quoted. The close of my speech in these words [so both promise and seal absolutely bind] is left out; yet the words as they stand, though they carry no congruity, might have received a fair Interpretation: It was no absolute truth that the Jailor should be saved, but upon condition of his believing. I shall not trouble the Reader with that, which to him would be tedious, and from which he can receive slender benefit; I shall only take notice of some passages which Mr. Baxter is pleased to put into his Index, seeing many will perhaps look there, that will go no further. The Minor being sealed, the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed, as Mr. Bl. affirmeth, and refers to Sect. 65. p. 123. but his charge is, p. 124. It is new Logic to my understanding, that the Minor being sealed, the Conclusion eo many is sealed: The Minor of many an argument may be true, and the Conclusion false. And therefore when the case so falls out, that both Minor, and Conclusion are true or sealed, it is not eo nomine, because the Minor is true, that the Conclusion is so, (or is sealed eo nomine, because the Minor is so) but because both Major and Minor are so, and not then neither, but upon supposition the syllogism be sound. It should first have been made to appear that I vent such Logic, and then I might more fairly have been charged with new Logic. I spoke not of syllogisms in general, but of the syllogism I had in hand, and such a one where the Major is taken for granted, as I say it is in that syllogism. The Major in that syllogism is laid down in these words; If God give me Christ, he will give me justification, and salvation by Christ; which is clearly laid down by the Apostle Rom. 8, 32. The Minor is expressed in these words (as supposed to be the words of God in the tender of the Sacrament) Here I give thee Christ, upon which the Conclusion follows: Therefore I give thee justification, and salvation. The Major in this, I said, pag. 41. is supposed, not sealed; The Minor is there sealed, giving in my reason, which is not opposed; and the Minor being sealed, I say, the Conclusion is eo nomine sealed. This is confessed, upon supposition, that the Syllogism is found to be sound; and the Syllogism is not yet under any charge, and therefore what I say, by his own confession is true. There is further put into the Index Mr. Bl 's doctrine untrue, that [if the conclusion be not sealed, than no proposition is sealed] referring to Sect. 68 pag. 126. My words quarrelled at are these, pag. 42. [If the Proposition serves directly to prove the conclusion, then that which directly confirms any Proposition in a rightly framed syllogism confirms the conclusion. If the conclusion is not sealed, than no Proposition is sealed, or else the syllogism is ill framed.] The answer returned me is this, This is too new doctrine to be received, without one word of proof: Doth he that sealeth the Major of this following syllogism seal the conclusion? All that truly receive Christ, are the sons of God, and shall be saved: Judas did truly receive Christ; Therefore Judas was the son of God, and shall be saved. I think both premises must be true, before the conclusion will thence be proved true: And it is not sealed by God, when it is false. I confess I stand amazed at this picking of quarrels, and high strains of wit, to find out matter for animadversions; If the Minor Proposition here expressed, directly serve to prove the conclusion, than Judas is saved: for if it serve directly to that purpose, it is neither in matter, nor form defective. If any should wickedly say R. B. shall not be saved, and to make it good; shall affirm, that he is a pure Pagan, wholly ignorant of Jesus Christ; will any say, that this directly proves it, when the proof contains such an abominable falsehood? And such is the proof here, that Judas is the son of God, and shall be saved; change Judas into Peter, and then you speak my thoughts. He is pleased further to put into his Index, Whether it be virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is justified? I confess I did not without trembling of spirit read, nor without tears think upon this, thus put to the question; together with that which follows, Whether it be de fide that Mr. Bl. is justified? Who would not believe, that I had directly asserted it, or made some unsavoury vaunts about it? I must therefore give the Reader an account, that Mr. Baxter himself, Appen. pag. 66. had framed this syllogism in order to the finding out of the way of Sacraments sealing; He that believeth, and is justified shall be saved: But I believe: Therefore I am justified, and shall be saved; affirming that this conclusion [I shall be saved] is no where written, to which I answered, Treat. of the Covenant, pag. 42. It is written virtually, though not expressly: making it clear by an other instance: it is not where written, that I shall rise in judgement; yet it is on faith, that I shall arise, seeing it is written that all men shall arise; and when I have concluded faith in my heart, as well as reason in my soul, knowing myself to be a believer, as I know myself to be a man; I may as well conclude, that I shall arise to life, as that I shall arise to judgement. After some exceptions taken by him at the word [virtually] to prove if he could, that my syllogism is tautological, he adds, Yet I confess, that some conclusions may be said to be Interpretative vel secundum locutionem moralem in Scripture, when but one of the premises is there; but that is when the other is presupposed as being certain. And do not I presuppose the Minor here to be certain, in saying, When I have concluded faith in my heart, as well as reason in my soul, I speak not to it, but upon this supposition, that it is concluded; And  the conclusion may be Interpretative in Scripture according to Mr. Baxter, though not virtualiter, and that shall serve my turn: And I think there is as much of tautology in the one as in the other. For my conclusion in that instance of arising again, it is said that, It is by faith and natural knowledge mixed, that I shall rise again; and I am further told, Tho●gh in strict sense it be thus mixed: In our ordinary discourse we must denominate it from one of the premises, and usually from the more notable, always from the more debile. Scripture saith, that all men shall rise; reason saith, that you are a man. Though the conclusion here partake of both; yet it is most fitly said to be de fide, both because Scripture intended each particular man in the universal, and because it is supposed as known to all that they are men: and therefore the other part is it that resolves the doubt, and is the more notable, and more debile part. To which I only say, that of two premises the debilior should be the more notable, or that a Proposition which is laid down terminis terminantibus of God himself should be more weak, then that which reason concludes, I am to learn. I am further told, that it is an undoubted truth with me, that conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem; That it follows deteriorem partem, I long since learned, so that if one of the premises be false, the conclusion cannot be true; but that it must have its denomination à debiliori, in the sense here spoken to, I never yet heard, nor could I have once thought, that upon the account of the weakness of that Proposition of faith, [All men should rise] it should be yielded to be of faith, that I should rise, and not otherwise. And here I am put to it to answer, whether I have a fuller evidence, that I am a sincere believer, than I have, that all sincere believers are justified? And am told, It seems by your following words, that you have or suppose others to have. I wonder what words of mine those are that speak such madness. Can I be more sure that I see the Sun, than I am that there is a Sun to be seen? I am yet told, If you have as evidently concluded, that faith is in your heart (saving faith) as that reason is in your soul, and know yourself to be a believer, as evidently as you know yourself to be a man, than your conclusion may be denominated to be de fide, as a part debiliori. But what if any man have concluded, though not with that evidence, and full strength of light, how it is hindered, but that still it may be a conclusion de fide, I confess I am to seek in this new learning, to inquire into premises, whether is debilior, whether fortior, and so to give the conclusion denomination à debiliori; what if I cannot tell in which of them most strength lies, (as it seems Mr. Baxter himself is sometimes to seek) than I shall be at a stand, whether the conclusion is to be denominated of faith, or of sense, or reason; I take it to be de fide when I have warrant from the Word of God for it, and it leads me to believe it.  
Mr. Baxter had said in his Appendix. Otherwise (that is, as I understand him, if this proposition, I shall be saved, be sealed in the Sacrament) every man rightly receiving the seals, shall be justified and saved. To this I have answered, I see no danger in yielding this conclusion; Every man rightly receiving, and improving the seals must be saved, and justified. He that rightly receives the seals, receives Christ in the seals, and receiving Christ, receives salvation. In his reply, he first explains himself, and then retorts upon me. He says, by rightly I meant having right to it, and that only in foro Ecclesiae, and not rectè, and confesses he should plainlier have expressed his meaning. Let him then bear with others if their words do not always speak their meaning so plainly as he would desire. I think my meaning was never so in the clouds, as his is here. He than retorts upon me, in these words, Whether you here contradict not your doctrine of Baptismal faith, where you suppose justifying faith to be the thing promised by us in Baptism, and therefore not prerequisite in it, I leave you to judge, and resolve, as by your explication. I have busied my head not a little, to find out where any colour of contradiction lies. If it be in this that I yield, that every man that rightly receives the Sacrament shall be saved, and yet affirm, that men that are not in a state of salvation have right to Sacraments, than it is a contradiction to say, that any man may have true right to any thing that doth not rightly use it, which indeed is a contradiction much like to some others, with which I am charged, and might with as good reason have found a place in an Index.  
Having yielded to Mr. Baxter, That Papists have great advantage given them by those, that mistaking the nature of justifying faith, think it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sins. Yet to make it good, that the conclusion that my sins are pardoned, or I shall be saved, may be de fide, when the soul hath a right proceeded in the premises; I say, As it is an error to hold, that to believe my sins are forgiven, is of the nature, or essence of faith, as though none did believe, but those that had attained such assurance, (true faith hath assurance in pursuit only, sometimes, and not always in possession) so on the other hand, it is a mistake to say, that it is no work of faith. The Apostle calls it the full assurance of faith, Heb. 10.22. and describeth faith to be the substance of things hoped for; faith realizeth salvation, which we have in hope to the soul. A description of faith (saith Dr. Amesius out of a Schoolman) by one of the most eminent acts that it produceth; therefore I take that to be a good answer that is here charged with error that when it is written, he that believeth is justified, it is equivalent, as though it were such, or such a man is justified, in case with assured grounds, and infallible demonstrations, he can make it good to his own self that he believeth. Upon this he comes in, not with a few animadversions, the two first are to conclude from my own mouth that assurance is not faith, in that I say it is not of the nature and essence of faith, and hath it sometimes only in pursuit, and not in possession. In which he seems to take for granted that I had affirmed that assurance is faith, when I can produce witnesses that almost 30. years ago I have opposed it, and I still persist in the denial of it. 3. He says, I know none that deny assurance to be a work of faith, which Mr. Bl. saith here is a mistake, to say love and obedience are works of faith, but not faith itself. A work I mean as my words import, attainable by faith, and if faith by Scripture-promises, is able to conclude it, than the conclusion with me is de fide when it is concluded. 4. He says, I must have better proof before I can believe that it is assurance of our own sincerity, or actual justification, which the Apostle calls the full assurance of faith, Heb. 10.22. And I think he is the first man amongst orthodox Divines, that hath doubted that assurance of acceptance, is meant in that place. Faith is that grace (say the last Annotations) whereby we either do, or may approach unto God, with full assurance of acceptance. Is not that boldness in our addresses mentioned, ver. 19 an evident symptom of it? And is not sincerity fet forth in those words [having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water] as the basis, or bottom of it, not of our acceptance, but of our assurance? I must hear somewhat more, before I can question it. There follows. 5. And as hardly can I discern assurance of our sincerity in the description of faith, Heb. 11.1. unless you mean that hope is part of faith, and assurance the same with hope, both which need more proof. Hope may be without assurance, and when it is joined with it, yet is not the same thing; only such assurance is a singular help to the exercise of hope. And can you not discern a double encomium of faith in those words? The first with respect to things past and present, as well as things to come, where it is said to be The evidence of things not seen. Faith makes that evident, which otherwise would not be known. The other respective to things to come, and that not evil, but only good; not things feared, but hoped; expressed in these words, Faith is the substance of things hoped for; both of them rather expressing what faith does, than what faith is; and I know not why that speech of hope should be brought in here, when it is only said, that the good things hoped for, are that which faith realizes to the soul. It is said further. 6. It is true that faith may be said (as you speak) to realize salvation to the soul; that is, when the soul doubteth, whether there be indeed such a glory and salvation to be expected, and enjoyed by believers as Christ hath promised ere faith apprehendeth it as real, or certain, and so resolves the doubt. And is this all that faith can possibly do, and for which this high praise is here given unto it? Against this I say; First, This was expressed in the former branch, the evidence of things not seen; faith believes a heaven, as well as a creation. Secondly; a faith short of justifying may do this, an historical faith assents to the highest dogmatical truths. Thirdly, will you have the full assurance of hope, Heb. 6.11. to be no other, then to get assurance that there is a heaven, though we shall never come to heaven? which would be a contradiction; for hope hath possession in expectation. Fourthly, doth not our hope enter into that within the vail, whither our forerunner is gone before us? Heb. 6.19. and are we not saved by hope? Rom. 8.24. Faith then being said to be the substance of things hoped for, it doth not barely tell us that there is a heaven, (that is too lank and lean a commendation of it) but the office of it is to realize the possession of it to us. It follows, But when the doubt is, whether I be a true believer, saith resolves it not. Faith hath its hand in the resolving of this doubt, in believing from the Scriptures, what are the Symptoms, or cognisances of true believing, and gathering them up by reflex upon itself. It follows, And when the doubt is, whether this certain glory, and salvation shall be mine, faith only cooperateth to the resolve of it, by affording us one of the propositions, but not both, and not wholly the conclusion. If faith affords us one of the propositions, and finds the other in the Scriptures, that is to me sufficient. It follows. 7. I am of Dr. Amesius his mind, that it is one of faiths most eminent acts, by which it is there described. But undoubtedly you were not so in your sixth animadversion, when you left it so low, as we have heard, and made it no more than the faith of wicked men may reach. There is added, But so think not they that tell us, that is none of the instrumental justifying act which is there described. But doubtless they may very well think so. This here mentioned is a more eminent work of faith, then that of justifying, as a child on a Giant's head is further removed from the earth, and nearer the clouds then the Giant himself; Faith that gives assurance, presupposeth the justifying act already done by itself, and adds more to it, when a man believes savingly there is Certitudo objecti, he that believes shall be saved, but this here mentioned is, Certitudo subjecti, when the good hoped for is assured to the soul. If there be any other promise made of God for good, this work of faith I confess takes it in, and I do not believe that the Apostle doth limit this work of faith to the hope of salvation, but I am sure he doth not exclude it; that being the chiefest thing in our hope, that is undoubtedly chief intended, and might well by me be mentioned. It follows. 8. This which you took to be a good answer, is that great mistake which hath so hardened the Papists against us; and were it not for this point, I should not have desired much to have said any thing to you of the rest, about conditional sealing, as being confident, that we mean the same thing in the main. If that be that great mistake, I am still in the mistake, and you are the first man that ever went about to rectify it; but you herein fail, that you show not wherein the mistake lies. Those Divines that deny faith to be assurance (that were as much as to define a man by such excellencies that are to be found in few men, and so to exclude the common pitch of men from the species of mankind) do not yet deny but that faith may attain to assurance. It follows. 9 You forsake them that use to give this answer, when you confine it to those only that with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations can make it good to themselves that they believe, i. e. savingly. I think that they as well as I, confine it to those that you here mention. It follows, I doubt that answer then will hold but to very few if you mean by assured grounds etc. such as they are actually assured, are good and demonstrative. I believe that straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth to life, and few there be that find it. There are not many, we may fear, that do savingly believe, and many of those are not yet assured that they do believe; and to this Mr. Baxter hath spoke abundantly sufficient in his Saint's rest. It follows. 10. Demonstrations may be infallible, and yet not known to be such to the person: but I suppose that by the word demonstration, you intent that the party discerns it to be an infallible demonstration: which sure intimates a very high kind of certainty. You may well know that I intent so, when you see that I say so, and I do not make that to be assurance, cui potest subesse falsum; If it prove in the event otherwise, it was not assurance. It follows. 11. Yet even in that case I deny that the general Premise in the Major is equivalent to the conclusion, I am justified, and shall be saved, though I should acknowledge that the conclusion may be said to be de fide, in that the Major hath the predominant interest in the conclusion; if so be that the man have better evidence of his sincerity then of the truth of the promise. Neither do I say that that Proposition, He that believes, and reputes shall be saved, is of itself equivalent with that conclusion, without the assumpion with Scripture-warrant, and help of the Spirit, that I believe and repent; and I know not what to make of such strange supposals of a better evidence of a man's own sincerity in any man, then of the truth of the promise which Mr. Baxter presently affirms to be a contradiction. There is no man comes up to sincerity, but he that is assured by faith, that the promise is true; Though he may be sometimes staggered, yet he rises out of it, and holds fast to the truth of the promise; and when the soul hath evidence of both, and is assured of both, I say, the conclusion is de fide; see Mr. Ball of faith, pag. 80.  
Mr. Baxter says, Appen. pag. 71. When the Papists allege, that it is not where written [that such, or such a man is justified] we answer them, that it being written [that he that believeth, is justified] this is equivalent. A gross mistake, (saith he) as if the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion, or as if the conclusion must, or can be merely credenda, a proper object of faith, when but one of the premises is matter of faith, and the other of sense and knowledge. In my Treatise of the Covenant, I opposed against him Dr. Goads speech in a conference, expressing himself in these words, I will maintain the contrary against you, (viz. Fisher the Jesuit) that a conclusion may be de fide, although both Propositions be not de fide, but one of them otherwise, and infallibly true by the light of reason, or experience, giving instance in such a syllogism. Mr. Baxters answers, Sect. 75. Dr. Goad saith but the same that I say, only I distinguish, etc. And I am well content then to say what both of them say, and leave it to the Reader to take the benefit of his large and elaborate discourse on this occasion.  
He is pleased to put into his Index, the difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted, and a plain cogent argument added to prove, that the conclusion forementioned is not sealed, which is the work of Sect. 76. pag. 139. In which much by him is granted, and much affirmed; to which I assent. His cogent argument that the conclusion [I shall be saved] is not sealed, is thus framed, Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem, vel deteriorem; At propositio non obsignata, est pars debilior, vel deterior; Ergo conclusio sequitur propositionem non obsignatam. I shall give it in English, that if possible all may understand us. The Conclusion follows the weaker or worse part: But the Proposition unsealed is the weaker, or worse part: Therefore the conclusion follows the Proposition unsealed. And after many words he says, For my part, I know not what objection can be made against either part of the forecited argument (the Major being a common Canon or Rule that holds in all figures, and the Minor being yeeled by yourself) else I would answer to it. To this I might have many things to say. First, That Mr. Baxter knowed, that I did not allow of any such Syllogism as this, which he thus frames in order to find out the sealing of the Sacraments, and therefore what is here sealed or not sealed, with me is little to the purpose.  
Secondly, I marvel that he makes debilior, and deterior, weaker, and worse, here to be both one, when before he made a scripture Proposition to be debilior, the weaker, and a Proposition of reason fortior, the stronger; when I should be loath to make, or conceive (as necessarily he does) a Scripture-Proposition to be deterior, the worse.  
Thirdly, As to the Syllogism, I shall call for proof of both his premises; For the Major, in his sense (if I understand it) I either deny, or much question it, and therefore distinguish of that which is said to be worse, or weaker; which may be, either respective to the truth of the premises; and then I yield, that the conclusion ever follows the worse. If either Proposition be false, the Conclusion is not true; But this so far as I understand is not his meaning: Or they may be taken respective to the nature of them, and then I know not that the denomination of the Conclusion must follow upon account, either of strength or weakness in either of the premises. For the Minor Proposition, That an unsealed Proposion is the weaker, or worse part, I shall desire to know the quantity of it, if it be universal, than it is false; Every unsealed Proposition is not weaker, or worse then that which is sealed. And whereas Mr. Baxter says; I have yielded it; I know not, that ever I was put upon it: but how I shall speak my whole sense of it. I yield that a seal adds to the strength as does an oath, and therefore an unsealed Proposition is weaker, then that which is sealed caeteris paribus, all things being otherwise alike in both, yet there may be those differences in Propositions, that a Proposition may be of that strength in itself that it needs no seal, and be every way equal for truth, and evidence to those that are sealed, and thousands of such might be named, that without any seal are of equal strength to those to which a seal is added. That there are lands, or tenements in the County of Salop is a Proposition without a seal, that R. B. hath lands or tenements in that County is a Proposition under seal, yet the latter hath no more strength or evidence of truth then the former. He that hath hands lineally descending upon him from his Ancestors hath a true right to inherit, is a Proposition without a seal: R. B. hath such, an inheritance is a Proposition under seal; and I desire to know whether here be not as much truth and evidence in the Major as the Minor. Let us look into that Syllogism which I put, to find out that which the Sacrament seals, and that in the person of God himself pronounced. To whom I give Christ, I give all things: But I give to thee Christ: Ergo. The first is without seal, the second in the Sacrament is under seal; yet there is as much evidence of truth in the first, as in the second. Mr. Baxters Minor Proposition must have its due limit (as before) or else it is to be denied.  
The last thing in his Index as to this controversy is, 
The safety or danger to teach men to believe that they are justified and shall be saved.  The danger of teaching men, that they are bound to believe that they are justified, and shall be saved; which refers to Sect. 81. pag. 142. Where I am in the first place handsomely taken up, for saying I recede not from any that heretofore I have published on this subject, as standing not with ingenuity, when himself in the next Paragraphe runs on the same error, if an error; resolving to maintain what he had asserted: I am afterwards told, It hath been too common a doctrine amongst the most renowned Divines, that it is not only de fide that I A. B. am justified, but every man's duty also; yea, part of the Creed, and so a fundamental for to believe that our sins are remitted, (for so expound the Article of remission of sins) yea, they earnestly press men to believe the pardon in particular, and tell them they have but the faith of Devils else. By which dangerous doctrine (it is said) 1. Most men are persuaded to believe a falsehood, for most are not forgiven. 2. The careless world is driven on faster to presumption, to which they are so prone of themselves. 3. Painful Ministers are hindered, and their labours frustrated, whose business is first to break men's false hopes, and peace, which they find so hard a work, that they need no resistance, etc. I believe that, as Mr. Baxter says; this may be dangerously done; and I believe, that it hath not been urged by some without great danger; yet I also believe, that it may safely, & comfortably in due order be done, and that Ministers of Christ orderly and in a Gospel-method ought to do it. For the Creed, I am so far from this error here mentioned, that I go not so fare in this thing as Mr. Baxter himself, as I have observed in this Apology. I do not think that the Creed itself calls for so much as faith of adherence, to rest or rely upon Christ for remission of sins; I suppose Creeds and Confessions of faith are only for declaration of the doctrine that we hold, to difference us from those that in those particulars are erroneous in judgement, and do not at all intermeddle with our will or affections. Though I know the will must consent, and by the affections embrace and receive Christ, or else there is no salvation to which the Gospel calls us.  
The danger mentioned I fear too often (as I said before) is sadly incurred, that brand of false Prophets, Ezek. 13.22, 23. is heavy, Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad, & strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations; for I will diliver my people out of your hands, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. This practice is in full opposition to God, (who every where threatens death to wicked persons) which as many observe well all the error of those that suffered the charge of false Prophets among the Jews; we read not that they delivered any positive untruths, but only made undue applications. And therefore false Prophets among them, are distinguished from false teachers, which were to arise in Christian Churches, 2 Pet. 2.1 The latter, and not the former bringing in damnable heresies, and yet the former were of like danger in their misapplication, both of promises, and threaten, and more especially of promises; to urge all to believe, that in statu quo, they shall be saved, is indeed to teach them to presume, seeing salvation is not every man's portion, and the portion of no man that lies in sin: It was a doctrine that the Apostle often preached, that such should not inherit the Kingdom of heaven, Gal. 5.21. and he lets the Ephesians know that all those are but vain deceiving words that teach otherways, Ephes. 5.6. Yet I suppose that it is a Christians privilege, that he may believe that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall he saved; and being his privilege, it is also his duty. Christ requires some to believe it, Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven, Matth: 9.2. And the Apostle takes it for granted, that some were assured; Ye have suffered joyful the spoiling of your goods, knowing that in heaven ye have a better and far more enduring substance, Heb. 10.32. Why doth Peter call upon Christians, to give diligence to make their calling and Election sure? 2 Pet. 1.10. Or why did John write to those that believe on the Name of the Son of God, that they might know that they have eternal life, 1 Joh. 5.13. in case they may not be assured, and accordingly by faith be full persuaded and satisfied in it? We may not think that assurance is held out in Scriptures as Chimaera, or as a Chemist's Philosopher's Stone, to be talked of, but never compassed. And I suppose sano sensu, and with due qualifications it may be asserted, That every visible Church-member is bound to believe his own salvation, and the pardon of his own sins in particular. I well remember that I had once conference with Mr. Ball in Mr. Ash's house on this thing, (upon occasion of that old argument insisted upon by Arminians; That which all are bound to believe is true: But all are bound to believe that Christ died for them) and he determined that all are bound to believe that Christ died for them in particular, and that all the fruits of his death shall be theirs, not immediately, but Mediante fide & resipiscentia; Men are bound to faith and repentance, and uppn their faith and repentance are bound to get this assurance, which it seems is also Mr. baxter's thoughts by that which he adds in the fifth place for aggravation of this danger, when wicked men that have but the faith of Devils, are immediately required to believe the pardon of their own particular sins, and this made to be de fide, God is dishonoured with the charge of such untruths, as if falsehoods were de fide, and God commanded men to believe them. It seems then that he grants that men may be mediately required to believe the pardon of their own sins in particular, and there can never be too much spoken against an urging of it in an immediate way; It is after we have done the will of God that we shall receive the promise, Heb. 10.36. and we must not believe that without doing his will we shall ever receive it. Promise-preachers that are not duty-preachers, that hold out bliss, and never speak of the terms or means to attain it, are no other than deceivers. To speak largely of the Father's bowels to receive, and not a word of the Prodigals duty to come in, or the multitude of sins that were forgiven that sinner in the City (supposed to be Mary Magdalen) and conceal her tears of repentance; to be large in one, and silent in the other, is the way to heal with slight words. Whereas as Mr. Baxter says, The ungodly that I deal with are so confident that their sin is forgiven, and God will not damn them for it, that all that I can say, is too little to shake their confidence, which is the nurse of their sin. When he makes this his business, he does the work of the Prophets, of John Baptist, and of Christ Jesus; and I wish that all the labourers in the Lord's work may join with him in that way, and that the Lord may give success. Yet I still believe that all this is to be done in order to a well settled, and firmly grounded confidence: when he tells those that come to Christ, and hear his words, and do them not: claiming salvation by him, and not obeying him, that they build their hopes on a sandy foundation, and foolishly deceive themselves; I believe that he tells those that hear, and accordingly yield obedience, that their hopes of salvation have a firm bottom as a house built upon a rock. But I know not why all of this should here in this place be brought in; in the close of all that hath passed (as he says) concerning himself, unless it be, to bear men in hand, that my doctrine of conditional sealing in the Sacraments, (which he yet confesses differs little from his own) may be charged with this danger, when I suppose it is the alone way of prevention of it. If I should make the words of the institution an absolute tender, and the seal wholly unconditional, I know not how to avoid it; and I may very well fear, that he cannot be without some such meaning. First, In that he puts into his Index (as we have heard) The danger of teaching men that they are bound to believe that they are justified, and shall be saved, amidst those things, in which none but I are concerned; and Secondly, Where he first gins with me he utters like language, pag. 3. I doubt not (says he) but the difference between you and me, is only about the methodizing of our notions, and not de substantia rei, and yet presently adds, but I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads, according to the true importance of the expression may do more against their salvation then is well thgouht on, and that not by accidence, but from its own nature, supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal: How unhappy am I in methodizing of wholesome truths, which are the same in substance with a man's of such eminence? If that alone should have such a sad influence upon men's understanding, though age grows upon me, and many other weaknesses; yet were I sensible of the truth of this charge, I would travel on foot to the remotest ground in England to learn from any hand a more happy way, and I have therefore been more large, that the Reader may see the whole of my thoughts in this where I may seem to be under so heavy a censure, that he may help me in prayer, that in all that I do I may edify, and not destroy.    

SECT. II. Corollaries from the former doctrine.  
LEt us here see the goodness of God, the singular tender care of Christ, thus to condescend to our weakness, 
Christ's tender care evidenced in his condescension to our weakness.  as to vouchsafe these visible, sensible pledges, and confirmations of our faith in the promises. All that can be thought upon to ratify, and make good whatsoever, from any hand we have in expectation, Christ hath been pleased in his condescension to vouchsafe unto us. In such a case we desire, 1. A promise, that he from whom we expect it, would engage himself by his word for it. This Christ hath done in the Gospel-promises, we have his promise frequently repeated, still inculcated, Gen. 32.12. And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the Sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude, 1 Tim. 4.8. Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, Joh. 11.25. I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet he shall live. 2. When we have a word, we yet desire an oath, that the person by that sacred tye, may be obliged not to recede, or go back from that which he hath spoke; This God hath vouchsafed. when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge, to lay hold upon the hope set before us. 3. When we have both word, and oath, yet we desire his hand, that it may be subscribed, that we may have somewhat to produce and show for that which we expect; This God hath vouchsafed, Joh. 20.31. These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name, Rom. 15.4. Whatsoever things were written afore-time, were written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope. 4. Yet we desire earnest, a pledge in hand, to make good what is in Covenant, and promise past, and by oath under hand confirmed; This God is pleased to vouchsafe, Ephes. 1.13. In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession, 2 Cor. 1.21, 22. Now he which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 5. We yet desire a seal, As Jeremy had the evidences of his purchase, Jer. 32.10. This God hath also vouchsafed, and this is of two sorts. 1. Inward by his own immediate hand, the stamp of his Spirit, the impress of his grace. This is the character, or mark that we are his, these God sets apart for himself, Ephes. 1.13. Ephes. 4.30. 1 Cor. 2.21, 22. 2. Outward put into the hands of his Ministers, and these are Sacraments, these outward visible assurances. The former needs no conditions but itself, all sanctified are saved, and sanctification is the seal, there are all Gospel-conditions. The latter requires all the gracious qualifications of a people in Covenants. All that are thus qualified, according to the Gospel, have here full confirmation, and assurance of interest in all promises; so willing is God every way to condescend to our weakness, to answer what infirmity can expect, or feebleness crave. We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God, to ask a double sign for the strengthening of his faith in the promise of God, to save Israel by his hand; yet we see God is pleased to gratify him, Judge 6.39, 40. yet God deals more abundantly with us, not only in a double, but a multiplied confirmation, to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest. And as he teacheth us by similitudes drawn from earthly things, as we see in the Prophets, and parables from our Saviour's mouth, so also to speak to our eyes, in these signs and seals ratifying, and confirming heavenly things unto us. Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way, that every eye doth behold and see. That water which we employ for our common use, and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us, serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ, taking away both guilt and filth of sin. The bread which we have at our table, the wine which we drink for our food and repast, that sets out both the atonement, and divine nourishment, which our souls find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us. There is abundant weakness and tottering in our faith, that needs in this manner to be strengthened. Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us.  
Secondly, If Christ thus condescends to our weakness, 
Christ's compassion towards us should move us to compassionate ourselves.  in making provision of these helps, let us learn to have compassion of ourselves, and not neglect, or despise so great favours. If Christ had judged us to have been of strength, he had never tendered us this crutch; and when he sees that we need it, and therefore hath provided it, let us see that we do not reject, or despise it. Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy, who when he could not believe the promise that God would deliver him, and his people from the combined power of Israel, and Syria, that were then before Jerusalem, and having a sign tendered him of God, either in the depth beneath or the height above, for his assurance in the thing, he answers, he will not desire a sign, Isa. 7.11, 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief, and perish. As that sign was to that promise, so all Sacraments are to God's great promise. He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief, and we may well fear, that he shall dwell in it to destruction.    

CHAP. XI.  

SECT. I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal.  
THe next observation follows.  

The whole office and use of Sacraments.  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, than this text doth; that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it, 
The Context opened.  to which the copulative [And] leads. The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith, goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham, and his argument 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, than 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, than 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 Gods 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 parallels 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 than 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 baptised. 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 than 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, Judg. 6. did not work at all towards such a deliverance further than as it had its work upon the understanding and faith of Gideon, to whom it was given. The Scarlet thread in Rahabs' window had no power for her safety, further than it was a sign between her and Joshua, minding Joshua of his engagement to her. The rainbow is of no power to save the world from an universal deluge of water, further than it minds and assures us of God's promise. The same we may say of all signs and pledges both humane and divine: But Sacraments are signs, and pledges added to promises, as we see here in the text: Sacraments than have not 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 patiented, 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, than 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 any more is attributed to the working of Sacraments. The assumption is of two parts, The first none can question, that the Apostle ascribes no more here to Sacraments then as hath been said. For the second, that no other Scripture ascribes any thing further to them, shall God willing be made good, when we come to examine those Scriptures which are brought in by way of objection for a further work.  
If any would see authorities quoted of men of eminent name, that have appeared in defence of this position, I shall 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 
a Quod quosdam theologos ait hic haerere, & baptismi effectum hunc ad electos restringere. Imo non qu●dam dunxtaxat, sed multo, maxima nostrorum pars, non tam hic haerent, quam ex adverso se diserte opponunt; quod ex testimoniis sup●a adductis luculentissime demonstratum est.  saith, that some Divines do stick at his tenant, 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 than Scripture hath raised them, misled with the over esteem of some that have gone that way, tells us of her discouragement, by reason of the multitude of those of an opposite opinion, that held otherwise then he did about the Sacraments. And Mr. Baxter rightly doth observe, that at the first broaching of this doctrine among us, it was so much disrelished, not by Dr. Taylour only, but by most Divines, and godly people, as fare 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, etc. pag. 294. so inconsiderable was the party that stood for it. And Vorstius speaking in the name of Protestant Divines in general, saith, 
b Id potissimum quaeritur, an Sacramenta sint signa tantum & sigilla foederis gratiae; sive externa symbola, & signacula, foederi gratiae appensa, & divinitus ad hoc institura, ut gratiam Dei salutarem in foedere promissam nobis significent; atque ita fidem nostram suo modo confirment, & simul publice testaram reddant: quae quidem communis est Evangelicorum sententia; an vero preaterea sint causae efficientes hujus salutaris & justificantis gratiae, sive an sint effectiva gratiae ejusdem organa, nempe ad hoc divinitus institura, ut gratiam istam realiter instar vasorum in se contineant, & omnibus illa percipientibus candem vi sua imprimant, & reipsa conferant, quae Bellarmini, & Pontificiorum omnium opinio est.  It is disputed whether Sacraments are 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 favour the opposite opinion, affixing adoption, membership of Christ, and inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven, and regeneration to Baptism: we know how great offence it gave to many eminently Learned and pious, putting them upon omission of those passages: And also what Interpretation, as with a grain of salt, others put upon them, that they were 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 missed 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 than 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 undervalved Circumcision in the flesh, as to make it Parallel 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-priviledges; right to the Passeover 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, baptising them in the Name of the Father, etc. 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 Baptised 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 Japhet to dwell in the tents of Shem, Gen. 9.27. And therefore when 
c Durandus docet characterem esse ens rationis, id est, respectum advenientem ex deputatione ad certum officium, qualis est relatio in Doctoribus, Praetoribus, etc. Quae sententia vix distinguitur ab haeresi hujus temporis.  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. 
d Haeretici non negant neque negare possunt quin sit aliqua relatio rationis in Ministris, quae non est in aliis, qui non sunt deputati ad ministrandum.  And further saith, That 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, Chemnitius 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 not understanding man would question it, we must therefore readily yield it; which holds true of the Passeover, seeing only the circumcised who were in saith Jew's, were to be admitted do it, Exod. 12.48. And this I suppose is that which Reverend Gataker means, opposing that tenant, 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 labour to launch out into the controversy, and to gather up the various opinions of those of a contrary judgement, and their different thoughts to make good their tenants, 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 tenant, 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 than 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, disput. 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 assistant in it; yet lest he should run upon an heresy against the determination of the Catholic Church, in making them no more than 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 endeavoured 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 Counsels, 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 judgement. 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 passed 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 tenant. A little Philosophy will acquaint 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 Pool 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 assoon 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 Canon's 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 turf vests a man in his purchase of lands, a rod vests a customary tenant in his Copyhold, a Crown vests a King in his Kingdom; so these elements (having this office assigned them of God) vest a man in Covenant in visible Church-membership, and give him actual interest in all visible Church-priviledges. But yet this difference, The Staff, the Pall, the Book, the Twig, and Turf, 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 honour. But Sacraments vesting us in Church-priviledges, 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-priviledges serve, and are appointed to advance us unto. So that God works as a Moral agent, in appointing according to pleasure these elements as solemnities of his grant, and they work according to the nature of the office assigned them, that is, by way of sign and seal, for the help of our understandings, the refreshing of our memories, and strength of our faith in promises of greater things.   

SECT. II. Propositions tending to clear the doctrine.  
IN order to the discovery of some further light concerning the operation of Sacraments, and for detection of erroneous opinions about them, I shall lay down several Positions. 
Explicatory Propositions. 1. Man's first original is in sin.   
First, This must be held as an uncontroverted truth between parties in this dispute, that Man's 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 newborn, 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 gins 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 childbearing, 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 mother's sharp throws in travel, or either of his parent's height of lust, can add any thing 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.  

Arguments evincing it.  1. By the necessity of regeneration, or new-birth in all those that enter into the Kingdom of heaven. As the Apostle saith of Covenants, If the first had been 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, than 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 gins 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 judgement 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. 
e Homines natura sua esse malos & induci non posse ut justitiam colant.  Plato observed that men by nature are wicked, and that they cannot be brought to learn righteousness; and 
f Hominem à natura noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo, fragili atque infirmo, animo ad molestias anxio, ad timores humili, in quo divinus ignis sit obrutus. Referunt Theol. Lydenses, Disp. 15. Thes. 6.  Tully lamented, that man is brought into the world by his stepdame nature, with a body naked, frail, and weak, a mind anxious in troubles, low under fears, weak for labour, prone to lust, in whom every Divine spark is overywhelmed. If any man demand how it comes to 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?  
Secondly, This sin which is man's hereditary estate, 
This Original state of man is not only a want of Primitive integrity, but is attended with universal defilement.  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. 
And consequently with guilt or ordination to punishment.  In fulfilling the desires, or wills, of the flesh and mind, Ephes. 2.23. serving divers lusts and pleasures, Tit. 3.3. as wholly enslaved by this defiling principle. And as this is of the being, so guilt or ordination to punishment is a necessary adjunct, or consequent of it; Death is in as great a latitude as sin, Rom. 5.12. the proper wages of that work, Rom. 6.23. Therefore all that have a nature thus defiled, are by nature the children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. Men may descant as they will upon the word, and tell us of another use of it in profane Authors; but all their wit will not work men from under this guilt, or gain him any thing more in his birthstate, but wrath for his portion.  
Thirdly, To restore man to his Primitive happiness, his nature must be healed, 
Nature must be healed and guilt removed, for restitution of man to his Primitive glory.  and his guilt removed; there must be a change, wrought in his principles, and a pardon vouchsafed of his sin. If either the stain continue, or the guilt hold, man will be wretched; till he be again like God, and reconciled to God, his case is 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, etc. 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.  
Fourthly, Either of both of these is the work of Christ, and the happy privilege of all of Gospel-interest. 
Either of both of these is the work of Christ by his blood and Spirit.  He takes off the stain in the work of Regeneration, and Sanctification by the power of his Spirit; as by our fall we were dead in sin, so by this new work on our hearts, we are dead to sin; we were free from 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 honours with relative privileges.  
Fifthly, These may be distinguished, 
Blood and Spirit may be distinguished, but must not be divided.  but they must by no means 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 in the old or new Covenant) about which concerning this in question there is most dispute, 
The Sacraments especially those of initiation have respect to both of these.  havo respect to this whole work, both of the change of our nature, and the removal of our guilt: As the have respect to the one, so also to the other; and that the whole of their work, and the way how it is wrought may be better understood, we are to consider that; First, Somewhat is hinted, and employed 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 Peter's words, Ast. 2.38. Be baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. Remission of sins is by blood, Heb. 9.22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission. 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 baptised, 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 assoon as we do receive power, we are to act. Dead Lazarus was commanded to rise, and having power communicated from God, he did actually rise and come out of the grave. There is not any promise of God for inherent Grace, nor any work of Grace, but it comes within our duty, and a command lies on us; as instance might be given, and consequently there is an obligation and engagement to it. 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 baptised 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. Grace's 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.  

7. Scriptures of two sorts are brought by those that would advance Sacraments above that which they work as signs and seals.  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, 
1. Such wherein no Sacrament is mentioned, nor can be proved that any is intended.  Titus 3.5. According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of Regeneration, Ephes. 5.25, 26. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might 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, 
Arguments evincing that Baptism is not intended in the Sacramental work of it.  The Lords 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 than Snow, Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinkle 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 
g Dubitari potest non immerito, baptismine Sacramentum, an interna ablutio, hoc nomine eo loci designetur.  may justly be doubted, whether the Sacrament of Baptism, or inward washing in that place of Titus 3.5. be understood; & then adds, 
h Atque ego certe, etiamsi ad baptismi ritum externum respectum aliquem haberi nullus negaverim, de interna tamen ab lutione, diserte dictum existimo, quae externa illa lotione corporis designatur, ut ex clausula mox sequente verba illa exponantur, per lavacrum regenerationis non videtur apostolus significare baptismum, sed ipsam regenerationem quam lavacro comparat.  Though, I am not he that will deny that some respect is had in those words to the outward rite of 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 intent 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, 
i Aliena testimonia citari, viz. quae res quidem in Sacramentis significatas metaphorice declarant, attamen de Sacramentis proprie dictis non agunt.  That impertinent testimonies are urged, which hold forth the thing signified in Sacraments, by way of metaphor, but do not speak of Sacraments properly so called, Antibel. Tom. 3. Contro. 1. Thes. 1. & 2. And whereas Calvin is produced by some, as interpreting Titus 3.5. of outward baptism, his authority will but little help them. 
k Non dubito quin saltem ad baptismum alludat, imo facile patior de baptismo locum exponi.  I do not doubt (saith he) but that the Apostle doth at least allude to 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. 
l Quasi aliam potius quorundam expositionem probaturus, ni aliorum importunitas aliò impelleret. Verba sunt enim alii concedentis aliquid, potius quam animi sui sensum enuntiantis.  As though he would rather (saith he) allow another interpretation, if the importunity of others did not lead him that way. They are words of one granting, or rather yielding somewhat to another man, then speaking his own mind, as he further observes. And Mr. Burges, Spiritual Refining, Part 1. pag. 214. speaking of 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 fare, as we have heard, presently adds, 
m Non quod in externo aquae symbolo inclusa sit salus, sed quia partam à Christo salutem Baptismus nobis obsignat.  Not that salvation is included in the outward symbol of water, but because Baptism seals it to us, when Christ hath obtained it for us. And Danaeus speaking to that Argument of Bellarmine, that the Scripture witnesseth, that the words of the Sacrament are active instruments of our justification, and not seals of the promise, giving instance in these, and the like Scriptures for this purpose, answers: 
n Instrumenta & signa etiam mere obsignantia & testantia dicuntur, per tropum & metonymiam id facere quod obsignant, nam & annulus sponsalium qui solus est signum eorum, dicitur conjun gear & obligare sponsos, contractus instrumentum quod solum consensus signum obstringere contrahentes, Doctoratus sigillum & literae creasse & effecisse n. Docto●em; quaeenim nos juvant efficere ea ipsa dicuntur, propter finem in quem spectant, in quibus ab eis juvamur. Verum vitanda est verborum hujusmodi, quae ut causis vel signis vel instrumentis actionem tribuunt homonymia: ne propterea censcamus ea signa vel instrumenta esse causas ist●us actionis, vel effecti, vel fructus efficientes; efficiunt enim aut efficere di cuntur illa effecta, suo tantum modo, nempe per modum duntaxat signi, quatenus obsignant & certificant eam actionem vel effectionem, aut per modum instrumenti, quoniam ad effectionem ad hibentur: multum enim signa, & vera instrumenta inter se proprie differunt; signa vero nihil plane ad effectio nem conferunt, qualia sunt Sacramenta, sed affectionem Sp. S. & opus illius in nobis duntaxat v●rissime & certissime testantur & consignant.  Instruments, and signs 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. Danaeus 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 in which baptism is mentioned, but faith evidently required to the attainment of the effects of it.  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 baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, Acts 22.16. Rise and be baptised, 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, etc. 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 parent's profession of faith, are baptised 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, than the Sacrament works not without actual faith in the baptised: 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 baptised 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, 
8. The most eminent of the adverse opinion produce Scriptures clearly opposite to their assertions.  The most eminent that ever have appeared for this power in Sacraments to confer grace on the receivers, either utterly deny, or at least very doubtfully affirm, that Baptism works in Infants any real change, but only that which is relative, that it confers any habits, or any thing more than privileges on Infants baptised, 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 baptised Infants. This as it seems Reverend Dr. Ward suspected, asserting the certainty of salvation of all baptised Infants, dying in infancy, he saith. That 
o Quae est nostrae Ecclesiae & totius antiquitatis indubitata sententia; &, ut ego reor, ipsius Scripturae.  it is the undoubted opinion of all antiquity of our Church, and as he thinks of the Scripture 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, 
p Pontificii non agnoscunt pro fidei dogmate, habitus fidei aut charitatis, infundi parvulis in baptismo, neque tanquam de fide docent, effici u●los justos formaliter, inhaesione habitualis justitiae aut Sanctitatis  That Papists do not receive it for a point of faith, that the habits of faith, or charity are infused into Infants in 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 baptised 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 
q Protestants non concedunt fidem justificantem aut charitatem Deo unientem, aut gratiam regeneratricem, quae reparat omnes animae fa●●tates in ipso Baptismi momento infundi insantibus.  Protestants do not yield, that justifying faith, or charity, that unites us to God: or regenerating grace, that 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. 
r Nec quenquam scio nostris Theologis qui regenerationem illam quae sita est in spiritualium qualitatum creatione (quam nos sanctificationem, Pontificii formalem justificationem in digitant) in ipso momento Baptismi productam definiant. Cumigitur nec Arminiani nec Pontificii nec Protestantes agnoscant parvulos in ipsa Baptismi susceptione fieri participes illorum habitualium donorum aut Spiritualium qualitatum quae propriè dicuntur constituere hominem justum et inhaerenter sanctum, nemo eorum potest amissionem fidei aut justitiae aut sanctorum Apostasiam argumento ab infantibus sumpto demonstrare.  Adding, that he does not know, that any of our Divines determine, that that regeneration which consists in the creation of 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 
s Patres nec actualem nec habitualem fidem aut charitatem parvulis in baptismo donatam agnoscunt: conversionem etiam sive novi cordis creationem, quae propriè regeneratio dicenda est, non nisi cum ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerint, in iis produci docent.  the Fathers do not acknowledge, that either actual or 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 Hierome, Nazianzen, Justin Martyr, and Bernard, making all up with the testimony of Whitaker, 
t Patres ne somniasse quidem de habituali Papistarum fide, quam illi volunt in Baptismo ex opere operato infusam esse parvulis.  that the Fathers did not so much as dream of the habitual faith which Papists say is infused, by the work done in Baptism, inferring this as the result of all that in five several propositions he had delivered; that 
u Hinc quivis perspiciat quam invalida sit haec concludeni ratio, Multi ex infantibus baptizatis postea pereunt in infidelitate et impoenitentia; Ergo fides, charitas, reli quaeque Spirituales qualitates in renatis Spiritus virtute productae aliquando amittuntur.  (from thence any man may see) how invalid this argument is, Many baptised 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, 
w Omnes infantes baptizati ab Originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur.  That all baptised 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 baptised.  
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 
x Cordis circumcisione peccatorum remissionem denotari ut credam, nihil adhuc quod suadeat video, quod cogat multo minus.  si quis verba illa, Deut. 10.16. Circumcidite ergo praeputium cordis vestri] aut ill●d etiam, Jer. 44. Circumcidimini sive circumcidite vos Jehovae] exposuerit, Remittite vobis peccata vestra; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (pute) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Mr. Gataker replies, that he sees nothing that can 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 every one 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 showed 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 overmuch 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 than 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 baptised. 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, etc. whereby his industrious pains (after his manner) many are multiplied; Danaeus leads the way, He is deceived (saith he) that thinks that Christ and his benefits, are 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, than sin is pardoned before they are baptised. In case they are unregenerate when they are tendered to Baptism, than 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 baptised every one of you, for remission of sins—; for the promise is made to you, and your children, Acts 2.38, 39  
Answ. 1 Answ. 1. It was not with good advice, that birth-sin, confessed by David, is in the Major proposition branched out in that latitude, as to comprise 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 than they would have, though no more than 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, than infant baptism is useless, and unprofitable; there is no end why they should be baptised, 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 tenant 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, than 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, 
y Hic tamen nec solus est finis nec praecipuus Sacramentorum; itaque Anabaptistas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus, quos etiam ante illum Calvinus refutavit: quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam signa instituta ad discernendum Christianos à Judaeis & Paganis, ut Romanis olim toga erat signum quo discernebantur a Graecis palliatis.  This is not yet alone or chief end of them; therefore (saith he) we oppose Anabaptists, as well as Bellarmine; and Calvin also before him had refuted them, in that they make Sacraments nothing more than 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 every one will 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 ware, 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 honour upon them, rise so high in their eulogies, 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 honour that Scripture gives them, with like success as these did places of public holy assemblies; a good cause hath not a greater adversary than a weak argument taken up in the defence 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-bottome, 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 uselessness of infant-Baptisme, it may very fitly be parallelled 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 what profit is there of Circumcision I give to those that demand, what profit is there of infant-Baptisme? Having asserted in general, Much every way: he answers more punctually, instancing in one eminent privilege, that virtually comprised all the external privileges enjoined by Israel as Church-members, chief 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-priviledges, 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 faithfuls practice, Psal. 51.18. and in these, infants as Church-members had their interest, on this account infants were brought to Christ, 
Privileges following upon infant-baptisme.  That he might put his hands upon them, and pray, Matth. 19.13. 2. They have their share in the blessings of the Church; we see with what solemnity it was to be done, Num. 6.22. etc. The Lord spoke 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, etc. 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 baptised; 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 favour they receive from God, the society into which they are incorporated, when their, conversation doth not in some measure answer their profession. 8. Parents here see a strong engagement, to bring them up for Christ, whom they have thus dedicated to him, and put into the fellowship of those who are his Saints and members. When they have brought forth children unto God, they see their sin 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 showed, 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; 
Answer to Sacramental engagements● ncessary to salvation.  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 baptised; 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 reputes, shall be saved. This assent is presupposed in all those that make actual improvement of the Sacraments. Faith and Repentance being the terms of the Covenant. And this Divines in their Treatises of Conscience call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now in case we have the benefit of salvation by Sacraments, conscience must answer (and a good conscience, only can answer) But I believe I repent. This Divines call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Then and not otherwise Sacraments save. Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25. hath these words: Here I think the observation is 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, than 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 than 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 offence that might be taken, there is a distinction brought of Circumcision in the flesh, and Circumcision in heart. Judah had Circumcision in the flesh to plead, but remained uncircumcised in heart, and therefore fares no better than 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 do. 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 Lords Supper. The two former are called by the name of Baptism, and the two latter, Spiritual meat, Spiritual drink. All were baptised 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, Lustres after evil things, v. 6. Idolaters, v. 7. Fornicators, v. 8. Tempter's 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 swore 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. 
Arguments evincing it. 1.  This might be further evinced with arguments.  
1. In this case where the soul answers not to Sacramental engagements, Sacraments are but as outward 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 Saviour) was as efficacious and as acceptable. Circumcision also when it led not to, but from Christ, is called by the Apostle by the name of Concision, Phil. 3.2. Any gash made in the flesh, or rend 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, than 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, than 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 than 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 judgements. In case of uncircumcision in the time of the Law, and Non-baptisme in these times, sins were no more than 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, than these Israelites had to serve themselves of their bond men and bondwomen. The highest reproach is this way cast upon Christ. No man leaves one Master, to betake himself to the service of another, but he prefers in his judgement the latter before the former, especially when he breaks all Bonds, Covenants, and Engagements for such an exchange of service. When a penitent person leaves sin to come over to Christ, Christ hath honour. It appears that he is now in dislike with sin, and better pleased with Christ, But when a man leaves Christ, and his 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 oppsite to the other, and will not answer each other. The seal of the Sacraments, and the seal of the Spirit, will be thus divided. The former may serve to give assurance that they are Gods in a visible relation, but the other will be wanting to give an invisible title. This restipulation of conscience being no other than 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, than 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 judgements, and therefore the Apostle says, He that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgement to himself. That very kind of eating hath an obligation in it to suffering, and the equity of such obligation, by such a communicant is acknowledged. If an idle, unfaithful, purloining, runaway apprentice, should bear stripes from his Master's 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 nonpayment 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 will find comfort in Baptism, and expect it at the Lords Table, must study to come up to Covenant-engagements, and exercise themselves continually to have a conscience void of offence, both towards God, and toward man.   

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

When it is that Conscience answers to Sacramental engagements.  HEre a great question 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 inquiries into Scriptures, and the labours of the learned in this particular, they must first distinguish between keeping of Covenant, failings in Covenant, and forfeiture of it; between keeping in the way, str●yings out of the way, and a total resolved leaving of it. He may fail that makes not a total forfeiture. And for discovery of these which I call failings in Covenant, we must yet distinguish of sins, some are mere infirmities and avoidable 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 any more found in any weaknesses; These with sincere hearts keep up to their Covenant engagements. Of such it is testified that they were upright, perfect, without guile. The promise then made to those that keep Covenant, and that remember to keep 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 Gods own heart, 1 Sam. 13.14. his delight, Prov. 11.20. The effects which grief hath with men, is not seen in God's deal 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 Lords Table. In application of themselves to the one, and looking back to the other, they find all manner of encouragements, and no cause of fears or terrors. Every promise made to the believing, sincere, upright, perfect, obedient, is theirs. These may sit down at the Lords Table, with all alacrity; having a work upon their spirits to abide for ever. When they are taken hence they shall change their place, but not their company and fellowship. Their humbling of their 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, Hezekiahs' pride, Ionas his flight to Tarshish, Jobs passion, Peter's 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.  

Positions holding forth the danger of notable sins in regenerate persons.  1. Though these sins thus acted do not take away all title to the 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, enquiring as before into the answer of the conscience to Covenant-engagements. He that believes and reputes 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 syllogise 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 not 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, than 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 acknowledgement 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. 
z 
Omnis actus à duobus dependens, quorum unum est necessarium, alterum veto contingens; licet habet necessitatem ex parte necessarii, habet tamen contingentiam ex parte contingentis.  
Ordo praedestinationis certus est, et tamen voluntas effectum suum producit non nisi contingenter. Praedestinatus potest perire, si consideratur ipsius potentia: non potest, si consideratur ordo quem habet ad Deum praedestinantem. Refe●t Davenan. epist. ad Dr. Ward.   Every action (saith Gandavensis) depending upon two agents, whereof the one is necessary, and the other contingent, though it be necessary respective to the necessary agent, yet it is contingent and 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 not otherways 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. Burges 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 Father's 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 hide 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; Gods wrath was upon them for this miscarriage of theirs, he was moved here upon to appear in displeasure against them; he smites them in his wrath, and hides his face in displeasure from them, having his eye open to their sin, but his face withdrawn from their consolation. Num. 20.13. we may find Moses and 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 spoke 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) than Moses was none of Gods 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 not 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 Gods deal with the Corinthians upon their profanation of the Lords 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 Lords 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 judgement 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 judgement, 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 judgements lashes them out of it: By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit, to take away his sin. So that the tendency of sin, even in a child of God, is to bring to condemnation; and the care of God is by afflictions to take him off from sin, that he might not be condemned. To this end Church-discipline is also set up of God, 1. Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. For I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. How fare 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 deal 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 repent 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) than 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 lose 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, Strait 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, 
The application of these rules respective to Sacraments.  but are in a high way of violation of it. Their Baptism-Vow is not as it ought kept up, and their adventure to come to the Lords Table for renewing of their Covenant, (the strength of lust still remaining) is a further provocation of the Lord. Upon this account the Corinthians, (as we have heard) smarted. God will not bear so high a dishonour of so great an Ordinance. It is an high presumption for a soul, under such present defilements; to dare to approach so nigh his presence, otherwise then in order to humiliation, and more strict renewed engagements against such practices. He that comes in this posture might here see the 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 Lords Table, than these persons notwitstanding their habitual graces.  
To distinguish these which are unavoidable weaknesses, 
Rules to discern the nature and quality of sins.  and not of that danger to a man upright in Covenant, from such sins that are violations and breaches of it, and of that peril as hath been said, some Rules might be delivered.  
1. The more there is of light, the 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 bowl 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 
a Naturam expellas furca licet, usque recurret.  an hard thing to beat back nature's 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 fare 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, than others, and at some times with greater violence then at others. The proud have had me greatly in derision, yet have I not declined from thy Law, Psal. 119.51. The bands of the wicked have 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 than he discovers. A sheep hardly passes without loss of some wool through many briers.  
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 than 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 subscribe 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 honoured in Scripture, that their hearts were perfect, and yet imperctions are noted in their government, which must be imputed to that multitude of businesses that lay on their hands, together with the many obstructions that were in their way for effecting of it.   

SECT. VI 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 declare 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 nonpayment 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 carelessness 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, 
Several sor●s of sinners that make forfeiture of Covenant.  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 highway 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, instructers of the foolish, and teachers of babes, which have a form of knowledge and truth in the law; perhaps of abilities to prophecy in the Name of Christ with those mentioned by our Saviour, 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, etc. I shall inherit the Kingdom of God. Some have their beloved, endeared lusts in a more open, outward way, their filthiness of flesh to the defilement of the outward man in drunkenness, gluttony, adultery, senseval pleasures. Others their spirit-filthinesse, distrust of God, inward pride, confidence in the arm of flesh, selfseeking 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 judgements, 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 chief (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 dye, of a Scarlet-colour, sins of a great magnitude, whose very name might even astonish others, sins are seemingly and appearingly light or small, such as Papists have accounted venial, and most think it would overmuch rigour in God to proceed against them in eternal judgements, eyeing 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 girds 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, baptised 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, 
The uselessness of Sacraments to these persons.  and offer of themselves to the Lords 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 Father's 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 Lords 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, than God hath put into them, 
We are to look for no more from Sacraments than God hath put into them and promised to do by them.  and hath promised to work by them, lest 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 than needs, seeing men in all times have been wonderfully apt to delude themselves upon account of their fruition of outward Church-priviledges; 
men's aptness to delude themselves in Sacramental privileges.  and in particular, Sacrament-priviledges. And to this they are induced by divers reasons. 1. Because Sacraments are an honour, 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 honour 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 baptised 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 inheriters 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 honour, but a work of obedience in them that partake of them. To be baptised 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 soothe them up in them, 
In all Ages some have over-highly advanced Sacramental privileges.  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 full 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) 
b Rursum admonendi sumus, ut isti vim Sacramentorum enervant, usumq prorsus evertunt, ita ab adversâ parte stare alios qui arcanas nescio quas virtures Sacramentis affingunt, quae nusquam illis à Deo insitae leguntur. Quo errore periculosè falluntur simpliciores et imperiti, dum et Dei dona quaerere docentur ubi reperiri minime possunt et à Deo sensim abstrahuntur, ut pro ejus veritate meram amplexentur vanitatem. Magno enim consensu Sophisticae Scholae tradiderunt, Sacramenta novae legis, hoc est, quae in usu nunc sunt Ecclesiae, justificare et conferre gratiam, modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortals. Quae sententia dici non potest, quàm sit exitialis et pestilens, eoque magis, quod multis ante saeculis magna Ecclesiae jactura in bonâ orbis parte obtinuit. Planè certe diabolica est, nam dum justitiam cirra fidem pollicetur, animas in exitium praecipites agit: deinde quia justitiae causam à Sacramentis ducit, miseras hominum mentés, in terram s● apt sponte plus satis inclinatas, hâc superstitione illigat ut in spectaculo rei corpore ae potius quam in Deo ipso acquiescant.  we are to be advertised, 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; Whilst 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, (overmuch 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 Author's 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 over-high 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-baptisme cleanses from original sin, the root being dead, what means such abundance of living, lively branches? How come all those complaints of the timely growth of sin in Christians children? Why have not Paedobaptists found a real confutation of their Adversaries in their issue? being able to 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, than 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 labour 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 any thing we have to learn; if all the benefit we reap by Sacraments be instruction, they which at all times have opportunity of using the better means to that purpose, will surely hold the worse in less estimation. To this I may well answer; 1. I know not who those be, that have given offence that way; They at whom this learned 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 Gods 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 appendent 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 sigh 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 Angel's 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 not 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, than 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, than the Sacraments being appointed for visible teaching-signes, 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.    

CHAP. XII.  

SECT. I. The thing signified and sealed in Sacraments.  
THe whole use and office of Sacraments we have seen, 
Sacraments are suitable to Covenants.  which is to seal the gift and grant of God in Covenant, as well as to 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 Gods 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 employed, the other in the words expressed. The first which is employed in the words, is, The righteousness of Faith is the great Promise of the Covenant of Grace.  
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 acknowledgement of this righteousness; But in an high zeal made it their business to establish their own righteousness, Rom. 10.2, 3. It does 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 vigour, 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.  The righteousness of faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace. 
This enters we see the definition a Sacra-ment, 
Propositions holding forth this righteousness.  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, etc. Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness 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 Come 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 every one that believeth, that is, finie consummans (as Gomarus saith) not consumens. The end at which the Law aimed, and not putting an end and period to it. One Christ assumes to himself; It becometh us, to fulfil all 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 labour, but as receiving, and taking in a gift from God. This the Phrase of the Apostle, Phil. 3.9. doth clear. The righteousness of God by faith; otherwise it might be 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 Point proved.  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, than 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. 
By Scriptures.  The one stood in a visible relation to him, and the other were strangers from him. And the Apostle, Col. 2.11, 12. is full in the proof of it. Having said, that we are 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 Passeover, if we look to the letter of the institution, together with the explication given, we shall find it a memorial of a temporal mercy. It is the Lords Passeover, Exod. 12.11. that is, a memorial that the Lord passed 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 eaten and drank. This deliverance celebrated in the Passeover was in and through Christ, as is gathered from the blood that was to be struck on the two side-posts, and on the upper door-post of their houses, Exod. 12.7. But most clearly from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.9. He there says they tempted Christ; but they tempted him, from whom they had defence, 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 Passeover is sacrificed for us. And John Baptist had respect to it as well as to other Sacrifices of the Law, when pointing out Christ, he said, Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, Joh. 1.29. This is so clear in the Sacraments of the New Testament, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, that proofs do not need.  

By Reasons.  And the Reasons of it are clear.  
Reason 1 First, Sacraments are for power against sin, and pardon of sin, as appears by those frequent Texts produced for the working power of Sacraments, which need not to be repeated; But by Christ we have power against sin, Without him we can do nothing, Joh. 15.5. We can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth, Phil. 4.13. In him we have the Circumcision made without hands, which is the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh, Col. 2.11. By Christ we have pardon of sin, God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. Christ then is signified and sealed in the Sacraments.  
Reason 2 Secondly, Sacraments are for salvation, that is their end, in common with all other Church-Ordinances whatsoever. 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, 
The doctrine by rules explained.  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 Amesius observes) yet all that is passed in Covenant is made good in each. Our Justification, Adoption, Perseverance, Glorification, and whatsoever else in order to these or any of these, a people upright in Covenant may expect from the hand of God, is under seal, in every Sacrament 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 baptised 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 every one that doth partake of them. The Word holding this out indefinitely unto us, that he that hath the Son hath life, and that unto whom God gives his Son, with him he gives all things; that, eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, believers have eternal life: here a particular tender is made of his body and blood in these visible Elements of water, and of bread and wine. The water is passively received in 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 Melancton 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 endeavours with five several Arguments.   

SECT. II. Objections against the former doctrine.  
1. IF Sacraments confirm our faith by way of seal or after the Object. 1 manner of miracles, than 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, than 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, Ezekiah'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 than 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 pre-eminence 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 than 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 any where be better understood, than from his words that is the author of them; But in the Holy Scriptures they are not where called seals of Promises, but instruments of Justification: Ergo.  
Answ. 1 Answ. 1. If this Proposition stand, than some at least of the Sacraments of Rome, and most of their Sacramentals must fall, seeing, by Thomas Aquinas his acknowledgement they are not to be found in Scriptures.  
Answ. 2 2. There is nothing more false than 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, than this way at least assurance may be had, which he and his party are wont to deny.  
Answ. 3 3. Works are not Testimonies instituted of God for this end, (as Amesius observes) but of their own nature, they evidence our 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, than it is in vain to baptise Infants; But Lutherans are wholly for Infant-baptisme.  
Ans. 1. We may learn of Bellarmine, that Protestants at lest Answ. 1 think that this doctrine, and Infant-baptisme, will well stand together.  
2. The Apostle was certainly able to have given a satisfying Answ. 2 answer to this Objection, seeing he tells us, that Circumcision was a seal of the 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, than 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 baptise 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 Amesius, Whitaker, Vorstius, Pareus, Dr. Reynolds, Mr. Rutherford. I have shown; 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 does, 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 baptised or admitted to the Lords Table; I must either be helped 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 Melancton, nothing at all to purpose.   

SECT. III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine.  

Circumcision no carnal badge.  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.  

Sacraments in the time of the Law and days of the Gospel are of the same use and signification.  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. opened.  1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the Sea: and were all baptised 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 baptised unto Moses (saith he) in the Cloud & in the Sea. 2dly, he declares that the thing signified was the same in theirs, as it is in our Sacraments. They eaten 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 eaten 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 than he can find strength to answer. 1. If the Jews eaten the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink as we do in the Lord's Supper, than 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 baptised and admitted to the Lords Supper, seeing Sacraments like to these, little availed the fathers that did not abstain from sin. And lastly, Austin is produced on our behalf, who, Tractate on Joh. 16. saith, That the Sacraments of the 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 Amesius, Bellar. enervat. tom. 3. cap. 4. And by Whitaker, praelect. de Sacram. Quaest. 5. cap. 3. that I need not cause this work to swell any bigger with it. And this Text, I doubt not, is clear for it.  
Col. 2.11, 12. The Apostle makes Circumcision, and 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. 
Reasons assigned.  This also appears in reason.  
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's 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 fare 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.  

Explicatory Rules.  This we must understand with these rules.  
First, These Sacraments, theirs and ours, are not in that manner Rule. 1 one; but that there are many circumstantial differences between 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 than 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 Mother's tenderness, as may be gathered from her words, Exod. 4.25. Neither was the Passeover without cost and pains; especially to them that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem. 3. There is fare 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 Lords Supper until Christ come, 1 Cor. 11.26. But none of these make any substantial difference, nor any more than 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 Augustine'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 intent, 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 Critic, Ainsworth (who cannot be suspected to do it out of any humour 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, 
All must see that they be rightly principled in the doctrine of this righteousness.  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 an other, 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 fare 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, Concil. Triden. Sess. quart. p. 11. With the same degree of reverence, and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers, as we do the 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 an other, than 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 Winepress alone, and of the people there were none with me, holds true, when it is applied (as by many it hath been, though not according to the letter of the text) to his satisfaction, By one offering he hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified, Heb. 10.14. yea, the 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 honour soever of late is put upon them) come short of perfection to justification likewise, as plainly appears by the Apostles argumentation, Rom. 3.20. By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, giving this in for his reason, for by the Law is the 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 tenant, 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 copy 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, 
Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness.  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 any thing but faith be understood. All works are excluded, and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged, and we have our part or interest in Christ, in or by fulfilling of no other Gospel-condition, then that of faith, whereby we receive Christ, and Christ dwells in us, John 1.12. Eph. 3.17. The same 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 than 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 than 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, than quotations are ordinarily brought) in which we have not barely his authority, (which I do not offer to put in the balance with any) but the Points in question with singular strength, debated and spoken to; Treating of the Covenant of Grace, pag. 18. he saith, Repentance is called for in this Covenant, as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith, 
Luke 13.5. Acts 11.18. 2 Cor. 7.10. Ezek. 18.27.  but is itself only an acknowledgement 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. 
Rom. 3.21, 22, 28, 30. Gal. 2.16, 17. Rom. 4.2, 3.  When the Apostle writeth, that man is not justified by works, or through works, by the Law, or through the Law (opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification, but not in respect of their presence; Faith, I say, and works, not faith and merits which could never be) without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying: But the particles [By] and [Of] do not in the same sense, take Justification from the Law and Works, in which they give it to faith. For faith 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, 
Deut. 7.12. & 10.12. Jer. 7.23. Leu. 19.17, 18. Luk. 10.27. Mark 12.30.  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, 
Heb. 11.4, 7, etc.  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.  

A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification.  
HEre I cannot pass by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine, in the Treatise of the Covenant, concerning the Instrumentality of Faith. After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith, in opposition to Justification by works, in several Propositions, (of which he is not pleased to take any notice) I infer, pag. 80. [These things considered I am truly sorry, that Faith should be denied to have the office or place of an instrument, in our Justification: nay, scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ, that justifies us. Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all, with the premises, immediately falls upon this inference: making himself somewhat merry, with my professing myself to be truly sorry for this thing; telling me I was as sorry, that men called, and so called, faith the instrument of justification, as you are that I deny it, acquainting his Reader with his Reasons, which he would have to be compared with mine, which he passes over in silence. 1. No Scripture doth (says he) either in the letter, or sense, call faith an instrument of Justification. This the Reader must take on his word, and it should further be considered, whether he do not in the same page contradict himself, where he saith, It is only the unfitness, or impropriety of the phrase that he mentions, and not the sense. 2. Saith he, I knew I had much Scripture, and reason against it; but I find no reason from him, but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus, before his Aphorisms ever came to light; and had I not been able to have given myself satisfaction, I had been in that opinion (if not before him, yet) before I had any light from him, to lead me to it. That horned Argument of his, that if faith justify as instrument, it is either as an instrument in the hand of God, or in the hand of man, with his reasons against both, I have made use of argumentandi causâ, before any work of his saw the light. 3. 
The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification.  I thought it (saith he) of dangerous consequence to say, that man is the efficient cause of justifying, and pardoning himself, and so doth forgive his own sins. And I think every honest man should be of that mind, and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made, that Justification by faith, in opposition to works, makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The efficient, and that Justification by works gives it to God only. If this be once made good, I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith, and that ever I opposed that selfdenying, man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works, and shall hence forth conclude, Where is boasting then? It is excluded: by what Law? of faith? Nay, but by the Law of works. There is added, Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it, but for the next, viz. I found that many learned Divines did not only assert this instrumentality, but laid so great a stress upon it, as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here. For in the doctrine of Justification it is, say they, that they fundamentally err, and we principally differ, and that in these four Points. 
Four great errors laid to the charge of Reformers.  1. About the formal cause of our righteousness, which, say these Divines, is the formal righteousness of Jesus Christ, as suffering and perfectly obeying for us; or, as others add, in the habitual righteousness of his humane nature; and others, the natural righteousness of the Divine nature. 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein, which as to God's act, they say is imputation, (which is true) and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies; which, most of our foreign Reformers say, is an assurance, or full persuasion of the pardon of my sin by Christ's blood. 4. About the formal reason of faith's interest in Justification, which, say they, is as the instrument thereof. Adding his own censure, I doubt not but all these four are great errors. Of how dangerous consequence soever it is, that man should be made the efficient of justifying, and pardoning himself, yet it had passed without control, if worse than this had not been vented, by the learned of the reformed Religion; It is yet well, that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence, that yet so many learned are on their party. Those learned errors should be taken into further consideration, and some that are learned, have entered the lists with Mr. Baxter in them. The second of these great errors he tells us is true, and how a great error can be true, I cannot tell, unless his meaning be, that it is truly an error, which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures. And when this second is true; I cannot see, (and I think few of his Readers will see) how the first to which it relates can be false. If it be true, that by God's imputation of this righteousness of Christ, we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ, then that is true also, that they say, that Christ is our righteousness, or that the righteousness of Christ of mere grace is made ours. And how much good will is here shown to the reforming part is too manifest, in making one Party amongst them to hold, 
The natural righteousness of Christ's Divine nature is not our Justification.  that the natural righteousness of the Divine nature is our Justification, as Bellarmine did before him, and is answered by Davenant, de just. habit. p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander; It being his singular opinion; and another says, This opinion was almost like Ionas his gourd that did presently whither. As for the third, the charge is upon our foreign Reformers only; and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause; They only say, that saith is a full persuasion of the pardon of my sins by Christ's blood. I shall request from him therefore a Latin Treatise; for their better information in this thing, and not to trouble Controversies in English, with that, in which his English Antagonists stand right, himself being witness. Neither is it all foreign Divine that go that way; Gomarus putting it to the question saith, That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part, 
All foreign Reformers make no faith a full persuasion.  and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers, Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted. That which follows, I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers. That which troubled me (saith he) was this, to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course, and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion. For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion, when they find that we err in these, and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine; especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause, what wonder if they judge our cause naught? It is a greater wonder, that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices, but have left this work to Mr. Baxter, to give them light in this in which Reformers so err, and unreformed Papists stand right, so that it must be his work, not Bellarmine's, stapleton's, Suarez or any others to unreform.  
But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence, that so eminent a man (that is like, if himself may be heard, to draw away so many) speaks out such Language; let us oppose against him on the other hand, Albertus Pighius, whom those of his party (as Peter Martyr says, loc. come. pag. 541. made their Achilles, and thought, that he alone by his subtle wit, had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth. So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison. 
Pighius a learned Papist joins with Protestants in the doctrine of Justification, and many others.  This great wit of the Popish party reading Mr. Calvin, to confute him in the point of justification, was confuted by him, and wrote with us against his own party, as is not only affirmed by men of our party, (as Davenant de just. habit. cap. 29. pag. 382. Albertus' Pighius, (saith he) in his controversies largely explains and confirms our opinion. 1. He excludes inherent righteousness from any efficacy in justification. 2. He manifestly approves the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Lastly, He gives his reason, why the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for justification. And then adds, Many more things are found in the same author, who, though in other controversies, he maintains a fierce war with Protestants, yet being overcome with the clear light of truth in this of Justification, he fell off from the Papists and came over to our party. And Capel in his preface to Mr. Pembles tract of justification, Pighius (saith he) though of a peevish spirit enough, yet reading Calvin, to confute Calvin, in the very doctrine of justification, was confuted himself, and wrote with us) but also acknowledged by our adversaries. Albertus' Pighius is checked by Bellarmine (saith Dr. Prideaux lect. 5. Pag. 165.) for that in reading our authors, himself at last became a Lutheran, in this article. And that Pighius may not stand alone on our parts among Romanists; Davenant in the place quoted produces many others. 1. The whole covent of Canons at Cullen in their book which they entitled Antididagma, Who acknowledge the imputed righteousness of Christ to be the chief cause of our justification, Titu. de justific. 2. The Romish party in the Conference of Ratisbone, Who (saith he) gave their vote the same way, pag. 47. 3. Isidore Clacius, orat. 40. in Luc. 4. Naclantus Episcopus Clodiensis, cap. 1. ad Ephes. pag. 59, 72. The two first of these authorities are quoted by Dr. Prideaux likewise, Adding, that Cassander, Stapulensis, Peraldus, Ferus, Arius Montanus, did tread in the same path: and therefore, miserably suffer by the Index Expurgatorius, Cardinal Contarenus is likewise frequently quoted by Amesius as on our party. And Dr. Prideaux, saith, that almost four years before the Council of Trent he had so asserted the orthodox doctrine of Justification, that (being, as is thought, taken away by poison) he did not long survive. And for the whole space between Gregory and the reformation, our author pronounces it, that authors generally for the most part were more sound in their commentaries, then in their disputations, and in their meditations, soliloquies, and conflict of temptations; then in their polemics. Bringing in Chemnitius instancing in Bonaventure and others. So that in case they have one of eminence amongst us, we have one of theirs as eminent: and in case he should prove too light, we have many more into the bargain to make up weight.  
There follows, Now to the thing itself: Your Arguments for faith's instrumentality to Justification I will consider, when I can find them. And his Reader will consider no more of his jeers, when he can look into his books, and his eyes miffe of them. Some of those of whom he hath made boast, as his converts in this controversy, have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have written, though Mr. Baxter cannot find it. I am told that I begin and say more for faith's Instrumentality in receiving Christ, than for the instrumentality of it in Justification. And the truth is, I know not how to distinguish them. If it be an instrument to receive Christ, that doth justify; it is with me an instrument in Justification. If mine eye be an instrument by which I receive in light, for sight; then mine eye is the organ, or instrument of sight. If I prove the one, I think I cannot be denied the other. The Instrumentality of faith for receiving Christ, is thus reasoned against. If Faith be the instrument of receiving Christ than it is either the act, or the habit of Faith, that is the Instrument. I am well ware that if I shall affirm either of these, that then either some text of Scripture will be called for specifying such habit or act of faith in justification, or a needless stir will be made about these Logical notions. The safest way than is to say with Scripture, that faith is the grace that receives Christ, and that interests us in propitiation in his blood, and the grace by which upon that account we are justified, without limitation of it to either the act or habit. Neither can any answer, (as I suppose) be thus given, but such as will coincidere; If I say the habit justifies, it is as it puts forth itself into act; 
Whether the act of faith, or the habit doth justify?  If I say the act justifies, it must be as it comes from the habit, and so both habit and act justify. Neither doth a man's justification cease when the habit of Faith in sleep ceaseth acting, seeing justification denotes a state which is remaining, and abiding. It is further said, Receiving strictly taken is ever passive. A reason than may be seen, why Divines have called faith a passive instrument in justification; and Mr. Baxter may see a fair answer to the high, and indeed scornful censure, that he gives to the most learned, (as himself styles them) in his preface to this apology. The most learned (saith he) in the upshot fly to this that credere, is not agere, but pati, and is but Actio Grammatica, or the name of action, but Physically or Hyperphysically a suffering: Is not here a curious doctrine of faith, and Justification? If Aristotle had been a Christian, he could not have comprehended it. But I confess I see no reason to make receiving, 
Neither receiving not believing are in the Author's thoughts merely passive.  and consequently believing, to be at least merely passive. There is always an act of the will, in rational agents in receiving, properly so called, and often of the hand. The receivers of custom are agents for the States, and in their receipt are active. Receiving in a civil, ethical, less proper sense (as is further said) is but the act of accepting what is offered. But is not this accepting properly receiving? or is not receiving properly so called, at least necessarily joined with it, in such civil ethical reception? When I give a beggar an alms, does not he in as strict a sense receive it, as I do give it? and this is either his act of acceptance, or that which accompanies it. If I put water into a vessel, the vessel rather contains it, then receives it. If I give a child a lash, he rather suffers than receives ●t. So that receiving strictly taken, is as well active as passive, and rather active then passive. There is added, When it is only a relation, or a jus ad rem that is offered, consent or acceptance, is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession, or proper passive reception, that it is therefore called receiving itself; and it is therefore (as I think) called so, because it is so, and that it hath its concurrence, and way of efficacy for possession, I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny. It follows, Yet still I say, if any will please to call it an instrument, in this sense, I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase, especially if some men had the same ingenuity that others have, that say it is but Instrumentum Metaphoricum. There is not I hope so much ingenuity desired, as to smother or blind their reason. If it be a metaphorical instrument, there must be some real analogy between it and an instrument properly so called, in doing that which is done by an instrument, and when an instrument is (as is affirmed) an efficient; An instrument without any efficiency at all, is a strange kind of Metaphor; It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal. There follows. But to say (saith he) that the act of Faith is the instrument of Ethical, active reception, (which is that which I argued against) is to say receiving Christ is the instrument of itself. It will sure rather follow that Faith is the instrument of the soul in receiving Christ.  
We say faith receives, as we say the hand takes, 
Faith is the instrument of the soul; and not of itself in receiving Christ. That faith is the eye and hand of the soul, are Scripture Metaphors.  or the sword kills; but we mean the man receives by the hand, and the hand kills by the sword, and so we mean the soul receives Christ by faith. I explained myself in giving instance in men's usual language concerning faith, which is rejected with no little disdain, affirming that these speeches. Faith is the eye of the soul, the hand of the soul, are Metaphors of mere humane use; forgetting (it seems) that ever the Scripture said, that Moses by faith endured, as seeing him that is invisible; or that the promise of the Spirit is received by faith. If I had added that faith is the foot of the soul, they had all been Metaphors of Divine use: I urge Scripture texts. We receive remission of sins by faith, and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified, is received by faith, Act. 26.18. To which is replied. If [by] signify an instrumental cause, it is either always, or sometimes. You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is always: if but sometimes, why do you take it for granted that so it signifies here? This I might well retort, If it signify and an instumental cause sometimes, why is it not made appear, that it does not so signify here? But I confess that [by] hath not always such signification. Bartimeus sat by the highway-side begging, in which place [by] is no instrument, but when the particle [by] hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cause; and sometimes is put to the principal cause itself: I suppose nothing else but an instrument can be intended: when Christ is said to be set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. and that we are justified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. I know not how the blood of Christ can be a principal cause and faith not denote an instrument. I said, why else is this righteousness sometimes called the righteousness of faith, sometimes the righteousness of God by faith, but that it is a righteousness which faith receives? To this is replied, It is properer to say Credens recipit credendo, the believer by believing receives it, then to say, faith, especially the act, receives it. Here is an egregious subtilety; It is more proper to say, I receive a gift by my hand, then to say, my hand receives it, of the same stamp with another; where it is said that Scripture says, That we are justified by faith, yet denied, that Scripture says, that faith justifies. But be it so, that is properer; does not Scripture speak as improperly? Eye hath not seen, Ear hath not heard. It had been as much properer to have said, No man hath seen with his eye, or heard with his ear. I quote Ephes. 3.17. Christ dwells in us by faith; and, Gal. 3.14. We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. There I say [Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument, to receive Christ Jesus, and to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus:] and I am answered. You oddly change the question: we are speaking of faith's instrumentality in receiving a right to Christ, or Christ in relation, and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit, or graces really, or himself objectively, and so we have a large discourse of Christ's dwelling in us. But is it not to the purpose, to show that the phrase [by faith] notes instrumentality which these texts make good; and does not Christ dwell in us to more purposes than one? Is it not to all purposes, that by faith we receive him? And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded. I said [the instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denied, because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations, doth not exactly belong to it; which if it must be always rigidly followed, will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in moral actions.] To this is replied, I said 1. The action of the principal cause, and of the instrument is but one action, is not this true of moral operation as well as Physical? To this I answer, I think here some demur might be put, and scarce believe that it will be fully made good; that the action of the principal agent, and the instruments which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are always exactly one, though the act of the instrument may be in such cases Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent; as David is said to have slain Vriah with the sword of the Ammonites. Saul I am sure was of an other mind, when intending the death of David, he said, Let not my hand be upon him, but the hand of the Philistines, 1 Sam. 18.17. But in case it be granted, what hath he gained? He adds, 2. I say, the instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality, that is in suo gene●e. Demanding, Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical? Then yielding that it is true, Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical, etc. And this less proper causation; I doubt not, but may be found in faith, and as proper a causation as an instrument of this nature will bear. I say, [The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon, and no marvel then, in case men mind to contend about it, that some question is raised about the instrument,] etc. To this there is much spoke; telling me what he would have me to have concluded, comparing me to plunderers in time of fight; which would but weary the Reader to see repeated: whereas after other words I add, [I do not doubt but it will easily appear, that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement, (without almost a dissenting voice, have made faith an instrument in this work) speaking most aptly, and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument] He is pleased to reply, But, Sir, what's the cause of this sudden change? Through their great condescension, I have received animadversions from many of the most learned judicious Divines that I know in England. And of all these there is but one man that doth own the doctrine of faith's instrumentality; but they disclaim it all, some with distaste, others with a modest excuse of them that use it, and the gentle Interpretation of a metaphorical instrument, and that remote; for so they would have me Interpret our Divines. I told you this when I saw you, and you asked me whether Mr. C. were against it? To which I answer, not so much as divers others, that writ to me, but judge you by his own words, which are these, [Object. But though faith be not the instrument of our justification, may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ? Answ. I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our justification, etc. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you, that to speak exactly, faith may better be called a condition of our justification] so fare Mr. C. To this I answer, 1. Why have we not the authority of Divines that are open to all men's eyes, rather than of those that lie dormant in his hands? and there are sure more in the press, then in his private study in Manuscripts. No one is produced, and I scarce think can be produced. 2. I would he would publish to the world the labours of these eminently learned persons; that we, as well as he, might see their weak opposition of plain Scripture, which somewhere is his free censure. 3. There are those (if intelligence do not deceive me) that he hath said, he hath brought to his judgement in this thing, that yet have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have said, and are they of both our minds? 4. For Mr. C. upon the coming forth of this Apology he wrote to me, among other things in these words. 
Mr. C. vindicated.  Mr. Baxter, pag. 19 citeth some words of mine about faith's instrumentality, but it had been fair to have signified what I say further about it, especially in my second writing, when I perceived what advantage he did take of that which I had said before; only to avoid contending about words, which I do not like: so far Mr. C. I said in my Treatise, [the work about which faith is employed, is not an absolute, but a relative work; a work of God towards man, not without the actual concurrence of man: such in which neither God, nor man are sole efficients; nor any act of God, or man, can be sole instruments, but there must be a mutual concurrence of both.] To this is replied, A dangerous doctrine in my judgement, to be so nakedly affirmed; no doubt but justification is a relative change, and it is past controversy, that it is not without the actual concurrence of man, for he must perform the condition on which God will justify him: But that God is not the sole efficient, nor any act of God the sole instrument, I durst not have affirmed without proof; Neither durst I have charged any man's speech with danger of that nature without disproof, unless I should think it enough to make it so, because in my judgement it appears so; and that which is here granted as without controversy, is with me a proof sufficient. If it be not done without the actual concurrence of man, and is done by such concurrence of which we have as many proofs, as there is mention of justification by faith, there must be some kind of efficiency in this concurrence; 
There is somewhat of efficiency in man's concurrence by faith in Justification.  that man should be justified by faith, and faith have no hand at all in it, I cannot reach. I bring for proof the absurdity that will follow upon denial in these words; [This must needs be granted, unless we will bring in Dr. Crispes passive recipiency of Christ; Christ's abode in man, without man, in spite of man, and suppose him to be justified in unbelief.] To this is replied. This is very naked asserting; why did you not show some reason of this ill consequence?] It's past any reach to see the least: If I were too short, it is now done to my hands, where a mutual concurrence of God and man in the work is confessed; tell me how it can be denied, unless Christ come into man without man, and in spite of him; for if man act in it, he must needs be an agent. It follows, Why do you still confound Christ's real abode in us by his Spirit with the relation we have upon justification? when even now you affirmed it was a relative work (as you call it) I pray by the next show us more clearly, how these absurdities follow that doctrine. And doth not a relative work of this nature necessarily presuppose this abode by the Spirit? and is not a relative change a necessary consequent of it? If strangers to Christ be justified by Christ, 
The relative change in Justification necessarily presupposes a real.  I am to learn in the doctrine of justification, that desire of his I think is already satisfied. I further say, faith is disabled from this office in justification, by this argument: If faith be an instrument [It is the instrument of God or man, etc. to which in my Treatise I answered, it is the instrument of man; though man do not justify himself, yet he concurres as a ready willing agent with God in it.] To which is replied, If this be not a palpable contradiction, saying, and unsaying, my Logic is less than I thought it had been. If it be [man's instrument] of justification, and yet [man do not justify himself] then either man is not man, or an Instrument is not an instrument, or justifying is not justifying. It seems he would have us by the way know that his thoughts of his own Logic are not low; 
The Author acquit from the charge of a palpable contradiction.  but if other men's Logic cannot solve this contradiction; yet me thinks his might, who says receiving strictly taken is ever passive, and a man may be passive in justification, and not justify himself. But perhaps with me it is of more difficulty that have affirmed, That reception hath still somewhat at least of action in it; but this reception here in question, hath no more of action than serves to possess itself of a free gift; which ever adds honour to the giver, not to the receiver: I distinguish therefore of instruments of mere reception, and instruments of further operation; 
Instruments of mere reception and further operation distinguished.  that which is objected holds of instruments wholly operative, not of those that are merely receptive. A man receives a gift with his hand, as the lame man was ready to do, when he expected something from Peter and John, Act. 3.5. and he earns his living with his hand, as Paul did, when in some exigents his hands ministered to his necessities, Act. 20.34. In the former man's hand concurres to his enriching, but he enriches not himself, as in the later. The denomination is from the fountain, whence all flows, not from the hand that accepts, or the cistern that doth receive. There is added. In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion, nor much stress laid on it, if it were true, because it is so obscure. It seems then that not I, but our Religion, is the author of this so high a contradiction; so that I cannot defend Religion, but I am put upon it to assert such contradictions; and who lays greatest stress upon that which is not obscure and dark, I leave to the Reader of Mr. Baxters' Aphorisms and Apology to determine. It follows, That man concurres as a ready agent, who doubts? but doth that prove him, or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and justification? Do I, or doth our Religion make man or faith the efficient cause of his own pardon, and justification? Quote some words of mine or some Article of faith in any of the Protestant Confessions that affirms it: were some others in my stead they would highly rhetoricate, and tell the world what would be said when they are dead. But this is my comfort, when I am dead, Religion will stand up for its own defence: that the concurrence of a ready agent hath somewhat of efficiency in it, I think none can deny; and that such concurrence that I have mentioned can rise to be the efficient I think, 
Faith is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification.  very few will affirm. And to bring myself into that which he before hand charges to be so absurd, I said, [And because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature, it is also the instrument of God. As some have observed a communication of titles between Christ and his Church (the Church being called by his name): so there is a communication of actions in these relative works. Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, Ephes. 3.17. We believe, and not Christ: and yet [faith] there is Christ's instrument, whereby he takes up his abode. God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith, Act. 15.17. They believed and not God: yet faith is God's instrument in the work of their purification. So on the other side the Spirit is God's work: yet we by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh, Rom. 8.13.] Here Mr. Baxter first takes in hand the thing that I assert, and when he hath done falls upon the proof which is first to quarrel with the conclusion, and then to take the premises into consideration, 1. It is said, If this be indeed true, 
God and man are not coordinate causes in Justification.  that it is man's instrument of justification, and Gods both, then both God and man are causae principales partiales by coordination, making up one principal cause; This he thinks I will not affirm, and this indeed I do deny upon the reasons afore laid down, it is man's instrument for concurrence in it, but not of principal efficiency to produce it: In case I had affirmed, he gives in his reason of denial of it in a Similitude of an absolute donor, in which I grant the conclusion, and therefore shall not trouble the Reader with it. As to the proof that I bring, he first excepts against that which I say, others have observed, and say: This communication of titles, 1. is very rare. 2. uncertain whether ever, and goeth about to take off that text, 1. Cor. 12.12. But this being Heterogeneous to the work in hand, I shall let his exceptions alone, only pointing him out one another text; with which if he please, he may take like pains, Jer. 23.6. Jer. 33.16. Compared. After much ado to find out my meaning he resolves: But it is like you intended to have said, that there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions, or one is entitled to the actions of the other: and so mean only a communication of the name quoad modum producendi, and not of the actions themselves. And who but he, that would seek a knot in a Bulrush could have thought of any other? but as the titles of one, are observed by some to be attributed to another; so the actions proper to one, are attributed to the other? Then a Dilemma is brought against me, either this is in an improper figurative way of speech, or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing, and either of both is excepted against; I say the action of one is said interpretative to be the action of the other, because he makes use of it to do his own work, or bring about his own purpose. To the instance that I gave, [that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith] he says there is not a word to prove that there is a relative indwelling. But Mr. Br. very well knows that I did not oppose relative in this place to real, as intending to hold forth any effect wrought by Christ's indwelling: but the opposition is so absolute, as I expressed myself. I do not say that justification is directly spoke to in that place, yet there is a proof I think sufficient that Christ makes use of our act to effect his own work, which is as much as I intended elsewhere. Mr. Br. is so free as to yield that faith is an instrument to receive Christ, 
How Christ is said to dwell in us by faith.  but here he stickles hard to deny it, but let us take notice of his concessions: Christ (saith he) is said to dwell in us by faith. 1. Formaliter, Faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us. And so we might say he dwells by Love, Hope, Meekness, Patience, which I think no Scripture or Orthodox Writer says. 2. Conditionaliter; Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirit abode. But it is so a condition as it is withal an instrumental condition. It is not barely said, if you believe, I will give you my Spirit; which might imply barely a condition, as it is said, turn at my reproof, and I will pour out my Spirit upon you: but it is said, we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith. 3. Efficienter. As the act of faith doth directly cause the increase, and so the abode of the habit. And is it may we think a principal, or is it an instrumental efficient? If an instrumental, I have what I desire, and I am sure he will not say it is a principal efficient. Mr. Baxter is, I am sure, as zealous as I can be to assert a conditionate Covenant: and if an adversary be as streight-laced to him, and me, in that, as he is to me in this; he will hardly prove a condition, either in the Covenant of works or grace. I will as soon find the word instrument in Scripture applied to justification, as he shall find the word condition applied to either Covenant. And he can name I think no word implying a condition that is always put for a condition: and the context wheresoever we are said to be justified by faith, or that Christ is a propitiation through faith, is in all indifferent Readers eyes as clear for an instrument in justification: as those which he, and I, can bring (which yet are clear enough) for a conditionate Covenant. And that doctrine hath fare more adversaries than this, though there is little cause that any man should be an adversary in either.  
He says, the same answer serves to Act. 15.9. and then the same reply may serve. There follows, To what you say from Rom. 8.13. I reply,  
1. An adjutor, or concause is ill called an instrument, must the Spirit needs be our instrument, because it is by the Spirit? as if by, signified only an instrument. Mr. Baxter's head was doubtless on somewhat else, either when he read these passage of mine, or when he framed his answer. I never had it in my thoughts that justification is expressly spoken to in any of these texts, nor was it my business to find out any instrument in them, though I doubt not but that faith is spoken to instrument in two of them, and as a condition, non-instrumental in none of them; neither did I dream of making the Spirit an instrument. All that I intended was to prove, 
The acts of God are entitled to man, and the acts of man to God in Scripture.  that the acts of man were entitled to God, and so the acts of God to man, not considering (as the business in hand let not to it) about what these acts are exercised: if they prove that, It is to me sufficient, whether it be in Justification, Sanctification, Mortification, or any other work. There is added. 2. All this is nothing to the business of justification; nothing directly, immediately, but much by way of Analogy. It is enough to prove, That, to be the instrument of man, and the instrument of God are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And if he desire a proof more punctually applied to justification, let him consult, Rom 3.30. It is one God that shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith; and, Gal. 3.8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith. Faith for justification is usually ascribed to man, being properly his act, and therefore that text of the Prophet, Hab. 2.4. The just shall live by his faith, is by the Apostle more than once applied to justification: And in the text now quoted, this act of faith is ascribed to God, for that work. I explained myself [man neither justifies, nor sanctifies himself, yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both] etc. To this is answered, If man justify not himself, and yet faith be his instrument of justifying, then farewell old Logic. Mr. Baxter is the first great Logician, that I ever heard talk so much of his Logic in the last Section but one we had it, and now we have it in the same thing again; there I shown that old Logic may stand, and yet his consequence not yielded. 2. It is said, If man sanctify not himself under God, as to the progress, and acts of sanctification, then farewell old Theology. And if man may be said to sanctify himself further then hath been said, or so as to be a principal efficient (which will follow from Mr. Baxters' reasonings) then welcome the newest Divinity. It will not be denied, that a sanctified man differs from one that is unsanctified, and then in case it may be allowed to say, I sanctify myself: he may say; I make myself to differ: which I never heard that any in direct terms would say against the Apostle, but Grevenchovius, as I find him cited by Dr. Featly, and yet it seems it is my great error, that I will not say so, I lift man up in that height in justification, as to pardon his own sin, in holding that it is of faith, that it may be of grace, not of works lest any should boast; And I raise him not high enough in sanctification, If I say no more than that by faith he receives power from God by the Spirit for it: that text, 1 Pet. 1.22. would fare better have served my purpose, if I had first hit upon it; 
The Spirit of God and not man, is to have the denomination in sanctification.  Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit. They that have done any thing in purifying their hearts through the Spirit, will rather entitle the Spirit of God, than themselves to it, and will judge that he, rather than they should be denominated a sanctifier. And for other texts that are hinted, and one mentioned, 2 Cor. 7.1. To argue from the Command to the power, is that old Theology, that I am ready to bid farewell to. As God requires it, so he doth often undertake it, and declares that it is his work to do it, Ezek. 36.25, 26. Deut. 30.6. I think few will say, that they make their own hearts new. There is added. 3. To close with God in pardoning me, signifieth not, that I pardon myself, or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon. This is for me, therefore I am contented it should be said over again, and my faith is the instrument wherewith I close with God; In case it be the instrument wherewith I receive Christ, (as Mr. Baxter hath sometimes yielded.) There follows. 4. When you say that [faith as an instrument receiveth righteousness to justification] you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with, or read that go your way, and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration, and after some enquiry into their meaning, There is added, but these things must be more accurately considered I think. Here it is confessed, that I tread in the beaten road, and that I do appear in the common cause, and comparing what is here said with that which in his conclusion he delivers: 
The Author is confessed to appear in the common cause in behalf of Protestants.  It appears that the Divines of this corner of the world for 1300. years past have all taken this way, which is all that go under the name Protestant, whether Calvinist, or Lutheran, as they are wont to be distinguished: I shall therefore expect, that some of those that by grace have obtained to be, as of the first three among David's worthies, will step in with their Auxiliary helps, in case the cause be prejudiced by my weakness: He asigns me to the party of those that he calls Reformers, pag. 16. on what party himself stands, it is easy then to determine. Having said that these things are to be more accurately considered, he expresses himself without any one title of Scripture in eight particulars, I shall as briefly as I can take notice of the sum of them. 
Mr Faxters eight heads taken into consideration.   
1. It must be known, that the righteousness given to us, is not the righteousness whereby Christ's person was righteous, (for accidents perish being removed from the subject) but it is a righteousness merited by Christ's satisfaction, and obedience for us. Here we have a negation with its reasons, and an opposite affirmation, without any reason at all. The negation is, That the righteousness given us is not the righteousness whereby Christ's person was righteous. The reason is, Accidents perish being removed from the subject, and therefore the righteousness given us is not the righteousness whereby Christ's person was righteous; impliying that the reformed party take righteousness for justification out of Christ (and leave him belike without any righteousness) and put it into themselves; and so as Christ was before, so now they are inherently righteous. He well knows that they hold, that it is still in Christ, and of grace reckoned to be ours; and therefore that of accidents perishing needed not an opinion which he vehemently opposeth in his Preface to his Confession. If Christ only (saith he) were righteous, Christ only would be reputed, and judged righteous, and Christ only would be happy. The Judge of the world will not justify the unrighteous, merely because another is righteous; nor can the holy Ghost take complacency in an unholy sinner, because another is holy. And yet himself holds, That the Judge of the world, will not only take an infant born under the defilement of sin into Covenant as holy; but also justify him (though in his opinion uncapable of any real change by the Spirit) barely upon the account of the parents state in grace through regeneration. We cannot be righteous through Christ's righteousness, notwithstanding we know, that in the Gospel of grace, it is reckoned ours, and by faith have our interest. Yet an infant is righteous by the parent's righteousness: Notwithstanding we read not of any such imputation, or any such way, of interest by faith or otherwise: I must crave leave to hold to the former which he leaves, though not with his, but Scripture comment upon it. God does not justify us, merely because another is righteous; but because Christ is made of God to us righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. and is Jehovah our righteousness Jer. 23.6. And to leave the latter which he holds: I believe neither regeneration nor justification to be from Parent to child ex Traduce. In which sense that holds, Nemo nascitur, sed fit Christianus. I choose rather with Walaeus to subscribe to the opinion of Calvin, lib. 4. instit. cap. 16. Sect. 20. That Infants are baptised into future Repentance and faith: which he says is the opinion of most other Authors. I believe Mr. Baxter chief took up this opinion of justification of infants, tanquam Apendices parentum, for Amiraldus his sake, who had it from Camero, 
Amiraldus qui nihil Cameronis imitatur preter naevos idem dicit.  and was his follower (as aged and reverend Molinaeus saith) in nothing but his blemishes. And I would not have so good a friend and eminent ornament to the Church to make either of them, in these his precedents.  
The affirmation is, that it is a righteousness merited by Christ's satisfaction and obedience. Here is a Proposition delivered with very little accurateness:  
1. The righteousness given is here distinguished from his obedience; when certainly this obedience is that which is given to us. By the obedience of one many shall be made righteous, Rom. 5.29.  
2. Christ's satisfaction and obedience are here distinguished; when his satisfaction was his obedience, Joh. 10.18. Phil. 2.  
3. His satisfaction is distinguished from this righteousness, when I think it is plain, that itself is righteousness; Christ's own as a Redeemer; Ours as redeemed one's; when Christ had taken upon him our sins, he had not stood righteous in God's sight, without a discharge, and this discharge is our acquittal and deliverance.  

Queries put concerning this righteousness.  4. We hear not whence this righteousness thus merited, is; where it resides, and how made ours. Is it a righteousness by a new Creation? as the light was once made to shine out of darkness; was it put immediately into Christ, or given immediately to us? which seems to be Mr. Baxters' thoughts to avoid perishing of accidents. Is it one gift indefinitely at once for all, or to all? or is it given particularly, numerically, individually? Is it made ours without us, or by us? If it be made ours, whether is it by our acceptation through faith, or ability merited for us to work it? and so Christ merited that we might merit.  
2. It must needs be known (saith he) that the faith which is the justifying condition, is terminated on Christ himself, as the object, and not on his righteousness which he gives us in remission; remission, or righteousness may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ; but righteousness or remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of justification; or at least but a secondary more remote object, etc. In this whole piece we have an affirmation, a negation, a concession and illustration. 
Our Faith being terminated on Christ, it is terminated on righteousness.  For the affirmation, that faith is terminated on Christ, we grant; but that it is not therefore terminated on the righteousness which he gives in remission, (for remission I think was intended) we are to learn: And when it is granted, that remission is the end, (which is ill confounded with righteousness, one being the cause, the other the effect) it must be granted, that a righteous Christ is the object, and that Christ is received upon account of his righteousness; were not this an accurate way of distinguishing, to say, that a man ready to perish with cold, goes to the fire, and not to heat, for warmth; The heart ready to perish with thirst; goeth to the water, and not to moisture; If the soul ready to perish in unrighteousness, goes to Christ for righteousness, his faith cannot be terminated on Christ, but it must be terminated on righteousness, as the eye cannot be fixed on the sun, but it must be fixed on light. We are helped with a similitude. As a woman doth not marry a man's riches, but the man; Though it may be her end in marrying the man, to be enriched by him; nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them, but her taking the man for her husband. If Christ and righteousness were separable, as a man and riches are, this simile might be to some purpose, so that a man might be married, and poverty continued; but Christ cannot be received and a state of unrighteousness remain. It is said, Receiving the persons into relation, from whom we expect the benefit, goes before the receiving the benefit by them, which is usually the remote end, and not the object of that first reception, which is the condition. Which may be true where person and benefit are separable; but I cannot receive a woman in marriage, and a wife after. As an eternal increated righteousness is essential to Christ, as God; and the quality of righteousness, connatural as man; so a righteousness to constitute others righteous is essential to Christ qua Mediator; without such a righteousness, he is no high Priest for us, and therefore his righteousness, as Mediator was before very harshly called an accident. It follows, Our Divines therefore of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying faith, to be receiving and resting on Christ alone for salvation, as he is offere d in t Gospel. And is he offered in the Gospel without a righteousness? being offered in the Gospel as Mediator, and righteousness essentially necessary in a Mediator, resting on Christ, we rest on righteousness.  
3. In my judgement (saith he) it is a mere fancy and delusion to speak of the receiving a righteousness, that we may be justified constitutive thereby in such a sense, at if the righteousness were first to be made ours, in order of nature before our justification, and then justification follow, because we are righteous, and so these were two things; for to receive righteousness, and to receive justification is one thing. God's justifying us, and pardoning our sin, and his constituting us righteous, and his giving us righteousness is all one thing, under several notions. If it be granted, that justification is verbum forense, 
To receive a righteousness for justification is no fancy or delusion.  borrowed from proceeding in Courts of justice, and holds out our acquittal, or discharge from sentence, and not making us formally just, than it is no fancy, or delusion, to say that we receive a righteousness to be justified, but dangerous (as I think) to deny it; if righteousness and justification be one thing, then that is a tautology, Deut. 25.1. ye shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. Though it is impossible that God should condemn a just, and justify a wicked person, as a man may; yet righteousness and justification, as wickedness and condemnation differ both in God and man's proceed And righteousness is not justification, as wickedness is not condemnation, sure Davenant was high in this fancy and delusion when he thus entitled his 28. Chap. de justitia habituali. Imputatam Christi obedientiam, esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae probatur.  
4. Christ's satisfaction or redemption (saith he) solvendo pretium and merit cannot be properly received by us: for they are not in themselves given to us (but as tropically they may be said to be given to us, because the fruit of them is given us) It was not to us, but to God, that Christ gave satisfaction, and the price of our redemption. And yet justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christ's satisfaction and merit, as it doth our justification thereby procured. It is therefore the acknowledging of this redemption, satisfaction or merit, and the receiving of Christ as one that hath redeemed us by satisfaction and merit, and not the receiving that satisfaction or redemption ourselves, etc. If Christ gave satisfaction to God, 
How Christ's satisfaction to God for us, is received by us.  he yet gave it for us, and God accounts it ours: In him we have redemption through his blood, Ephes. 1.7. If we have it in him, some way we come by it. And how we come by it, if we do not receive it, I cannot imagine. As the Son gives himself for our ransom to the Father; So the Father gives the Son to us. I marvel what comment will be put upon the words of the institution of the Lords Supper, Take eat this is my body which is broken for you; as it is broken for us; so it is given to us and so of the Cup, This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you, and for many for the remission of sins. Christ and satisfaction wrought by Christ, Christ and redemption wrought by Christ are both received, seeing Christ is made unto us redemption, 1 Cor. 1.30. and faith is our way of receipt.  
5. If faith shall be said (saith he) to be the instrument of justification eo nomine because it is the receiving of that righteousness whereby we are justified, than it will follow, that faith must also be called the instrument of our enjoying Christ eo nomine because it receiveth him and the instrument of our adoption eo nomine because it receiveth adoption, and so the same act of faith which entitles us to justification, doth not entitle us to any other blessing; nor that act that entitles us to Christ, doth entitle us to justification (unless there be several justifying acts) but every particular mercy hath a particular act as the instrument of receiving it, which is no Scripture doctrine. Mr. Baxter being given to understand by a friend, that this is scarce intelligible, he hath expressed himself with more clearness, in a postscript in this syllogism. If the apprehension of Christ's righteousness, and no other act should strictly be the justifying act of faith, and that eo nomine because it is the object of that apprehension, which is the matter of our justification, than it would follow, 1. That the apprehension of nothing else is the justifying act. 2. And that we have right to every other particular mercy eo nomine because we apprehend that mercy, and so our right to every particular benefit of Christ were received by a distinct act of faith: But the consequent is false: Therefore so is the antecedent. The consequent is here twofold, the first I yield, but deny the second. The apprehension of nothing else is the justifying act, but that there needs distinct acts of faith to receive other mercies, does not follow upon this principle, which Mr. Baxter so far as I understand him in the following words hath proved, when it lay on his hand to disprove. Having mentioned several Scriptures, 1 Joh. 5.12. Joh. 3.16. Joh. 1.12. he adds as a result from all, So that one entire faith is the condition of our right, 
Interest in Christ, gives interest in all other privileges.  to all particular benefits. And he must remember that it is the first according to the tenor of the promise that gives right to all: He that spared not his own Son, but gave him for us, how will he not with him give us all things? Rom. 8.32. When the Prophet was to confirm Ahaz in the truth of a promise, then to be made good; he holds out to him the promise of the Messiah, and only that promise; which would not have carried strength, but that interest in the first, giveth interest in all. All the promises of God in Christ, being Yea, and Amen, 2 Cor. 1.19.  
6. It must be remembered (saith he) that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly, is not Christ himself, or his righteousness; but the species of what is represented as its object; And that faith's reception of Christ himself, and his righteousness, or of right to him, is but receptio metaphorica, vel actio ad receptionem propriam necessaria: and that the true reception which is pati, non agere, doth follow faith. And therefore Christ himself is received, only Receptione fide ethicâ, actiuâ, metaphoricâ: species Christi praedicati recipitur receptione naturali, intelligendo: Jus ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali passiuâ, propriâ. Mr. Baxter's friend let him know that he understood not his former, I would I had acquaintance with him to help me in this; for if he had not understood him here, he would likely have said as much as before; unless perhaps his modesty would not suffer him to be so much on the excepting hand. That which I think I do understand, I know not how to make to agree: who would not here think, but it were the natural property, or act of faith to receive the species of Christ? yet, Sect. 10. pag. 2. he saith, that every other grace that hath Christ for his object, is thus far an instrument of receiving him (that is, the species of him, as he expresses himself) as well as faith, but none so properly as knowledge, which also he here (as we see) repeats, species Christi praedicati recipitur receptione naturali, intelligendo. So that faith less properly, and not so naturally receives him. Knowledge in this hath the preeminence; who would not think from these words, that it were proper and peculiar to believers thus to receive Christ? yet in the place quoted, pag. 22. it is said, that he thus dwells in every wicked man that thus thinketh of him. It seems then that Judas in his thoughts to betray Christ, did as much to this receiving of him, if not more, than others in believing of him. It is there said, that doubtless he doth not dwell in that deep and special manner as in his chosen; yet if it be most properly by knowledge that he thus dwells, than they that know most have the most deep indwelling, and that is more in devils then in some (if not any) chosen ones. The reception of Christ himself, his righteousness, or of right to Christ, is here confessed to be an act of saith, and who but Mr. Baxter would look for a more true reception? yet the true reception which is pati, non agere, doth follow faith; and though the believer receive the actual efficacious gift; yet it is not his faith that receiveth it, as we have in the close of the Paragraph; In his English, he says, that faith's reception of Christ himself, or of right to Christ is but receptio metaphorica, and opposed to true reception, which is pati, non agere: In his Latin he saith, Jus ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali, passiva, propria; faith with him is an acceptance of a freely given Christ, and life in him; yet a believer receives the efficacious giving, but his faith doth not receive it: I would mind Mr. Baxter of that rule of his own, Vbi lex non distinguit, etc. and where he meets with these distinctions in the Word of God I know not, and he goes not about to make known. 
Scripture speaks of receiving Christ, and not the species of Christ only.  Scripture tells us of receiving Christ by faith, and not of the species only, which an unsanctified knowledge without faith may reach. The Species of Christ can neither justify us, nor purify us, nor yet give victory over the world, nor make resistance against Satan; yet all this through faith Christ doth: and therefore faith doth not receive the bare species; if we could be content with Gospel-simplicity, truth might stand, and these distinction be laid aside.  
7. The great thing therefore that I would desire to be observed is this; that though faith were an instrument of the aforesaid objective, or of the ethical, metaphorical reception of Christ, (which yet is not properly, being ipsa receptio) yet it is not therefore the insturmental cause of the passive, proper reception of right to Christ, or righteousness. Whether we have not that again here denied, which before was asserted, let the Reader judge. However Reasons are given of it:  

Faith is an instrument of the proper reception of Christ.  1. In the negative: Of this (saith he) it is only the condition and not the proper instrument, with an objection prevented in a parenthesis; I shall show hereafter that it is impossible to be both. I shall wait therefore till this be shown, for I despair I confess ever to see such impossibility; I know an instrument, quâ instrument differs from a condition, quâ a condition, but that one and the same thing is in an utter incapacity to be both an instrument and an instrumental condition, I do not believe. I may give a man a piece of money with a proviso, that he take it in a saucer, or a pair of tongues, this now is the condition, yet the tongues or saucers are his instruments to receive it.  

Faith doth more than morally qualify the subject to be a fit patiented to be justified.  2. We have a positive reason: It doth morally qualify the subject to be a fit patiented to be justified, as Mr. Benjamin. Woodbridge saith truly in his excellent Sermon of Justification. I have not this Sermon, though I know that he hath often applauded it; but how excellent soever, I had rather have had a quotation out of John's Gospel, or Paul's, Peter, or John's Epistles. And if he affirm that which is here quoted out of him, (as I do not question) I hope to die in a different opinion from him. This subject that is only morally qualified to be a fit patiented to be justified, is not yet in possession of Christ, of life by Christ; Mr. Baxter is morally qualified for the degree of Doctor, and yet he is no Doctor; was morally qualified to be called by the State for consultation about Religion; when as yet he was not called, and might have died, and never have been called; but faith puts into an actual possession of Christ, and Justification by him. By him all that believer are justified from all things. I should rather take Humiliation, Conviction, Compunction, soul-emptinesse, to be such moral qualification as is here mentioned; and this I have learned from our Saviour, Matth. 11.28. Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Such are morally qualified for the justified man's rest ●nd peace; And more fully in the Parable, Luk. 18. the Publs cane that came not with a list of virtues as the Pharisee did, but was so clogged with sin, that he stood afar off from the mercy-seat, durst not lift up his eyes to heaven, seeing a large list of sins, and not of virtues, or praiseworthy carriages, goes away justified rather than the Pharisee. Here is a subject morally qualified to be a fit patiented to be justified, not yet actually justified, (which also was their case, Acts 2.37. with the jailors, Act. 16.30.) which I think neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Woodbridge can find affirmed of any actually in the faith, who according to Scripture are actually justified, and not barely qualified to be fit patients in due time to receive it. There follows, I would have Pareus here put against this which is quoted out of Mr. Woodbridge; speaking by way of objection against the Orthodox doctrine of Justification, he saith, Faith justifies, that is, 
Fides justificat, i. e. disponit ad justitiam. Respondeo: Glossa contorta Scripturae ignota et repugnans. Justificare enim dicitur fides accipiendo donum justitiae absque operibus, non disponendo ad justitiam. Nec justificatio fit per motum, sicut calefact●o, sed per imputationem. Quod si sicret per motum, admodum imp●oprie fidei tribueretur. Neque enim motus ad rem est res ipsa, nec dispositio generat, sed est via ad generationem. Non igitur per motum dispositionis fides justificat—.  it disposes or fits for Justification; and answers, A wrested gloss; unknown to Scripture, and contrary to it: For faith is said to justify by receiving the gift of righteousness, without works, and not by disposing for righteousness. Neither is Justification by motion, as is warmth, but by imputations. And if it were by motion, it were most improperly ascribed to faith. Neither is motion to a thing, the thing itself: nor doth a disposition obtain any thing, but is the way to obtain it: Therefore faith does not justify by any motion of disposition, Pareus in Rom 3. Dub. 8. The reason of this is, That this is only donation, or the will of the donour signified, that can efficiently convey a right to his own benefits; the receiver is not the giver, and therefore not the conveyer of right. I wonder what this is a reason of; if it be intended for a reason of that which goeth immediately befote, that faith doth morally qualify in the way mentioned, it is above me to see any reason in it. It is further said, Every instrument is an efficient cause, and therefore must effect; and it is only giving that effecteth this right. But it effects not such right without receiving, where it is given upon that proviso, that it be thus and thus received. After much ado, and to what purpose, let others judge. The conclusion is: The great thing therefore that I affirm is this, that if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ, or righteousness, yet doth it not justify proxime & formaliter as such, but as the condition of the gift performed. And the great thing that I would affirm, is, That the instrumental apprehending Christ, or righteousness, is this condition of the gift; It is given upon condition that we make use of our faith to apprehend it; and so the sum is, That faith doth not justify formaliter & proxime, as apprehending Christ, or righteousness, because it doth justify proxime & formaliter as thus apprehending. Faith as a condition certainly doth somewhat, and this it is that it doth according to the Scripture.  
The eighth and last of his accurate heads follows. In which he says, he opens his meaning together, about this point, though as he says with some repetitions. I cannot then without repetitions give any further answer, which to the Reader would be too troublesome, yet somewhat is observable that I find not before. Faith (saith he) must first be faith, i. e. apprehensio Christi, in order of nature before it can be the condition of right. 
Actual existence not necessary to the being of a condition in a Covenant.  If faith must have an actual being before it can be the condition of right, then perfect obedience (according to the old rule, as Mr. Baxter calls it) must first be perfect obedience in actual being, before it can be a condition of the Covenant of works, and so it will follow that, that Covenant hath no condition, seeing there is no such actual obedience. A condition may be a condition, though not made good, though never made good. The delivery in of an hundred foreskins of the Philistines was david's condition for Marriage of saul's daughter before any Philistine was slain, and had stood as a condition though had never been given in. If he mean, that faith must be faith, before the condition be made good, this is false: for the actual being of it is the making of it good; and so it is as much as if I said, I must wink in order of nature before I shut my eyes. He further distinguishes of apprehensio Christi, and conditio praestita, when apprehensio Christi is conditio praestita; as though I should distinguish between Abraham's sacrificing of his son, and his obedience of God's command in sacrificing him, when all know that his sacrificing him was his obedience. To say that there is such a thing as faith in the general notion before Christ doth constitute a condition, were somewhat; but to say that we believe, or apprehend Christ before we perform the condition, is to say we must perform the condition before we perform it.  
Having led the Reader through all this accurateness, I must further consider his animadversions. I said, [The Spirit will do nothing without our faith, and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit; man cannot justify himself by believing without God, and God will not justify an unbelieving man; faith then is the act of man; man believes, yet the instrument of God that justifies only believers.] To which I have a multiplication either of answers and scorns in place of answers. 1. It is said. The Spirits working in sanctification is nothing to our question of justification. It is yet somewhat for illustration, for which alone it was brought, though nothing for proof for which it was never intended. 2. It is said. The Spirit works our first faith without faiths coworking, and that is more than nothing. What need he to have told me this, when I had told it him before? as the Reader may see in words which he omits; I speak there of the Spirits work in the soul where faith is implanted. 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith moveth itself. Here is an exception to fill up the number. If I move my pen to write, before it move, than I writ something without my pen. 4. It is said. It is not so easily proved as said, That the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul, nor yet restraineth from any evil without the coworking of faith. But why is not this disproved with ease? I would know for my learning, what act of the Spirit upon a believing soul is mentioned in Scripture, which is not ascribed also to faith. The Spirit mortifies the deeds of the flesh, so doth faith, Acts 15.9. Devils are cast out by the Spirit of God, so they are cast out by faith, Mar. 9 The Spirit is our strength in the inward man, Ephes. 3.16. and faith is our strength, 1 Pet. 5.9. Rom. 4.20. All things are possible to the Spirit of God; And all things are possible to him that believes, Mar. 9.23. The Spirits method laid down in the Word is not to work in us respective to salvation (after the grace of faith is implanted) without us; what is ascribed to the one as the efficient, is ordinary ascribed to the other as the instrument. But these answers he confesses are besides the point; This simile might therefore have escaped this quarrel; in the two next he will sure then be so punctual, that all Readers shall say, Rem acu tetigisti. 5. It is added. When you have laid down one proposition, Man cannot justify himself by believing without God, how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct proposition? And God will not justify an unbelieving man, who would have thought, but you would rather have said, Nor will God justify man unless his faith be the instrument of it? and do you not seem to imply that man without God, doth justify himself, when you say man cannot justify himself by believing without God? No, nor with him neither, for none can forgive sins but God only, even to another; but who can forgive himself? I think all is laid down so fairly, that were I to lay it down again, I should not lay it down in Mr. Baxters' words. Nor will God justify a man unless faith be the instrument, he would then soon have challenged it as a petitio principii, seeing it is that which is in question; I might have said that God will not justify a man except he disclaim his own righteousness, and accept of Christ's righteousness to justification; but that which I did say is the same with any friend, or fair adversary, and so it is a disjunct proposition fairly laid down, and I imply that which I speak; and if any will have it further expressed, God will not justify man without the concurrence of his faith. There follows; In deed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in, that is the only man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin: he can forgive others; but who shall forgive him? It seems by this jest that Mr. Baxter is willing to put off that he is not so good a proficient in Popish mysteries, as by Mr Crandon he stands charged; otherwise he could not but know that the Pope hath his pardoner as well as others. 
The Pope hath his visible pardoner as well as receivers.  He gives power for the pardon of sin, as the supposed head of the Church, by application of the supererogated merits of the Saints, together with the merits of Christ, out of the treasure of the Church, of which he hath the keys. Now he sins as a man, and receives pardon as a Church-member, and to that purpose hath his confessor, A man as visible as other men. And speaking of his sad condition on this supposition, he seems to lay fare more stress on the pardons of Rome than they themselves; as though he stood in some eminent danger of hell upon the want of such a pardon, when he might know that according to their principles, all his danger is, an abode some longer time in Purgatory, which is their trimming place in the way to heaven. For if the pardon find him in a mortal sin (which alone is deserving of hell) it is altogether inefficacious; mortal sin puts a bar to the working of it. It is the temporal punishment which this pardon remits, and not the eternal; and in case it were true that this could not be done to the Pope, there being none above him, his successor with a wet finger can do it for him. As to that which was forgotten, it had been to his honour if it had never been remembered. I forgot (saith he) that every believer forgiveth himself, for I did not believe it. Such sarcasmes befit not grave Writers, especially when all Reformers (to speak in his own language) must bear a share in the contumely; when they had it in their thoughts, in this way to imitate the Apostle in giving all to grace, and taking all from man, that one would rise out of themselves to make this sport with it. It follows, 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof, that our faith is God's instrument in justifying? doth God effect our Justification by the instrumental efficient causation of our faith? If this were my fault, yet Mr. Baxter of all men is most unfit to give it in charge; other men must have a proof for every word, but he himself may heap up distinctions, propositions, conclusions, without any colour of proof at all: where is his proof of that which in the last Section, number 6. must be remembered? and of that great thing, num. 7. he would desire should be observed? I suppose he will have ten to remember, and observe, before one to believe it. Others can see proof, and send their Reader hither for proof, though he cannot find it. My work was to show, that though it be man's act, yet God may make use of it as instrumentally serviceable in this work; and whether this hath been nakedly said, or proved, let the disinterested Reader give his sentence; if that which I have said will not satisfy, let Mr. Burges be consulted in his late Treatise of Justifica. Part 2. I conclude, [That which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument, holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality; but where there is a concurrence of agents, and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought, it will not hold.] To this is answered, He that will or can make him a Religion of words or syllables, that either signify nothing, or are never like to be understood by the learner, let him make this an article of his faith, what you mean by absolute, I cannot certainly ariolate. Bona verba bono viro desunt. Seeing I find the man in this mood, I say no more; but seeing he knows not how to ariolate, what I mean by this, or that, I have no mind to help him in this art of soothsaying, and shall let the words stand for their use, that bring a mind to understand, rather than to exercise their wit to carp at what they read.   

Of the sole sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant, as an instrument in justification.  
I shall now leave to the Readers consideration, whether Mr. baxter's exceptions against the instrumentality of faith in justification, be of that validity, as to overthrow it, and whether his doctrine of this subject be of that clearness, as to accuse the doctrine of his adversaries (which are all Reformers; Foreign, and English) of such notable obscurity. I must now look into that which he hath said; for the sole-sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant of the Gospel to stand in stead of faith for an instrument in this work. And if I meet with no more satisfaction in this, then in the former; I must crave leave to say, that I have very little in either. I said in my Treatise of the Covenant. [The promise or grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel, is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of justification] adding, [This is indeed Gods, and not man's: It is the Covenant of God, the promise of God, the Gospel of God: but of itself unable to raise up man to justification.] To which Mr. Baxter replies. I say there is none but Gods, for non datur instrumentum, quod non est causae principalis instrumentum. And I say still that God acts not in this work, without the concurrence of him that is justified, which Mr. Baxter grants; And this concurrence of man having its instrument, 
In justification of man, God acts not without man.  God thereby doth carry on his work; otherwise the Apostle had not only said, that God is a justifier, of those that believe in Jesus, Rom. 3.26. but also that he justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumsion through faith. And this act of man is interpretatiuè, the instrument of God, but more directly and properly the instrument of man; where I say it is of itself unable to raise up man to justification; he gives in his answer. In which we have: First, his concession, what of itself it is not able to do. Secondly, his assertion, what of itself it can do. Thirdly, his explication under what notion it doth it. His concession is, That it is not of itself able to do all other works antecedent to justification, 
Mr. Baxter's concession.  as to humble, to give faith, regenerate, etc. But he doth not tell us from whence it hath any supply for those antedaneous works, or whether it be employed in those works at all. His assertion is, that as to the act of justification, 
His assertion.  or conveying right to Christ, pardon, and righteousness, it is able of itself. But it is worth our enquiry, to whom this new Covenant grant doth convey right to Christ, pardon, and righteousness, whether to the unhumbled, unbelieving, unregenerate, or to the humble, believing, and regenerate soul? The former are not in a present capacity of him, and the latter are already in possession; if he can find me an humble, believing, regenerate man void of all right to Christ, pardon, and righteousness, I will confess that the grant of the new Covenant is of itself able to do what Mr. Baxter says. I looked that he should have proved, that the grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel doth this constitutiuè as he useth to speak, That it should work an unjustified man up to a justified state; but it seems he will have it to do it only declarative, to make it appear that he is already justified, which honours is very low, and that about which I intent not to raise disputes; If I mistake him, and that he will say, that he means more than a naked declaration. I would he would explain himself and speak out what more it is that he inteds; for if he intent more, I know not how to help him out of an high contradiction, seeing he talks of conveyance right to them that all know are possessed beforehand of right. The same Gospel-grant which works those antecedaneous acts of which he speaks, doth together convey right to all those in whom such a work is found. It is able to do it of itself (as he explains himself) ac signum voluntatis divinae, but where is it revealed from God, that either the unhumbled, unbelieving, unregenerate, shall have right to Christ, pardon, justification, or that the humble, believing, regenerate want it? Faith with Mr. Baxter is an acceptance of a freely given Christ, and life in him, how doth a man in faith stand in need of a new conveyance of right to him? There follows; If you should mean that [that of itself] i. e. without the concomitance of faith as a condition is not able; I answer, that is not fitly called disablity; or if you will so call it, the reason of that disability is not, because there is a necessity of faiths instrumental coefficiency, but of its presence, as the performed condition: It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualites till the condition were performed. This assertion, That there is no efficiency in faith, but a naked presence to stand by, and as it were to look on in the work of justification, calls for some proof: seeing he well knows that among all Reformers his adversaries, this will pass for so high a Paradox. How is Christ a propitiation through faith? and how are we still said to be justified by faith? If no more than a bare presence is required, the presence of other graces is equally required; as love, meekness, temperance, chastity, they have still been confessed necessary in justification, quoad presentiam, though not quoad efficientiam: yet Mr. Baxter can I think, no where show, that Christ's is set forth a propitiation through any one of these graces: or that we are justified by love, meekness, temperance, etc. I shall as soon believe that the presence of the eye is barely required for sight, without further efficiency, as I shall believe that the bare presence of faith is required, and no more for justification: and where he will will prove that it is the will of the Donor, that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition be performed, (intending as he expresseth himself, that after the condition is performed a new grant must pass actualy to effect this right) I cannot tell, when the condition is to accept Christ which is present possession. They cannot take Christ for justification, but by virtue of this grant: and when they have thus taken him, and are possessed of him, must they have a new grant for right to him? If I give a beggar a gift, upon condition that he will come, and take it: when he hath taken it, and is possessed of it, hath he need of any further grant of right to it? I said, [It is often tendered, and justication not always wrought, and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman, in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument; As soon as the instrument serves not the principal agent, so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument,] mentioning instances that he gives, and adding, neither is the Gospel an instrument of justification where it justifies not. Mr. Baxter being gotten into a vein that he hath not yet a mind to leave, replies; I am too shallow to reach the reason of these words; I know you had not leisure to write them in vain, and merely to fill paper. 1. I may fear there was a worse end in the reply, then barely to fill paper: In contentions of this nature it is easy for great wits, voluble tongues, and nimble pens, to be more than vain. And here is scarce fair declaring to cut off my words before any full period, and so render them to the Reader; That my meaning cannot be seen, till he have gone over three or four Sections interlaced with needless triflings. 2. If Mr. Baxter know (as he says) that I will not own such an argumentation as he there frames, without so much as colour of sense in it, which were vain to repeat, what was his end, but merely to fill up paper, or somewhat worse, in framing of it? A Reader of half Mr. baxter's wit, if he look on my words as they lie in my Treatise, and not as mangled by his divisions, may easily see another way of argumentation, and such that carries sense; and I leave to the Reader, whether or no it carries strength. And for his satisfaction, 
That Author's argument against the sole-sufficiency of Covenant grace, as instrument in justification.  I thus put it into form. That which often fails of obtaining the end, for which it is employed, and never can attain to it, without the concurrence of some other with it, is no sole instrument in any work: But the Gospel or Covenant-grant often fails of attaining that end of justification, when it is to that end published, and employed, and never can obtain it without the concurrence of somewhat further to be joined with it: Ergo it is no sole instrument in the work. Mr. Br. signifies that it may still be the same thing, and have the same aptitude to produce the effect, even when it is not applied. I answer, than Mr. Kendal hath well told him it is an instrument aptitudinaliter, and is no instrument in actual being, but when the end is obtained, and then it is no sole instrument, being not sole in producing the effect. Mr. Baxter takes it for granted, that it always hath its effect when it is employed, and I took it for granted, that it is often employed, and the effect not, produced; but I did not then think, that Mr. Baxter had meant, an application to convey right, where right is already in possession. I added, [When the Minister is a Minister of condemnation, and the savour of death to death, there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death, and so comes short of justification.] To this is replied, 1. So it is, if there be no Minister where it is known any way. 2. I speak of God's grant, or promise in the Gospel: you speak of his commination. 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari, the promise, or gift is the proper instrument of justification. I grant his first, and he threapes kindness with me in the two last; he will have me to speak of the threat only, when I speak as well as he of God's grant or promise: 
Gospel promises are a savour of death to many.  This is a savour of death unto death unto many. It is as great an evil to slight a Promise, as to disobey a Command, or neglect a threatening: his third therefore might well have been spared: but that I intent not to trifle away time, I could easily show him if I had spoke of threat, a great disparity. I added, which should not have come in thus dismembered) [The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendered.] To this is replied, Darkly, but dangerously spoken, and reasons given. For it is possible you may mean, that it receives it by faith, as by a condition, sine qua homo non est subjuctum proxime capax, and so I grant the sense. There is no possibility, that I should mean so, having sufficiently (as he after observes) declared myself to the contrary, if I understand his sine qua non frequently found in his writings; which men eminently learned profess they do not. It follows, Dangerously; for the words would seem to any impartial Reader to import more, viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith, or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel. It is my meaning that the word is inefficacious without faith, and that faith renders it efficacious, not by infusion of any new power into it, but raising up the soul with strength to answer it, which is not barely said, but proved: But my bare speech must first be censured, and then my proof in a disjunct way at pleasure (as we shall see) dealt with. A reason is rendered, why for the truth's sake, and my own, these words have never been seen. For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy, 1. It cannot be as a concause instrumental, coordinate, but as a superior more principal cause to the subordinate. By Mr. Baxters' leave I do believe that concauses instrumental may receive efficacy one from another. The thread hath efficacy from a needle, and is a concause instrumental to sow up a rent, or to make a seam or hem. The line gives efficacy to the anglers hook to take a fish. I believe he hath seen a knife touched with a Loadstone, fetch up a needle from the bottom of a vessel of water. Here the hand is the principal agent, or the man using his hand: The knife is the instrument, yet such an instrument as receives efficacy from the spirits of the Loadstone, as a concause instrumental. The Gospel works no more without faith, than a knife in this thing can work without a Loadstone. It follows, 2. If it were the former that is meant, yet it were intolerable; For which reasons are given; but how these hang together, I know not. His former (now spoken to) was brought in as the first in order to disprove what I had said, taking my words in the second sense which he gives of them; and this which is in order the second, is to show by three reasons, that in case they be taken in the first sense, which he himself professedly grants, yet it were intolerable; seeing therefore that I take it not in that sense, (and if I did, he grants the sense) there is no cause that I should trouble myself with his Reasons. I added, in way of proof, [Heb. 4.2. Unto us was the Gospel preached, etc. 1 Thess. 2.12, 13.] To which is replied, But where's your conclusion, or any show of advantage to your cause? I must speak nothing, it seems, but syllogisms in form; and he that cannot here make up a syllogism, and find out a formal conclusion, is a very Infant in Logic. In the first Text, the Apostle (as he says) speaks of the Words profiting in the real change of the soul, and our question is of the relative. 
Heb. 4.2. Vindicated.  And what show of proof is there, that it is so understood of a real change, as wholly to exclude that which is relative? It is meant of that, whatsoever, which tends to the soul's profit; It is spoken of profit in order to eternal rest; If Justification be for our profit, or tend at all to our everlasting rest, than justification is not here excluded. It follows, The Scripture meaneth, The Word had not further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith; will you interpret it thus, The Word did not justify? If I take this to be the meaning, I must interpret it, That the Word did not justify them; for it doth justify where it is mixed with faith, though I should not exclude other offices done by the Word. It follows, 2. It's true that the Word did not justify them, but that is consequential only of the former unprofitableness. I might as well say, that the Word's not sanctifying is consequential; as he may say, the Word's not justifying is only thus consequential. I see no show of reason, that the Text should be meant immediately of sanctification, and consequentially only of Justification; and if it be consequentially only proved, that the Word did not justify Them, here is a real, and more than a show of advantage to my cause. I hope he is not the man that will dispute against proofs by consequence, when the consequence by himself is granted. It follows; Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself, as he is in the obedience and change of his mind or actions, and then you do something. When I go about the proof of it, I think I shall have Mr. Baxter my sole and single adversary in it, he is not pleased to give us in any difference. And he owns that which is usually quoted out of Austin, He that made thee without thee, will not save thee without thee; and hath not justification as great an influx into salvation, as sanctification? I desire him only to reflect upon that which he hath said in the Preface of his confession, (a book newly come to my hands) Antecedently to believing all have an equal conditional gift of pardon, and none have an absolute, nor an actual right; The Gospel findeth us equal, and makes no inequality, till we make it ourselves; But the secret unsearchable workings of Divine grace do begin the difference, and make it in us, before it be made by us. Who ever went higher in speaking of man's work in his sanctification? and higher it is, than ever I spoke of a man's pardoning himself. It is said, It is weak arguing, to say the Word profiteth not, because it was not mixed with faith, therefore faith conveys to it its efficacy of sanctifying, yea, of justifying, you cannot but know the sequel would be denied. Others would think, that there is strength in such arguing, that it receives efficacy from faith, upon that account, that it profits where faith is, and is unprofitable where faith is not; especially when they find efficacy ascribed to faith both in justification and sanctification. It follows, In progressive sanctification, and obedience, and exercise of graces, the Word and faith are concauses, and one will not effect without the other. And are not the Word and faith concauses in Justification, as in progressive sanctification? tell us whether you will exclude? I dare exclude neither faith nor Gospel, as instrumental workers. But it follows not, as is said, that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this, for concauses have not influence on each other, but on the effect. I scarce think that maxim to be of universal truth; but be it a truth, I say no more, than here is asserted for me; Justification is the effect, and the Word and faith are concauses. It yet follows, The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work on the soul, which presupposeth faith, and that's all that the Text saith. If any sense can be made of this arguing, so far as I understand it, than Justification presupposeth not faith, which is not Mr. Baxters' judgement. It follows, May not the absence of faith hinder, unless when present it doth effect? And would the Apostle (think we) have spoke of effectual faith, or the efficacy of faith? yea, would Dr. Preston have wrote a Tract of effectual faith, if it had been idle in the soul, and without all efficacy? And to restrain the efficacy of it to sanctification, excluding Justification, never came, that I know, into the thoughts of any Orthodox Writer, that hath treated of Justification; neither would the Penmen of Scriptures have expressed themselves in that way; as to say we are justified by faith, had faith been there, and only had sat idle. The various applications of that Text, Hab. 2.4. [The just shall live by his faith] may teach us, not to pen up faith in such narrow bounds, as to restrain the work of it to efficacy in one kind only. The Apostle to the Hebrews plainly applies it to support by faith in sufferings, Heb. 10.38. and Gal. 3.11. to justification by faith; and shall we say, that in the one, it is working; and in the other, it doth nothing? If we do, we shall have Paul our adversary, who says that Christ is set forth a propitiation by faith: what follows, hath been already spoken to. The second Text, saith he, I know not how you mean to make use of, unless you argue thus, The Word worketh effectually only in believers, therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word. I think I need not tell you, (saith he) that I deny the sequel; not to speak of the antecedent, nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of justification: He had a good mind to speak to the antecedent, but if he can for disproof of that, make any efficacious working of the Word appear in Infidels, such as Scripture useth to honour with such titles, I shall oppose him, to maintain the Justification of Infidels. The sequel in the word [convey] is his own; and to that which follows, I have already sufficiently spoken.  
I inferred from the former words, that [the Gospel in itself considered, is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument, to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause, by a proper causality. If none dare say, that faith hath such an influx, they may much less say, that the Word hath such.] This in very big terms is denied, and the opposite boldly asserted. The Gospel, saith he, in itself considered without the , or subordinate, or superior causality of faith, hath this honour so fully, clearly, beyond all doubt, that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it. When I stand thus highly charged, to deny that which no Preacher of the Gospel should question, by reason of the clear evidence of it, every man may justly expect full, clear, and evident Scriptures, and reasons, beyond all doubt, for my conviction; but I hear of neither; but instead of it, first, a piece of a Concession; Secondly, a Simile. The Concession is, That the Gospel, without the concomitance of faith doth not actually justify, else faith were no condition, or causa sine qua non. That faith should barely wait, effecting nothing, and gain no further honour than here is assigned, will appear a strange assertion. If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures, so that it was said, Thy faith hath made thee whole; I think it is much rather efficacious in justification, there being so much spoken of justification by faith. I desire Mr. Baxter to consider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker, in his letter to him. And surely faith as a medium, seems to have a more peculiar office in the transaction of that main business of Justification, than either repentance, or any other grace, as the love, or fear of God, and the like. Which to me, seems the more apparent, because I find it so oft said in the Word, that men are justified by faith, but no where by repentance: Albeit, that also be as a condition thereunto required as also that form of speech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fides, or fiducia in sanguine, seems to intimate and imply, that this grace hath a more special reference than any other, to the satisfaction made to God's Justice for our sins by Christ's sufferings, which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at God's Tribunal: Much more follows worthy of Mr. Baxters' consideration, in laying so high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular. There follows a Simile as full of obscurity, as the earth is of darkness, and it were aesie so far as it is intelligible, to make it appear, how much it halteth; but that I will not trouble the Reader with such impertinencies, and I look for proofs, rather than Similes; and here is no proof at all.  
I further infer in my Treatise, [Mr. Pemble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of God's Spirit, presently adds, Now instruments are either cooperative, or passive, and the Word must be one of these two. Cooperative, he saith, it is not; and gives his reason; It is therefore, saith he, a passive instrument working only per modum objecti, as it contains a declaration of the Divine will, and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known, believed, and practised.] Here many exceptions are taken.  

Whether the Word be a passive instrument, or cooperative with the Spirit.  First, That Mr. Pemble speaks of the Word as the instrument of sanctification; we speak of it, as conveying right to Christ, and as justifying.  
Secondly, That Mr. Pembles reason of the passive instrumentality of the Word is but this, that it cannot be declared, what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will.  
Thirdly, That himself will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration, though not punctually how it operates.  
Fourthly, That this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying, doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture, which makes the Word to be mighty, powerful, pulling down strong-holds, etc.  
Fifthly, That Mr. Pemble herein is single and singular.  
To speak to these in order. To the first I say. Though Mr. Pemble gives an instance of the Words work in sanctification, yet there is no reason to believe, that he limits his whole discourse to it, indefinitely affirming that it is a passive instrument, and giving instance in one, there is no imaginable reason that he can exclude the other. For his second; He lets his Reader know, that he took an hasty view of Mr. Pemble, when he said, that this was all his reason, he may see the thing fully argued by him, mihi, pag. 97, 98, 99, &c in quarto, which is too long to transcribe. The work which is done upon the soul is wrought by the Spirit, as the principal agent, whether it be to regeneration, progressive sanctification, or in order to justification; every previous work in tendency towards these, is from the Spirit likewise, as illumination, conviction; the beginning and whole progress is by the Spirit. The Word is no more than an instrument, and all that the Word doth, is by power from the Spirit, and therefore said to be mighty through God, 2 Cor. 10.5. Now the Spirit must work by way of power, either on the Word, or the soul as its object; It must infuse power and strength into the one as the principal agent in the work, Mr. Pemble denies, that it works thus by an infusion of power into the Word, and affirms that the infusion of strength is into the soul, and not into the Word, which the Apostle confirms, Ephes. 3.16. As for his third, which he says, he will undertake to declare, he brings nothing but bare authorities; He faith, he hath read many that say one thing, and some that say another, but himself is of Scotus his mind, and we have not one syllable to induce any other to be of the same judgement. His fourth, Mr. Pemble answers, and saith, That, all those phrases there reckoned up are to be understood by a metonymy, which though they properly belong to the invisible power of the Holy Ghost, giving effect unto his own Word, yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word itself, which he useth as his visible instrument, explaining himself by several similitudes. For his last, If Mr. Pemble be thus sole and singular, he was much mistaken; Having fully spoke his judgement in this thing, he adds, pag. 99 And this is the sentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and distinction of these two callings, Inward by the work of the Spirit, outward by the voice of the Word. The Arminians are of another opinion, whose judgement (saith he) about this matter is thus, etc. At large laying down their doctrine. And it were easy to multiply those testimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word, to give it to the Spirit, usually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6, 7. 2 Cor. 3.6. 2 Cor. 10.4, 5. He tells me, I doubt whether you believe him or yourself throughly; for if you did, I think you would preach but coldly. I am persuaded you look your preaching should operate actively. And does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine, or was he a cold Preacher? he delivers his doctrine with confidence, and backs it with reasons; and the works that he hath left behind, argue that he spoke with some heat, and fervour; and I wish that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching, and I do look that my preaching should operate actively; but whether of itself, or through the power of the Spirit, there lies the question. He concludes, If it were proved that there were an hundred passive instruments, it would never be proved that faith is one (as an instrument doth signify an efficient cause) of God's work of justifying us, neither really, nor reputatively, is it such. To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active, and that is the work of God, and a justification passive, of which man is the subject; as I read of a double miraculous faith, one active, to work a cure; the other passive, to be cured. Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed, Acts 14.9. Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith; not that it acted not at all, (which is contradicted by Christ, in saying, Thy faith hath made thee whole) but that it served for a passive work on the diseased; so I think this faith which tends to our justification, is not merely passive, though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination. When I receive a gift that enriches, I act; Yet he that gives, only does enrich, and I that receive, am enriched; so it is in justification, we do not justify, but are justified, and yet act in receiving Christ for justification, as sick ones in Christ's time, did not heal, but were healed, yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification. I confess I did somewhat needlessely run upon this discourse of passive instruments, upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words, and Mr. Baxters' denial that there was any such thing as a passive instrument, never intending to make faith merely passive; which was never my opinion, neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers; yet I would have those that are confidently opposite, to weigh the streng● 〈◊〉 his reasons, and find out (if they can) a more moderate middler 〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word, without injury do● 〈◊〉 the working of God's Spirit. I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either, and of two extremes detracting from the Spirit, I take to be the greater; which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry, further to determine. I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters' Aphorisms, I mentioned, that [if Burgersdicius his gladius and coulter be active instruments, and Keckermans incus, etc. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument;] but only to rectify Mr. Baxters' complaint, that these words do import an intimation (as he expresses it) that I said all these were active instruments. And as the words stand in my Book, it is hard to say what they import. It should have been expressed, and Keckermans incus, etc. and his scamnum, and mensa accubitus, and terra ambulationis [no instruments] which words, I know not by what means were left out; yet the Reader may see, that they were intended, seeing they are opposed to the other, which are made active instruments. But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others, that I may well spare my pains; neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them, seeing (though I doubt not, but there are thousands of such kind of instruments) I put not faith into that number, as I know many godly learned do: But it is easy to bear a dissent in a word of art, when the thing in question is agreed upon. As to the rest which follows in this tract against me in this thing, there is very little, but what hath been spoken to; and this paper already growing more big than is meet, for an interposition in this kind, in a positive Treatise (though not impertinent to the subject in hand) I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies; only I must take notice of two passages, one where I am charged with ignorance, the other with compliance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit. In the first there are several particulars. 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped, that I had understood better. I suspect (saith he) by your words when you say, [the Word is produced and held forth of God,] and by your discourse all along, that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying; yet I had hoped you had understood the thing itself. So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted, that he cannot be mistaken, when 〈◊〉 ●ruth is known, Mr. Baxters' writings, and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same. 2. My error is detected, and I am sent where I may understand myself better. You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul, as the Papists say, and our Divines say, it sanctifies, or as it doth justify in foro Conscientiae, by giving assurance, and comfort; but Sir, (saith he) I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris. pag. 173, 174, etc. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point. But I marvel that it should be expected, that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered, seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy, 
Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine.  pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point, but it seemeth to me that this justifying, transient act, is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer; and in the close of all, when he hath spoke his full mind, he adds, pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission, and justification; adding, Si quid novisti rectigus, etc. But now he peremptorily says, I speak not of the effect of God's Word as preached to men's heart, but as it is (lex promulgata, & foedus, & testamentum) and so doth convey right, or constitute the dueness of the benefit, 1 Joh. 5.11, 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhting, in this manner, to take the chair.  
1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant, (which is the transient act, in which justification is conferred on every believer) find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it? If so, then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant; if not, whether he presupposeth, that men upon the Law's promulgation, will believe of themselves without any further work? or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith? If these be answered in the negative, that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation, nor there is any other like instrument for this work, than I think it must follow, that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe, and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake, that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification; Namely, By working men out of unbelief into faith. I had thought that when Paul, and Apollo's are Ministers by whom men believe; that they had by the means of this encted, or promulgated Covenant, brought men to this posture. And though justification be a relative change, and not a real, as is truly affirmed, yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work. Whereas he says, He speaks not of the effect of God's Word, as preached to men's hearts, but, etc. I think he ought to speak so of it, when he speaks of it as an instrument of justification. In his sense, I suppose it can be no instrument of justification; an instrument must serve to work the thing of which it is an instrument: but in this case, justification is beforehand wrought; and therefore, according to the proverb, it cannot do that which is done before it comes: for the truth of this, let Mr. Baxter speak; The accepting Christ in this Covenant, is true justifying faith, if an unregenerate man have this indeed, than he is justfied, pag. 66. A believing man hath this indeed, and so is indeed justified, and the grant of the Covenant, is an instrument for justification of a justified person; I am demanded, Do you not often read in Divines of justificatio juris, vel legis, as distinct from justificatio judicis, vel per sententiam? And I demand, whether of these justifications do proceed? If justificatio juris go not before justificatio Judicis, than the Judge justifies him whom the Law justifies not; In case it follow after, than it is only a manifestation, or declaration of it, of which we may have further occasion to speak hereafter. And this considered, it appears to me that Mr. Baxter speaks of the Covenant only as eyed of God, and not applied to us, and then indeed it is no instrument of God, whereby he justifies, but his rule according to which he justifies. Pardon of sin is a relative change, yet Ministers appointed of Jesus Christ for the pardon of sin, are instrumental in working a real change from unbelief to faith in order to this work, and so are instruments of pardon dispositiuè, as Mason de Ministerio Anglicano speaks, as well as declaratiuè.  
I added in my Treatise, [Forgiveness of sin is preached in the Gospel, Act. 13.38. but it is to those that believe, that are justified; faith through the Spirit gives efficacy, and power of working to it:] And here comes in my second charge mentioned. I should tremble saith Mr. Br. to say so, what Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of justification? I answer, Paul a Roman extols faith as high as I have done in Scripture already quoted in the work of justification, 
The Author acquit from compliance with Romanists.  and, according to Mr. Baxter, fare more, seeing through the whole Chapter of Heb. 11. he speaks as he says, not only of justifying faith, but as justifying, yet he is no Romanist. 2. Mr. Br. well knows the Romanists distinction, of a first, and second justification, which first justification Protestant's only allow, according to Scripture to be called justification; and that there is according to them, no ingrediency of any other grace but faith; and no merit in faith, but all of grace; for which he may see Mr. Crandons' first parallel, Part 2. pag. 215. It follows, If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justify us, than we justify ourselves, when the Gospel justifies us, than the Gospel is our instrument of justification; and can this be, unless it be also said, that we made the Gospel? then God and we are concauses in the Gospel's act of donation. But how this can follow, I think few but himself can see: It will only follow that the Gospel cannot justify us without us, that which Austin hath de verbis Apostoli, Ser. 15. will follow, He that made thee without thee, doth not justify thee without thee. It will follow, that somewhat is to be done by us, without concurrence of which the Gospel for justification is inefficacious; 
Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non justificat te sine te.  and how the second can follow, that the Gospel is our instrument of justification, I desire to know: If naaman's dipping himself seven times in Jordan, rendered it by Divine appointment efficacious for cure of his Leprosy, will it follow, that Jordan was his instrument, whereby he cured himself? If the Angels moving on the water, Joh. 5. gave efficacy for cure to him that first entered, will it then follow, that it was either the Angels, or his instrument that first entered, and not rather the instrument of God only? And to his question moved, Can this be, unless we made the Gospel? If we should grant that it is our instrument, will this follow? Can no man use an instrument unless he first made it? Peter it seems was no fisher, but rather a Cutler, and made the sword wherewith he cut off Malchus ear, or else he could not have used it as his instrument. Neither follows it, that God and we are concauses; It would only follow, that there is a willing concurrence in us to accept of that which God of grace doth give. That of Austin will follow, which immediately is added in the place quoted, 
Ergo fecit nescientem, justificat volentem, tamen ipse justificat, ne sit justitia tua.  He therefore that made thee unwilling, doth not justify thee unwilling; yet he doth justify thee, lest it should be thine own righteousness. It will then follow, that in self-denial, renouncing all self-righteousness, we humbly accept what God of grace doth give. After these supposed absurdities, we have a list of subtle questions; Is it the same power and efficacy for justification which the Gospel receives from God, and which it receives from faith; or, are they divers? If divers show us what they are, and which part of its efficacy and power the Gospel receives from faith, and which from God. If they are the same, than God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first, and by faith into the Gospel: which who imagineth? or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it? That faith gives efficacy to the Gospel for sanctification Mr. Baxter will not deny, as appears in his words that follow, and his own exposition of Heb. 4.2. 1 Thess. 2.13. before mentioned, here let him then first answer his own question respective to Sanctification, and by the help of him, and light borrowed from his illuminate notions, I shall aim somewhat at it, to answer his, respective to Justification: If it be the same power and efficacy for sanctification that the Gospel receives from God, and from faith, than God must convey efficacy and power into faith first, and by faith into the Gospel for sanctification; and till I have his answer, why should I be so vain as to confute his? There follows, Oh that you had condescended to your Readers weakness, as to have deigned to show him, Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo? & Quid recipit, ut fiat potens & efficax? & Quomodo haec potentia & efficacia fuit in fide? utrum eminenter, an formaliter? Aut utrum fides id communicavit, quod nunquam habuit? & quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium? For answer, I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle, Rom. 8.3. What the Law could not do, in that it was weakened through the flesh, etc. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification, (which is not agreed upon among Interpreters) to give his Reader satisfaction, Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione, &, Quid patitur, ut fi at impotens et inefficax? &, Quomodo haec impotentia & inefficacia fuit in carne? utrum eminenter, an formaliter? & Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem? And I doubt not, but I may as easily answer his Queries, in order to the vindication of my assertion, as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers. Answering the last, all is indeed answered. Caro agit injiciendo obices, & remoras, Quo minus Lex operatur in cord hominis; Spiritus agit per fidem, ut causa removens impedimentum, E medio tollens obices, & remoras istas Incitando & potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae. I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the Letter, but of the Spirit; for the Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life: with a satisfying answer to all like Queries that thence may be made. I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament, no otherwise, then in preaching the Gospel; and when the bare Scripture (as Tremelius reads it) is of power only to kill, we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit? And indeed the Gospel suffers not, but the soul in receiving power, to answer the Gospels call, whether to Justification, o● sanctification: And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power, I think will not be denied, seeing the Apostle tells us, The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God. Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work: and he adds, Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof; adding, What though only believers are justified by the Covenant, doth it follow, that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justify? then either there are no conditions, or causae sine quibus non, or else they are all efficients, and give efficacy and power to other efficients: I confess those words taken by themselves, in that sense, as he may fancy, and the words in themselves may bear, will not come up to a full proof; Justification may be restrained only to believers, and yet faith have no hand in it; but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work, some of them speaking of it, as God's instrument, Rom. 3.30. most of them as man's, we may well then know, that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition; To others the Gospel-grant lies dead, to these through faith it is effectual; There is added, Your terms of [faiths giving power through the Spirit] tell me, that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel; not at its moral act of conveyance, or donation, but at its real operation on man's heart. I do look at the act of the Gospel, as its real operation on man's heart, and yet I look at the right act of it; The Gospel is an instrument to justify by the intervening act of faith, according to Protestants, and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists, and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification. All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ, and the application of it. Redemption is the proper work of the Son, but Application they ascribe to the Spirit; 
a Hinc Pater & Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam.  The Father and the Son are said (saith Amesius) to send the Spirit, to perfect this application, Medulla. Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture, nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin, or justifieth by the Spirit; nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel, etc. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me, and I might expect so much privilege, as to be Master of my own words; yet I would have it taken into further consideration, whether Divines use his language or mine, or whether they judge not that t●●e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin, which I mention. The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousness of Christ, Disp. 33. Sect. 21. have these words, Sect 24. 
b Haec applicatio in nobis & fit à Spiritu sancto, 1 Cor. 6.11. dono scilicet fidei. Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii (Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur, 2 Cor. 3.8.) ingenerat, ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat & auget, Phil. 1.29. Gal. 5.5. Unde & Spiritus fidei dicitur, 2 Cor. 4.13. quâ Deum ut gratiosum, Christum ut redemptorem, ejusque justitiam, & ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus, Joan. 1.12. Rom. 9.30.  This application in us is made by the holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 6.11. viz. by the gift of faith; For he works it by the Ministry of the Gospel (which is called the Ministry of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3.8.) and increases it by his Word and Sacraments, Phil. 1.29. Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith, 2 Cor. 4.13. whereby we apprehend God as gracious, Christ as Redeemer, and his righteousness, and from it everlasting life, Joh. 1.12. Rom. 9.30. And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith, Rom. 5.1. Acts 26.18. 
A part nostrâ, fide, Rom. 5.2. Actor. 26.18. & ex fide, & per fidem, Ro. 3.30. Justistficamur & justificat nos Deus.  By faith, and through faith, Rom. 3.30. We are justified, and God justified us: with much more to that purpose. And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio, speaking of the instrument of justification saith, it is either outward or inward 
c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei & S●cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11. [ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei] nam verbum Dei & Sacramenta sunt organa, per quae Deus nos vocat, & per quae operatur, conservat, ac auget in nobis fidem, obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis; atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae & alii qui docent nos viam salutis, Dan. 12.3.  The outward instrumental cause, he saith, is the Word of God and the Sacraments, as appears from, Rom. 4.11. [where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousness of faith] for, saith he, the Word of God, and Sacraments, are instruments by which God doth call, and by which he works, preserves, and increases faith in us, and seals in our heart the grace of justification, and so also the Ministers of the Church, and others, which teach us the way of salvation, Dan. 12.3. Gomarus, Matth 5.4. pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith, to be the procuring cause of justification, and affirming that faith itself is no such cause, but an instrument only; gives this reason, 
e Nullae hominum affectiones, ac praeparationes, nullaque opera fidem antecedentia, justificationis causae, nedum proreantes esse possunt; imo nec fides ipsa causa illius est procreans (cum ealaus soli gratiae Dei, ac merito Christi & efficaciae Spiritus sancti comperat, Rom. 3.24. & 28. Ephes. 2 8.) sed tantum instrumentalis.  That honour belongs only to the grace of God, and merit of Christ, and efficacy of the holy Ghost; so far are these Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work: such a Gospel instrumentality as that it should do nothing at all on the souls of men, I have not before read or heard of. As it tenders conditions, so it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders: It makes known the mind of God, that men believing have right to Christ, and in him to justification, and it works faith for justification, only believers saved by it, and it is the power of God, and not nudè signùm voluntatis divinae, to salvation. And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Father's bequeathing by his testament an hundred pound a piece to each of his sons; To one on condition he will ask it of his elder Brother, and thank him for it; to a second, and third upon conditions at pleasure, with this demand upon it, Do any of these conditions give power to the testament? No, yet the testament doth not efficaciter agere, till they are performed, why is that? (saith he) because all such instruments work morally; only by expressing ut signa the will of the agent; and therefore they work both when and how he will, and it is his will that they shall not work till such a time, and but upon such terms, etc. He might easily see how little this serves to our present purpose. 1. That which he speaks of, is a bare testament, and no more; but the Gospel (as elsewhere I have showed) is a Covenant truly so called, and not barely a testament. 2. Those Legacies are such gifts that each son would be apt to embrace, being ready to put a sufficiently high estimate upon them; But this Gospel-gift, if nothing further be done, will for ever lie contemned, and neglected. 3. The will is a mere instrument of donation, leaving the Legatee to himself; to accept or refuse. The Gospel is the instrument of God's power by the Spirit, to change the heart, and work upon the will for acceptance. 4. These testament-legacies presuppose the condition not yet performed, and so the Legatee without all right upon Testament-termes; But Mr. Baxters' Gospel-donation, supposes the conditions already done, and the soul upon that account in full possession, before this Gospel-donation comes; It conveys right to a believer, and if he be a believer, as hath been abundantly showed, he is in present possessed of Christ his righteousness, and justification by him. And whether or no, I have acquit myself from the double charge, brought against me, I shall leave to the Readers consideration.  
1. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture in a work, in which there is as much of God, and as little of man seen as in the work of justification, than there is no reason but that faith also hath an instrumental efficacy in the work of justification. This is clear; The reason given why faith should have no instrumental efficacy, is, because this takes from God, who alone is the efficient, and ascribes to man, who is justified, and doth not justify himself: But an instrumental efficiency is ascribed in Scripture to faith, in a work on which there is as much of God, and as little of man, as in the work of justification. This is clear, in miraculous cures wrought upon diseased persons: The work upon them was Gods, not man's; They were cured, and did not cure themselves, yet an instrumental efficiency is ascribed to their faith. If those words spoke to the two blind men, Matth. 9.29. According to your faith, be it unto you, nor that of Paul, concerning the cripple at Lystra, That he had faith to be healed, Act. 14.9. nor yet that of Christ to the Canaanitish woman, Matth. 15.28. O woman, great is thy faith, be it unto thee as thou wilt, will not hold it out, which yet seem to speak very much this way; (other graces were qualifications, yet none but this is taken notice of) yet that to the woman with the bloody issue is full, Matth. 9.22. Mark. 5.34. Thy faith hath made thee whole, not only made whole by faith (which is an exception against faiths justifying) but faith made her whole, 
Quemadmodum fidei ascribit Christus quod mulier soluta est à morbo corporis, ita certum est fide nos consequi remissionem peccatorum & adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii.  words speaking as much of instrumental efficacy as may be. The conclusion than follows, That faith hath its instrumental efficiency in justification likewise. Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy observation. As Christ ascribes it to faith, that the woman is healed of the disease of her body: so it is certain, that by faith we obtain remission of sins, and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Gospel.  
2. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture respective to salvation: then there is an instrumental efficacy ascribed to faith, respective to justification. This is plain; nothing can instrumentally work to salvation, that takes not in justification. But an instrumental efficacy is ascribed to faith, respective to salvation, Luk. 7.59. He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee. In the context there is a full proof of the Major. The great privilege which she of grace received there is the forgiveness of her many sins, and this is acribed to her faith. The Minor is fully proved; Her great love is mentioned as a consequent of this grace received; But it is ascribed to her faith, as that which had its alone efficacy, Thy faith hath saved thee. As we are saved by faith, or through faith, Ephes. 2.8. so faith saves. The conclusion than follows, that faith hath its instrumental efficacy in justification.  
3. That which puts a man into possession of that from which justification necessarily and inevitably follows, that is either a principal efficient, or an instrument in justification. This cannot be denied: He that puts me into a place, to which a plentiful livelihood is necessarily annexed, is either the efficient or an instrument of my livelihood: But faith puts into possession of Christ, from whom justification necessarily follows. This proposition consists of two parts. 1. That faith puts into possession of Christ. 2. That justification necessarily follows this possession. But I shall stand upon the proof of neither, seeing as in themselves they are plain, so they are confessed by Mr. Baxter. Faith than is either the efficient or instrument in our justication. Not the efficient, all know, and therefore an instrument.  
4. That which is ascribed in Scripture both to God and man, in a work, in which there is a concurrence of God and man, in such expressions, which usually hold forth the efficiency of an instrument, and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwise, is not unfitly called an instrument both of God and man in such a work. This I know not how fairly can be denied; and any man will but abuse his reason that calls for a proof of it: But faith in Scripture is ascribed both to God and man in the work of justification, in which there is a mutual concurrence of God and man, and in words that usually hold out the working of an instrument, and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwise: Therefore faith is not unfitly called the instrument of God, and man in justification. The Minor consists of four parts. 1. That faith in justification is ascribed both to God and man, and this consists also of two parts. 1. That faith is ascribed to God in justification; and this we have already proved from, Rom. 3.30. Gal. 3.8. as it is also ascribed to him in sanctification, Act. 17.9. 2. That it is ascribed to man in justification which is held out to us wheresoever we are said to be justified by faith, seeing faith is the act of man: and the Prophet tells us, The just shall live by his faith, which the Apostle applies to justification, Rom. 1.17. Gal. 3.11. The second part in this Proposition is, That there is a mutual concurrence of God and man in this work, as God gives a discharge, so man accepts: Which by Mr. Br. himself is acknowledged, according to that before quoted out of Austin. The third part is, That th●● is ascribed to God and man in expressions that usually hold forth the efficiency of an instrument, which the phrases [by] and [through] do manifest. The fourth is, That it cannot be fairly interpreted otherwise, or of any other thing but an instrument. And this is also clear, Either it must hold out a meritorious cause, a mere condition, or else an instrument. A meritorious cause none will say, a mere condition, or bare causa sine quâ non, it cannot be, for two reasons. 1. Such phrases are uncouth, to say, That a thing is done by that which is merely a condition sine quâ non of it. 2. There are many other such conditions, to which this is never thus applied, as the Apostle saith, To which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb. 1.5. To which of the Angels said he at any time, Sat on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Heh. 1.13. so we may say, To which of the graces, (when all are reckoned up by number) was it ever said, that we are justified, by it? Tthe conclusion then follows as before, that faith is an instrument of God and man in justification.  
5. Out of this we may more briefly thus argue: If the holy Ghost single out faith from among all other graces; which are yet conditions or causae sine quibus non, and ascribes alone to it that which in the ordinary acceptation holds out an instrumental efficiency, than it is not a bare condition, or causa sine quâ non, but an instrumental efficient: But the holy Ghost singles out faith from among all other graces which are conditions and causae sine quibus non, and ascribes to it and no other, that which in the ordinary acceptation implies an instrumental efficiency; The conclusion than follows, that faith is an instrumental efficient in justification.  
Lastly, To bring if it may be a compromizing argument, If faith works at least, that which is proportionable to an instrument properly and rigidly so called in the work of justification, than it is not unfitly called by the name of an instrument. This is plain; that which does work, that every way answers to the work of an instrument, that may fitly be called by that name; But faith works at least, that which is proportionable to the work of an instrument. This is confessed by Mr. Br. who is ready to yield that it should be called, Instrumentum Metaphoricum, and a Metaphor is a figure whereby a word is carried out of its most proper signification, unto an other that carries resemblance and proportion with it. In case than it does not that which is proportionable to an instrument properly so called, it is no instrumentum Metaphporicum, but Catachresticon. And indeed Mr. baxter's gloss renders it such a Catachresis, as may make all Rhetoric ashamed of it. A Metaphorical Instrument that shall have no resemblance of an instrument in it; But if any will say that an instrument is external, sensible, whether it be for operation or reception; but faith is internal, invisible; and therefore no instrument rigidly and properly so called, though there be no cogent reason to yield it, (for as is the agent, so well may be the instrument), yet I shall not be so stiff to contend about it; yield that it doth the work to put into Christ from whom Justification necessarily follows, and I will no longer contend about the Word, but let it be an instrument in exact property of speech or in a Metaphor as men shall please.  
As to that of the sole sufficiency of the Word, without faith, as an instrument in Justification; I might take up an argument from Mr. Baxters, and thus reason: That which cannot bring a man to the works that are antecedent to justification, cannot justify: This is clear; That which cannot work the prerequisites, cannot work the thing itself: But the Word alone (according to Mr. Baxter) cannot bring a man to these antecedent works, Sect. 14. Chap. 29. Ergo. But I shall content myself at present with this only. That which the Word says, is done by faith, it cannot do without it; This is clear: But the Word says, and frequently says, we are justified by faith: Ergo the Word cannot justify without faith. Here some distinction must be used, if any evasion be endeavoured; But than it must be confessed, that it is an other kind of justification that is spoke to by Mr. Baxter then is laid down in Scripture: For Scripture-justification is still by faith: that is the Holy Ghosts constant language. And to come to a right understanding (if it may be) of parties; somewhat must be yielded, and somewhat asserted, and maintained. That which must be yielded is, That God in his Word declares upon what terms a man may attain unto justification; and to this the Word, as signum voluntatis divinae (being a manifestation of God's pleasure concerning the justification of a sinner) is sufficient; So fare I shall willingly grant. That which is to be asserted is, 1. That this manifestation of God's pleasure, or signum voluntatis divinae before mentioned, is the first ground work on which the whole work of justification is bottomed, and goes before those graces but now mentioned, which Mr. Baxter makes antecedent to justification. This is plain. The terms on which God will justify must be understood, before men can be brought to accept and come up to them. 2. This manifestation of Gods will thus made known, and by the power of the Spirit applied to the soul, in an unjustified condition, works to humiliation, regeneration, faith, and by faith to justification. 3. This manifestation of God's pleasure being applied to a man already humbled, regenerate and in faith, finds him as we have heard before in a justified posture. Though Faith in nature goes before justification, as the cause before the effect; yet they are in that manner simul tempore; that none can conceive a believing man in an unjustified condition: that so there should any interval or time pass, for conveyance of right by Gospel-grant to justification. 4. This Gospel-grant or manifestation of God's mind being thus tendered as before,; to a regenerate believing soul, serves for ratification and confirmation of his justified condition, to make good to such a believing son or daughter, that their sins are forgiven. To apply these assertions to our present purpose. This manifestation of God's pleasure, Gospel-grant, or signum voluntatis divinae, or whatsoever else we call it, in the first consideration justifies not; Going before that which is antecedent to Justification (as we see it does) it cannot justify. In the second consideration it works indeed to justification; But if we yield this to Mr. Baxter, he will not accept of it; for he says, he does not thus speak of it; and in this consideration it justifies not without faith, but works faith in order to Justification. By this man is preached forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified. In the third consideration it justifies not, seeing it finds the work done to its hands, and only serves for the work of assurance as in the last place is asserted. So that, all that can be said of this Gospel-grant, donation, or conveyance of right (so often by Mr. Baxter mentioned in this work) is, 1. To make known God's mind, on what terms justification may be attained. 2 By the power of the Spirit through faith to work it, and finally to assure, ratify, and confirm it. I shall the refore close this dispute (if I may be allowed so to style it) in the words of Chemnitius in his Common place, de justificat, mihi pag. 797. octavo. Having spoken to the causes of justification he saith, It is altogether necessary that there be application made of these causes to the person to be justified. 
Omnino verò necesse est fieri applicationem harum causarum ad personam justificandam. Nam quotquot receperunt eum, his fecit potestatem filios Dei fieri, Joan. 1.12. & 3.33. Et Modus seu medium applicationis seu apprehensionis docendi gratiâ vocatur causa instrumentalis. Duplex autem est causa instrumentalis. 1. Docens, Patefaciens, Offerens et Exhibens beneficia justificationis per quam Deus nobis communicat illa bona et haec est vox Evangelii et usus sacramentorum, vel sicut veteres loquntur, verbum vocale et visibile.  For as many as received him, to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God, John. 1.12. and, 3. v. 33. And this manner or medium of application or apprehension, speaking to men's capacity, is called a cause instrumental. And this instrumental cause is twofold. 1. Teaching, Opening, Offering, and Exibiting the benefits of justification, by which God doth communicate unto us those gifts; And this is the Word of the Gospel, and use of Sacraments, or as the Ancients speak the Word vocal and visible. 2. Receiving or apprehending, 
2. Recipiens seu apprehendens, quâ nobis applicamus illa bona quae in Evangelio offeruntur, ita ut eorum participes reddamur. Est igitur quasi manus Dei traders, et hominis manus suscipiens id quod traditur. Supra autem testimonia et annotata et explicata sunt solam fidem, non ulias alias vel qualitates, vel opera in nobis esse medium applicationis.  whereby we apply those gifts to ourselves, which are offered in the Gospel, that we may be made partakers of them. There is therefore the hand of God, as it were delivering; and the hand of man receiving that which is delivered. And testimonies are both observed, and above explained, that only faith sand no other qualities or works in us) is the medium of application.    

SECT. VI A fourth Corollary from the former Doctrine.  
AS Christians must see that they be aright principled in this Gospel-doctrine of the righteousness of faith, 
Christian's must get assurance that they do act according to these principles.  so also they must get assurance that they act according to these principles, which I might urge respective to all that, which is required of a man of gospel-righteousness. But having already spoke to that purpose in pressing the necessity of the answer of conscience unto Sacramental engagements; I shall here only urge it, respectively to that grace which immediately interests us in this righteousness, which is the grace of faith, as we see in the Text; which is confessed to be the grace that receives Christ, even by those that deny the instrumentality of it in our Justification. If this righteousness which is our Justification be the righteousness of Faith, than those that are void of faith must needs be wanting in this righteousness, and Christ being the end of the Law for righteousness to those that believe, those that persist in unbelief never attain to this end. And howsoever zealous they may otherwise appear, yet they come short of righteousness for life and salvation. Giving assent to all Gospel-truths, (perhaps upon the principles of their education) they may not only have the repute, but also enjoy all outward privileges of believers; yet wanting that work upon their will, or if you please in their affections to receive Christ and close with him, they yet have not Christ nor life in him, and therefore upon this account, there is all reason to hearken to that of the Apostle, 
Especially to see to their faith.  2 Cor. 13.5. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves: Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be Reprobates? In which words we see the Apostles exhortation, and his reason annexed. The exhortation calls us to self-examination, to a self-tryal, an inquisitive, experimental trial; The question to be put, or thing to be proved, or brought to upon trial, is our faith, not barely the doctrine of faith (as some would have it) whereby we may conclude that we are of such a Church, in which Christ is visibly resident in Ordinances, but the grace of faith, whereby he makes his abode in our souls. The reason annexed is put by way of interrogation, or question, Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? which doth not imply, that all are Reprobates, that know not in present, that Christ is in them; but this is all that is employed or can be gathered, that Jesus Christ is in all that are not reprobates; where reprobate is not yet opposed to the Elect, as though all such were everlastingly castaways in whom Christ is not in present: But as the word is used, Jer. 6.30. reprobate silver, that is, unfit for use or service, so it is here taken: such in present are not in a saving, but in a lost condition; and therefore it much concerns us to put this upon the trial.  

Motives to persuade to get assurance of this grace. 1. Necessity of Faith.  For Motives to put men upon this work, consider,  
First, the necessity of this grace, and that upon a several account; 1. Without Faith (as you have heard) we are without this righteousness. None in unbelief can say of Christ, Jehovah our righteousness. All the good that Christ does, unbelief loses; so much good that Christ can do thee, of so much unbelief strips thee. The Apostle tells us of unsearchable riches in Christ, Ephes. 3.8. Such that none can sum up, nor he that is highest in skill in Arithmetic calculate. Christ is the Father's Storehouse, Magazine, or rich Exchequer; The Father hath not a gift for any of his, but he lays it up in Christ, and a faith receives it from Christ. Noah by faith was heir of this righteousness, Heb. 11.7. The rest of the world wanting this grace went without this inheritance. The rest of Canaan was lost by unbelief, Heb. 3.18. The rest of heaven will be thus lost in like manner, God hath chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, heirs of the Kingdom, which he hath prepared for those that love him, Jam. 2.5. The rich of this world destitute of this Faith, make forfeiture of this Kingdom. Is Christ a gift? Faith receives him, and unbelief is wanting. Is Christ food? Faith feeds upon him, and unbelief is hungerstarved. Is Christ raiment? Faith puts him on, and unbelief is naked. Is Christ a Medicine? Faith applies him, and unbelief languisheth. Is Christ a laver? Faith drencheth and douzeth itself in him, and unbelief is filthy, and defiled. Is Christ a pardon? Faith sues it out, and unbelief lieth under guilt. Is Christ satisfaction? Faith makes the plea, and attains a discharge, and unbelief remains indebted. 2. Without Faith, the soul is under the wrath of God and his ireful displeasure. This is a necessary result from the former. The man of unbelief wants that which might be interposed as an atonement, and might stand as a screen or shield for his guard. And it is also fully laid down in Christ's words, Joh. 3.36. He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him. What Zophar saith of the wicked man, Job 20.29. This is his portion from God, and the heritage appointed him of God, that Christ says of unbelievers: so long as they remain in unbelief, so long wrath abides on them. All by nature are the children of wrath, having no other inheritance; and the man of unbelief never gets from under wrath to attain any other portion. This is an aggregate of all miseries, when all is reckoned up that can be named, to make miserable, wrath compriseth it all to the uttermost, to infiniteness. As is the man, so is his strength, say Zeba, and Zalmunna, Judg. 8.21. As is God, so is his wrath; with this motive the Psalmist presseth to faith, Psal. 2.12. Thy sin hath merit enough to damn, and thou hast not any interest in Christ to save or deliver. He that is void of Faith, and yet under no such fears, it is not because there is no cause of fears, but that such a soul is not awakened, to see his fearful deplored and desperate condition. If the rich glutton had seen Hell gaping for him, and the Devil ready to hale and drag him, he could not then have had any list to his every-days Gorgeous apparel, nor yet any appetite to his delicate fare. That is the condition of secure sensual ones, till Hell-fire flame about them, they think they are sure of heaven. 3. Without faith there is no benefit to be had, or good to be found in any Ordinances. No Ordinance is useful but either as it is improved by Faith already seated in the soul, or as it is serviceable to the plantation of it. No duty of any kind works to acceptance from an unbelievers hand. Abel's sacrifice was accepted, when Cain's could not gain acceptance, Gen. 4.4, 5. The Apostle shows us the reason of this difference, Heb. 11.4. By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. The Parable of the sower tells us, how few profitable hearers of the Word there can be found; and the Apostle gives the reason, Heb. 4.2. The Word is not mixed with faith in those that hear it. It is effectual alone in believers, 1 Thess. 2.13. and no more have audience in prayer, than those that profit in hearing: and there is one and the same reason of both, Jam. 1.6, 7. And that man is doubtless under an heavy Judgement, that never gets good when he hears from God, nor obtains his request when he seeks to God. At the Lord's Table they eat bread, but feed not on Christ; they take the Cup, but have no interest in the blood of the new Covenant. 4. Without faith nothing is done that God accepts. The man and the work both displease, Heb. 11.6. There must be a concurrence of all requisites to render a work good, and acceptable: But in an unbelievers work (the matter of the work excepted) all requisites are wanting. The rise is from a fountain that is unclean, and the unbelieving soul cannot go so high as to make the glory of God the end. And the rule is above him in the work to look after. 5. Without Faith the whole of man, head, breast, and bowels, are all open to Satan. Faith is a Christians shield, Ephes. 6.16. and a shield is the defence not of one part, but the guard of the whole. A man without faith, is a Soldier without arms, and destitute of all power to make any manner of resistance. Satan leads such an one at pleasure. There is nothing of Christ, nothing of grace, nothing of the Spirit, to stand up in opposition. Some devils are not resisted without strength of faith, Mark 9.29. No devil without faith can be vanquished or overcome.  
Mot. 2 Secondly, Consider the benefits of faith, the glory that doth accompany it. 
The benefits that faith bring: as, 1. Whole of Christ theirs.  1. Christ is his, and all that is Christ's, who doth believe. Christ with all his unsearchable riches is made over to believers; This is the greatest of gifts that God hath in his hand for to bestow; and imparting this gift, with it he gives all things. These are sons of God, Joh. 1.12. and being sons, they are heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. 8.17. heirs of the righteousness of faith, Heb. 11.7. heirs of a Kingdom, Jam. 2.5. Heaven and all on this side heaven, that stands in any reference to it, is theirs, Whether Paul, or Apollo's, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come: all are theirs, and they are Christ's, and Christ is Gods, 1 Cor. 3.22. 2. These stand secure against every enemy. First, 
2. They stand secure against every enemy. 1. Against Satan. In his accusatious.  they are secure against Satan man's capital and most potent adversary. They stand secure against his accusations, having an advocate in heaven that makes appearance to answer every charge against. them It is of the believing elect (not only chosen from eternity, but in time taken out from the rest of the world) that the Apostle speaks, Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? Christ's death, resurrection, and intercession in glory is his answer to every plea. All that the unbeliever wants, in those several relations that we spoke to in Christ, that the man of faith enjoys, nothing can be conceived in sin, but there is in Christ to answer. Secondly, 
In his temptations. 2. Against the world.  The believer stands secure against Satan's temptations: upon resistance Satan flees, Jam. 4.7. and they make strong resistance, 1 Pet. 5.9. These are secure against the world: Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith, 1 John 5.4. Greater is he that is in them, than he that is in the world. They are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5. The everlasting arms are underneath them. Faith interests itself in God, and all that is of God, 
3. It interests in God and all that is Gods. His power.  for safety and preservation; The office or work which is ascribed to God respective to man's preservation, is ascribed to faith; The Lord Is a shield or Buckler for defence, Psal. 18.2. The Lord is my rock, my fortress, my deliverer, my Buckler, Prov. 2.7. He is a Buckler to them that walk uprightly, Psalm 3.3. Thou Lord art a shield for me; with endless more places; Yea, God is so a shield that there is no other, Psalm 47.9. The shields of the earth belong unto God: yet faith is a shield, Ephesians 6.16. What God can do for safety, faith cand do: not by any strength of its own, so faith were advanced into the place of God, but only as interesting us in God, and in all which is of God. Faith interests itself in the power of God, and takes in omnipotence for help, so did Abraham by faith, Rom. 4.21. No difficulty in the thing could cause his faith to stagger. So did Jehoshaphat, in that danger in which he stood, 2 Chron. 20.6. so Asa, 2 Chron. 14.11. so the three children when they were in danger of the fiery furnace, Dan. 3.17. Faith interests itself in the faithfulness of God, and realizeth every promise to the soul: and therefore it is said by the Apostle to be the evidence of things not seen, 
His faithfulness.  Heb. 11.1. what no eye can see any other way then in a promise, that faith looks upon as present; so Sarah in the promise which she received, Heb. 11.11. so David, 2 Sam 7.28. So that he prays, In thy faithfulness hear me, and in thy righteousness, Psal. 143.1. God's truth is the believers Shield and Buckler, Psal. 92.4. Faith interests itself in the mercies of God, 
His mercy.  in the multitude of his bowels and compassions; so the Psalmist in those depths, in which he was plunged, Psal. 130.1.33.4. and under that guilt that he had drawn upon his soul, Psal. 51.1. and so the Church in that low condition into which she was cast, Lament. 3.22. Faith interests itself in the Wisdom of God, 
His wisdom.  when all light is so clouded and all channels so stopped, that no visible means on earth can be found, faith knows that what we see not, God sees. As Christ could convey himself out of the midst of his enemies, so he can free his from their enemies; As he could enter when the docres were shut, so he knows how to open all obstructions. So Jehoshaphats faith was acted, We kn●w not what to do, but our eyes are upon thee, 2. Chr. 20.12. So Mordecai's faith likewise, Esth. 4.14. Enlargement and deliverance shall arise to the Jews from another place; So Peter, The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, 2. Pet. 2.9. Faith interests itself in the help of the Angels of God; 
His Angels.  when the Prophet's servants eyes were opened, he saw Mountains, full of horses and Chariots, 2. King. 6.17. a whole host of Angels for defence in straits; and those Jacob saw when his Brother Esau marched against him, Gen. 32.1, 2. The believing man knows what the Psalmist says, Psal. 34.7. The Angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them. This promise is made to every confiding soul, Psal. 91.11, 12. He shall give his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways; They shall bear thee up in their hands lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.  
Mot. 3 3. This work though difficult, and not easy to pass through, yet is feasible and possible; 
This assurance is possible.  difficult it is, or else such a narrow search and diligent scrutiny needed not; and possible it is, otherwise it booted not. Copper may be like unto Gold, and tin unto Silver; yet that gold or silver which is right, may be known from all that is counterfeit. The good ground well-looked into may be differenced from the best of those grounds which are bad. A temporary faith may be like that which is true, yet it is not the same with it, and may be distinguished from it. There is somewhat in the faith of the elect, that is not to be found in the faith of any other in the world. Otherwise hypocrites must everlastingly feed themselves with vain hopes, and the true believer lie under unnecessary fears; so no Minister of Christ could be able to divide the Word aright to any of his people. The hypocrite would apply the believers comforts, and the believer would lie under the hypocrites terrors.  
Fourthly, Upon trial thy faith may be found temptation-proof. Mot. 4 It may appear upon search to be such as it ought. 
Upon trial faith may be found approved.  There is many times most hopes of those that are aptest to call it into question. As there are many who scarce ever questioned, but that they do believe, yet when they come to the test, are nothing, TEKEL may be written upon them, Thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting, Dan. 5.27. What the Wiseman saith of riches is true being applied to faith Prov. 13.7. Some boast themselves of the strength of their faith, that they thank God they have ever believed, when as their faith is a mere fancy. These boasters are but a crack, like a banquerupts vapour. Others complain of their unbelief, yet ready to renounce all for Christ, their complaint is not out of want of faith no more than the covetous worldlings is out of want of wealth, but because they cannot give themselves satisfaction in believing.  
Fifthly, In case upon a due search and trial thou find but a Mot. 5 shadow of faith, and no substance; 
Howsoever the case is not forlorn and remediless.  a mere resemblance of justifying faith, and not the faith that doth justify, yet it is not so remedilessely gone, but that it may be helped; not so deplored, but that a cure may be had. The most barren ground may be made fruitful, and the heart that is most obdurate may be made fleshy. God out of the number of unbelieving ones, and out of the number of mere pretenders to the faith, chooseth to himself those that are truly faithful. When the evidences of a man's lands are faulty, and the fault past help, men are willing to shuffle all over and rub out as well as they can, but go with many sick thoughts about it, but if there may be any way found they will not be wanting in their endeavours, neither will they spare any cost to settle and establish it. Deal so with thy faith, bring thy evidences to Council and what is amiss, let be amended.   

SECT. VII. Helps for the discovery of the truth of our Faith.  
FOr our help in this discovery, we must consider,  
First, The soil, where faith grows. Every ground will not bear all grain, and every heart is not capable of true faith.  
Secondly, The proper, and true kind and nature of it. Every plant that doth grow up like it, is not it.  
Thirdly, The means that is to be used for preservation of it. It will not live and grow without nourishment.  
Fourthly, The fruit that it bears, or effect that it produceth. True faith is not idle, dead or barren. Some of these, or all of these will lay open thy faith to thee.  

The humbled soul the proper soil for faith.  1. The soil where it grows, is the humble, or rather the humbled soul. The heart rend, torn, broken, and nothing in its own eyes is the proper seat of it. You may as soon find a fair rich garden, or a fruitful cornfield upon an hard rock, or in ground where no plough hath touched, as you can find faith in an heart not cast down, but lift up in itself. This we may see in the opposition put by the Prophet, Hab. 2.4. His soul which is lifted up is not upright in him, but the just shall live by his faith. The heart is sometimes said to be lift up for God, high in resolutions and actings in his obedience, 2 Chron. 17.6. This is not done, but by the strength of faith. The unbelieving soul in the ways of heaven is low, and dastardly; but the lift-up heart in this place of the Prophet, is an heart high in itself, never yet brought down to the sight of its own defiled and deplored condition; and this is put in opposition to the believing heart. This soul little heeds a threat, as little regards a promise, sees no necessity of reliance upon Christ, and hath no strength for obedience. The opposite to this is the believing soul, and that is the humbled soul, brought down in sense and sight of its own condition. Humiliation, as the word bears, is a bringing down, laying low, and rendering base and contemptible, and this is the most proper acceptation, and in Scripture variously used; 1. As the act of God upon man, or any society of men, as, Deut. 8.2, 3. 1 Sam. 2.7. 2 Cor. 12.21. 2. The act of man upon man, one man upon another; and this, either to make sinfully vile, filthily low; so the defiling of a woman is called humbling her, Levit. 21.14. Ezek. 22.10, 11. or to make outwardly low and mean; so Nabuchadnezzar took an oath of Zedekiah, and brought him under homage, to make the Kingdom base, Ezek. 17.14. 3. As the act of man upon himself, and this also either to make sinfully vile, as the sons of Eli made themselves vile, 1 Sam. 3.13. or outwardly vile, and so the Lord Christ for our sakes humbled himself, Phil. 2.8. And as the word is used to make low, or render vile, so also to esteem, repute and account as low, and vile: Sin brings a man lower than the dunghill, than the dungeon, and man hath made himself so by sin. When we see ourselves in this low estate, and are brought to a sense and acknowledgement of it, than we are humble, than we humble ourselves; and the soul that is brought into this frame, is the soil in which faith takes, and kindly grows. Such a soul sees nothing but want, and therefore is glad of supplies: sees nothing but danger, and therefore is glad of support, and deliverance. As the lift-up heart will not come to Christ, that it may have life, being under no sense of death, so these cannot be kept from Christ. The soul which is naturally high and lofty, is not in God's ordinary way wrought into this frame without some sensible work upon it, being so foul, and yet in its own eyes clean; so wretched, and yet in its own thoughts happy; it must be brought to conviction in order to conversion; it must by the Law be brought to see sin, before it will be washed from it, or will seek a pardon of it. There must be John Baptists to make way for Christ, some soul-shaking, before the sweet and still voice of Gospel-comforts. Something indeed may be said, as to those, that with Timothy have been trained up from childhood, in the knowledge of Scriptures, and with John Baptist sanctified in the womb, for the abatement of this soul-humbling, and shaking work, as to the degree of it, though not to the total exclusion. They were not capable to make observation of the pollution of sin, till they were in their measure by the Spirit cleansed, nor to know the danger of sin, till they were justified and acquitted; yet even in those, there is so much of the relics of sin, and remainders of corruption, that upon discovery of their inconformity in such a measure to the will of God, they cannot want some workings of Spirit. But as to those that live all their days, and never apprehend any thought of fear by reason of sin, nor ever called the state of their soul into question, but have always carried it in the same plight; Among all the questions that they have put in their lives, about their health, their estates, the nature of their grounds, or how to carry on their Trades (besides those multiplied one's of mere vanity and inconsiderable concernment) they never had it in their thoughts to move a question of any concernment to their souls. The young man's question, the Jaylours' question, Peter's hearers question, never came into their heads. I have seen little evidence of good in these; and I see little ground to believe any thing of faith in their souls. You may speak of some of these, as of men of good dispositions, of a fair nature, and harmless life and course; these may grow up in nature moralised and regulated, when yet faith is far from them: they may grow up high in profession, but growing in the blade, or leaf only, and not in the root, they may justly be suspected. Every tree that bears a fair leaf, doth not bear good fruit; and every apple of a fair colour is not to be desired for food. Such fruit as this, may take where faith will not grow. The Prophet's words then should be heeded, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not amongst thorns: this way must be taken for soul-humbling, that men may be brought to believing.  

The nature of faith wherein it consists. A necessary prerequisite in faith.  2. The next way of discovery is, to take notice of the proper and true kind, the genuine nature of this grace. And here I hope, the Christian Reader may reap a double advantage; First to understand what faith is, and the requisites in it. Secondly, helps for proof of themselves, whether they be in the faith. And here we may observe; First, a necessary prerequisite of faith. Secondly, the essential parts of it. The prerequisite to it is knowledge, which some indeed make a part of faith; but faith, I suppose, rather presupposeth it, then is made up of it. The essential parts, are either in the understanding, or in the will, or affections; for faith is an act of the soul, and the whole soul is employed in it. First, then of that which I make a prerequisite. Knowledge, is in that way required to the making up of faith, that is often put for faith, as, Isai. 53.11. And when God works to faith, he is said to open the eyes, or to work to knowledge or light, Heb. 10.32. Act. 26.18. We come to faith by hearing, we must therefore hear, and know, before we can believe. Knowledge is the first act or work of the soul that conducerh towards faith in the heart; Now knowledge is threefold. First, of sense, we know what we see; Thomas knew Christ, that is the person of Christ, when he had seen his wounds, and put his finger into them. This knowledge is not necessarily required in faith, Christ there saith, Blessed is he that seethe not, and believeth, John 20.23. And the Apostle saith that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Secondly, of reason; we know those things which our reason is able to reach; This knowledge runs through all sciences, in which we attain knowledge by discourse; and the clearer head, the better Artist, and the more of knowledge. This we do not require to the being of faith, though faith be not always against, yet it is oft above all our reasonings; yea, our reasonings, and hammering out conclusions are oftentimes against faith. The word of faith beats down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and brings into captivity every thought, 2. Cor. 10.5. Our Notionalists are indeed men of sublimated understandings, in case they can always reach unto that which according to the Gospel they are to believe. Thirdly, of authority, we judge ourselves to know a thing which men worthy of credit do make known: and if we receive the witness of men, saith the Apostle, the witness of God is greater, 1. John 5.9. The testimony of man gives a moral certainty; and such that we will not question. The multiplication of witnesses renders our knowledge grounded on such authority, more firm; and therefore the proverb, in a well qualified sense, is at least near to truth; Vox populi, vox Dei. The voice of the people unanimously witnessing, is as the voice of God. We do no more doubt that there was a massacre of Protestants in Ireland, about the year 41. then we do, that there was one resolved upon at Shushan in the reign of Ahashuerus, Esth. 3. The testimony of God is always of infallible truth, as to the substance, so to every circumstance of it: many passages about that massacre we may justly question: so we must not any thing which divine verity hath made known. This knowledge we require in faith, and know it to be necessary to the being of faith; we must know that God hath revealed in his Word, a Trinity of Persons, or else we shall believe no such thing, as three distinct subsistences in God, that the holy Ghost is God, that Christ is God, and man in one person, or else we shall believe no such doctrine. We must know the creation, from the Scriptures, or else we shall not believe a creation, but run into that opinion, that all things have ever been, as they are. We must know the offices of Christ, or else we shall not believe that any such office was undertaken by him. The same we may say of every doctrine of faith; perhaps without Scripture, we might have known somewhat confusedly of some of them: as that there is a God, and that the world had a beginning: but we should have known nothing at all of many of them; and nothing distinctly of any of them. These we must know, and from the Scriptures of God know, or else we cannot believe; we may as easily see, where nothing is to be seen, as believe where that is not known which is to be believed. Ignorant persons therefore, that know not the right hand from the left in religion, and are to seek in the very first principles of the Oracles of God, in the very beginnings of the doctrine of Christ; that either come not to hear, that they may learn, or that learn nothing at all by hearing; ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth, are in an incapacity of faith. Men weak in knowledge can hardly make proof of their faith, they do not well know the nature, or lively workings of it, & so want the comfort, but not the thing. Men without knowledge, are without faith, & have not gone the first step towards it.  

The essential parts of faith.  The essential parts of it, are (as we have said) in the understanding, will and affections. In the understanding, there is an assent to that which is revealed, upon the authority of him that doth reveal it. 
1. In the understanding. An assent.  When we believe any thing upon that account, that we suppose we see a reason of it, as that the middle region of the air is coldest, or that the Sun is in many degrees bigger than the Earth, that ●e may call an opinion. That which by reason we can certainly conclude, we may call knowledge; but that which we believe upon the credit of him that speaks it, that is faith or belief. This is so of the being of faith, that without it there is no faith, neither humane nor divine; The Nobleman of Israel, 2 Kings 7.1. Zachary the father of John Baptist, Luk 1.18. Martha, John 11.39, 40. were all of them herein faulty. This Truth of God, was above their reason, and therefore they suspended their faith in it. We believe not what man saith, when we do not assent to the truth of that which he speaks: and we believe not what God speaks further than we assent to the truth of his Word. Thus far the devils go, having sufficient experience of the Truth of God; and thus far and further we must go, if we be in the faith. Now this assent hath these two properties; first, It is Firm; secondly, Unlimited, absolute, 
1. Firm.  and full. First, firm. Not always free from assaults and doubtings; Satan and our own hearts will muster up objections, but such that yields not, but withstands, and overcomes doubtings, holds firm to truth when all means are used to wrest from it. Herein Eve failed, God had said, The day that ye eat ye shall surely die; Satan brought such objections, that upon his word she believed, that she should procure good to herself, 
2. Absolute and unlimited.  and not incur evil by eating, and so yielded to unbelief, upon Satan's reasonings. As our assent must be firm, so also absolute and unlimited to the whole of all that God speaks, such was the faith of Paul, Acts 24.14. Believing all things which are written in the Law, and the Prophets: and Christ blames the two Disciples that their faith was not such, Luk, 24.25. How little honour do we give to man, when sometimes we give credit and belief to that which he says, because we see reason and probability of truth in his words, and at other times call all to question that he speaks? such is the honour that many give to God, when they pick and choose in believing, as they do in obeying. Promises must be believed in the way of God's tender of them, with limit to the conditions annexed to them; Threaten must be believed upon those grounds that they are menaced; commands must be believed, that is God's sovereignty in them, the justice and equity of them and a necessity of our yielding to them. As it must be an assent to the whole Word of God: So it must be an assent to it, in that sense as God propounds it. The Word in that sense that it gives of itself, is the Word of God, and not otherwise; when we put our sense upon it, we make it our word not Gods. Where we must not condemn all for unbelief, that are any ways subject to mistakes, or that through weakness of judgement, do not apprehend every thing as it is. Willing and wilful wrest of the Word are here spoke against: when carnal reasonings, out of singularity, vainglory, carnal contentment, hope of gain, and admiration of men are set up against the Truth of God; if we should go no further in our scrutiny, how many would be found unsound in the faith? Have we not those that are so far from any close adherence to truth tendered, that every wind tosseth them to and fro, and drives them up and down? that hold no longer in an opinion, than a mimic gallant keeps in a fashion, and change their faith as these do their dress? Have we not those that believe, where they list; and that is, where it may serve for their advantage, or repute, but where they list not, they can deny all faith to any truth that God speaks, & deny it they will, where they see it tends to their danger? No swearer, no drunkard, no adulterer, no extorting oppressor, etc. can believe the truth of God in his Word; but he must with it believe his own condemnation.  

2. In the will with the affections.  But faith is a work of the whole soul, and implies the will with the affections, as well as the understanding. Faith is expressed in Scripture, by our coming to Christ, Joh. 6.35. And that is a work of the will, and not of the mind: of the judgement, and not of the affections. It is called a receiving of Christ, Joh. 1.12. this is also done by the will and affections. Consideration, and deliberation are works of the understanding; but choice and embracing, are works of the will; when the woman of Samaria, Joh. 4.29. saith, Is not this the Messiah? There was matter of consideration, and deliberation; there was work for the understanding to be employed in; whether he were to be acknowledged indeed the Messiah. But now to leave all, and follow Christ, to forsake all, and cleave to him: This is matter of choice, and work for the will and affections, whose work it is to take, or refuse. Therefore as faith is set out in Scripture by words implying knowledge, and assent; so likewise by words implying affiance, trust, rolling, casting a man's self on the Lord. Faith then takes Christ, and cleaves to him; in all of those relations in which a Christian stands to Christ, takes Christ and looks for no other delight or comfort; takes Christ and will not endure any other Lord, or commander; takes Christ and looks for no other helper; takes Christ and looks for no other Saviour; takes Christ as a Saviour, and trusts in him; takes Christ as an husband, and delights in him; takes Christ as a Lord, and obeys him. Thus according to the several offices that Christ does, there are several actings of faith for to answer. The great work of Christ was, to give his soul an offering for sin, to shed his blood to take away our guilt, there faith answers, and it is not alone said, that they that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses, which might imply no more than a qualification of the person to be justified; but it is further said that Christ is set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. which plainly denotes the instrument whereby we have our interest. When there are many acts of faith, that which respects his blood, alone doth justify. Christ is set up as a King, and hath all things put in subjection under him. Here faith yields up all to him, and consents as to be saved, so to be ruled by him. Christ in his Kingly power protects as well as commands; as he holds out a Sceptre, so he is a shield. Faith flies unto him for shelter, and so receives and quenches all Satan's darts. Christ is given as an head to his body the Church, not only for command, but for quickening and enlivening power, to supply with vital energies every part and member. Here faith answers, and takes in from Christ the Spirit by the promises for life and power; and so the life, that we live in the flesh, is by faith in Christ Jesus. So that faith I suppose may be fitly defined to be, A firm assent of mind to the whole truth of God, in the way that he doth reveal it, with an acceptation of all that good which God confers by Christ in the way that he doth tender it. I know this grace is diversely held out, and is so comprehensive, that the full nature of it is not easily laid open; A common definition of it is, that it is, A resting upon Christ alone for salvation; purposely given, to correct their mistake, that have made assurance, or a full persuasion that what Christ hath done, I shall enjoy in particular, to be of the nature and essence of faith. But though this may virtually comprise all that is required in this grace, yet it is no full and explicit definition of it; for unless the understanding give its assent that salvation is alone by Christ, the will cannot rest upon him for it. This assent in that definition is presupposed: But it is convenient that it should be expert. Other things besides salvation are received by faith from Christ, but salvation is the most eminent and principal, and all other as by consequent depend upon it. This that I have delivered, is more explicitly full; not only virtually, but expressly holds out all that faith compriseth. And as all of those are here as we have heard convinced of unbelief, that know not those necessary truths that God hath made known, and upon that account can give no assent, together with those that believe, even in necessary and fundamental doctrines, otherwise than God hath revealed, that pick and choose in doctrines of faith, assenting or denying assent at pleasure; So also all those that give other things the pre-eminence above Christ, or at least take them in in coordination with him. When Christ is offered in the Gospel to the soul, and men are urged by his Ministers to receive him, for life and happiness, the things of the world are still ready to make tender of themselves: The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, the pride of life; that is, profits, pleasures, honours; When these are hugged, prosecuted, and followed, Christ is refused and slighted. A covetous man will make sail of Christ for a piece of silver; he will lay out more strength of affection to compass earth, in the way of a calling, then to compass Christ in Ordinances. The man of pleasures will sell Christ for his cups, for his sports, for his wantonness; the like we may say of the man of honours. He that for the cause of Christ can forsake and abjure all, is the only man in whom Christ by faith makes his residence.  

The necessary nourishment of faith.  Thus we have seen the two first ways for the trial of faith: the third follows, which is, The means appointed for the nourishment and strength of it. It cannot live unless in the use of means it be kept up. Declensions are apt to appear in soul as well as in body. He observes little about his spiritual estate, that does not see his faith oftentimes apt to languish as well as his health. And though we be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation; yet it is in the use of means, and not otherwise. He therefore that lives in faith, is careful in the use of means to keep faith alive. The means appointed of God for this end are especially, the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer. The Word 
1. The Word.  is food as well as seed; as it plants, so it waters; as it gins, so it perfects the work of grace. When Paul left the Ephesians, whom he had begotten to the faith through the Gospel; he leaves them this Legacy, Act. 20.32. We are born again of the immortal seed of the Word, 1 Pet. 1.23. and as new born babes, we must desire the sincere milk of the Word, that we may grow thereby. 1 Pet. 2.2. No man ever knew a child live without the breast, or other suitable means for nourishment; Nor men of strength without answerable sustenance; no more can a man in grace live without the Word of grace. Our imaginations and carnal reasonings will be stirring and working, and faith hath not a more deadly enemy. The Word which is the sword of the Spirit, must beat those down, and hold them under, 2 Cor. 10.5. The word of promise underproppes our faith, and must be frequently heard, diligently heeded, or else it cannot be upheld. Those therefore that prize the Word, as a child the dug, esteeming it with Job, as their ordinary food, Job. 23.12. and to this end, to keep life in their souls, faith in their hearts; here is a sign both of life and growth: but when it is with men, as with Israel in the wilderness, their soul loatheth this heavenly Manna, as light bread; having their appetite far better pleased with other things, their ear being of the temper of Jeremy's hearers, The Word of the Lord is a reproach to them, they have no delight in it, Jer. 6.10. these never had faith in the power and life. And all they that lose in their love to the Word, lose also in their faith. Many here might be convinced to be wanting in this righteousness upon their want of faith to interest themselves in it. 1. Those that take themselves to be above any necessity of hearing, having learned as they think so much, that they may now well lay aside their teachers. God vouchsafing of grace those gifts for the perfecting of the Saints, having gained (as they think) perfection, they matter no more intermeddling with them. If these could show us any Scripture-Saint, that ever reached to this height, or ever set upon any such resolution; or if they could give such experience to all that know them, that they might know that they want nothing of the highest top of perfection, than they said something. But when the highest of Saints that we read of in the Word, highly prized the Word, and the more high they were, the more high prize they put upon it, and these that upon this pretence reject it, proclaim to the world many wants in their souls; even in that which lieth at the very bottom of faith, and is of greatest necessity to the being of it, their knowledge being but in part, in most of these very low; and little or nothing, where most should be known; we may well conclude that all this talk of perfection is vain. Take two persons, the one of them talking and boasting of wealth, & the other labouring hard in tillage or trade to gain wealth, and if you can tell whether of these, the talker, or the labourer, is like to increase in substance, than you have determined the question, whether these unruly talkers that boast of faith, or those that diligently attend on Ordinances for gaining of it, are more richly stored with it. 2. Those that neglect to hear, or hear only at their idle leisure, judging a business that may be done, but see little necessity of doing of it, would pretend not to despise it, yet put a very sleight esteem upon it. Doth the child judge so of the dug? Or do these judge so of their ordinary and necessary food? A life of nature is kept up in the use of means as long as it can be patched up; if Physic be neglected, so is not food. The Word is food and physic for the life of grace, and this is let alone. 3. Those that carelessly, negligently, superciliously, and disdainfully hear, as though their business were not to feed, but judge; not to learn or be minded of any thing, but only to censure. According as the way of their fancy works, so the Word takes. Some are pleased only with Kickshaws, like such dishes on a table, that have show without substance, words that are acquaint and strained, not to help, but to exceed their understandings. Others with choice notions only; how wholesome soever, it is not worth heeding, if not curious. Others take up all according to the person that delivers it; with children they are pleased with every thing from one hand, with nothing from another. Lastly, Those that let go all truths as soon as they are heard; There is no more heard of the Sermon when once it is done. They that go to a feast will talk of the dishes, and they that go to a Fair or Market will talk of the Commodities; but when they go to the Congregation, there is not a syllable heard of the Word after they return. When meat goes out of the stomach as it comes in, it neither strengtheneth nor nourisheth; and the Word slipped as soon as it is heard, can be no more effectual.  
Sacraments 
2. Sacraments.  are visible signs and seals. That of Baptism enters us into the Church visible, and seals all the promises made to members, on God's terms and propositions. And the Supper of the Lord is for confirmation of those that are visibly Church-members on the same terms likewise.  
Baptism is passed in the act; but still present in the use. As a Soldier by oath taken, and colours given was tied to his General: so we are hereby tied unto God, and God is tied unto us; and hereby we know our duty, and God's promise. As a lease binds to duty and assures a benefit, so it is with the Sacrament of Baptism. The Apostle, 1 Pet. 3.21. compares it to the Ark of Noah, he was there tossed up and down in the deep, considering his present state, he might well have feared shipwreck; but the Ark being of God's appointment, and he put into it by God's command, he might well confide in him for safety. If we look to the temptations and assaults, wherewith our souls are on all hands battered, we have just cause of fears; but when we call to mind that we entered the Church (as Noah the Ark) by Baptism, and make it our business that conscience may answer unto what Baptism requires, what objection soever our heart makes, Baptism may raise our souls in confident assurance. The Lord's Supper is to the eye, as the promises are to the ear. Whilst we are in the body, spiritual things under corporal signs are ordained for our help and strength. Our Saviour tells us, his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed, John 6.55. And here under the signs of that which is our ordinary meat and drink, the flesh and blood of Christ is tendered, and as our food is offered unto us. Where these Sacraments have their due esteem, and men baptised in infancy, do not pass by the thoughts of it in their growth, but well consider their engagements and bonds that lie upon them to press them to duty, and the engagements of God for support of their faith, they then make use of this ordinance, to uphold faith and keep life in it, in their souls; when they frequent the Lords Table, and conscientiously communicate, for the ends for which it was instituted, to be laid low in themselves, to see sin aggravated and pardon tendered, there is like hopes: But when all thoughts of Baptism is laid aside, and the Lords Supper either neglected or profaned; these may well look, that as a child through want of food, so their faith upon the same account may languish.  
Prayer 
3. Prayer.  is the daughter of faith, and also the nurse or fostermother. Faith breathes out itself in prayer, and prayer obtains a more ample measure of faith to pray. Lord, I believe, help my unbelief, was the prayer of the father of the Lunatic, Mark 9.24. and Lord increase our faith, was the prayer of the Apostles, Luk. 17.5. When we have done all to stand, prayer in the Spirit, Ephes 6.18. must second. This Communion with God keeps up faith in God: They that make it their work to pray always, ever holding it up in the season of it, joining with the Congregation in public, in the family in a way more private, and after Christ's counsel in their closet, sending forth holy ejaculations in their beds, their walks, and on all occasions; These take care of their faith. But in case that may be truly said of them, which was falsely laid to the charge of Job, that they restrain prayer before God, Job 15.4. their faith may justly be suspected. I may speak concerning this grace in the words of the Apostle, these have not, because they ask not: these starve their faith, and let it die through want of nourishment and support. We hear of Chameleons that live in the air, and Salamanders in the fire; A Wonder was not long since noised out of Germany, of a Maid that lived only on the smell of flowers; An impostor lately went from place to place that fed on stones: these that would pass for believers are some such Monsters. Thus we have looked into faith according to the three first rules, the last follows, which is, the fruit that it bears, or the effects that it produceth; 
The fruits which faith bears, and the effects which it produces.  These might be reduced into two heads. First, such as all faith, if true, produceth. Secondly, such as only a strong and grown faith obtaineth. But calling men to the trial whether they be in the faith; and not whether they be high, and transcendent in believing; I shall wave the latter, and speak only to the former. These fruits which every faith (which is such in truth) produceth, are either in the understanding, or affections.  
For that which it produceth in the understanding, 
1. In the Understanding.  take this rule. Faith puts that high prize on Christ, and privileges through Christ, that all earthly things are comparatively of the meanest value, and most low esteem. This we might make good in divers instances. 1. In Moses. If we read the beginning Chapters of Exodus, we may there see the sad afflicted estate of the people of God in that time, together with the honour to which Moses by a wonder of providence was advanced. In this honour of his, and low ebb of theirs, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel, Act. 7.23. He could not drink wine in bowls, and anoint himself with the chiefest ointments, and not grieve for the afflictions of Joseph: and see the the Comment that the Apostle makes upon it, Heb. 11.24, 25, 26. By faith Moses when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaohs daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season: Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt. David in the Wilderness of Judea was persecuted by Saul; all his honours at Court were lost; yea, all livelihood and way of subsistence gone; yet penning a Psalm in the midst of those exigents, none of these are named on that day that he speaks of the fruition of Christ in Ordinances, as, Psal. 63. may be seen. Paul, Phil. 3.5, 6. lays open the rich privileges that according to the flesh could be looked after, and such that sometimes he himself did admire, but these things that were gain to him, he counted less for Christ; yea, he professeth himself to account them but dung, when they stood in competition with Christ. Compare the greatest of things that can be in thy desire, and dung together, and these will certainly stand in a great disproportion; yet such is the disproportion between Christ and the greatest privileges upon earth in a believers thoughts. When the world hath a low and despicable opinion of Christ, and men of the world are ready to say, He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him: All that is spoke of him in Gospel-Ordinances, with them is dull and flat; as was said of Zion, This is Zion which no man looketh after; So it may be said of the King of Zion. Men of faith are of another opinion; He is to them the chiefest of ten thousand, Cant. 5.10. and stands in their thoughts above all comparison. As the appletree among the trees of the Wood, so is my beloved among the sons, saith the Spouse, Cant. 2.3. If men would now look into their hearts, whether Christ and the great things of Christ, or the world and the great things of the world have this esteem, they might thence draw a strong conjecture whether they be in the Faith, or whether their hearts are void of it; which estimate of their Judgements may appear in their care and pains to compass, as also in their trouble upon the loss that accrues unto them. If their care to compass the world be great, so that they rise up early, and eat the bread of carefulness, the world having all command of their affections to screw them up to itself, and put them on to improve their diligence to the utmost, and in the mean time Ordinances are in low esteem, and every way that Christ is compassed of mean regard, businesses jusling out prayers, and the weekdays employment in servile labours taking up the sabbath-days duties, when worldly affairs are followed with eagerness, and holy undertake are done with earthly thoughts, wearisomly, as against the hair, here is a cause of suspicion. Troubles in and about losses may be as great a discovery, as cares to compass; If they were in Lot's Wives case to run away from all, and for Christ to leave it to fire, plunder, confiscation, would not they then with a wishly eye look after them, and have sad parting thoughts about them, instead of joyfully suffering the spoil of them? And upon apprehensions that things go ill upon any emergent occasions at once, to the hazard of outward things, and the endangering of Ordinances, in case they are sensible of the former, and are as men senseless of the latter, having more wishes that taxes were taken off, then that the Gospel should flourish; here's a true Gadarene that would part with Christ rather than his swine. The world, and not Christ in Ordinances, is the Pearl for which they will make sale of all.  
As to the fruit, or effect that Faith produceth in the affections, 
2. In the Affections.  take these rules: 1. Faith is against all whatsoever that is against Christ. As it sets Christ in the highest room, so it opposeth all that opposeth him, and will not suffer the most desired lust that divides from him. As the covetous man's lust carries him to his gold, the wantoness lust to his Dalilah, the drunkards to his cups, and breaks through all opposition in their way of fruition of them; so a believers Faith carries him to his Christ, and will not abide any temptation or lust in his way of interest in him, Acts 15.9. We may see that Jews and Gentiles are either of both of unclean hearts, and that it is only God that cleanseth and purifieth; as he makes the heart soft, so he makes it clean; and saith is the instrument wherewith it is thus cleansed. Lust defiles, 1 Pet. 2.4. and saith purifies. It is Lust that divides from Christ; They that are Christ's, crucify the flesh with the lusts thereof, Gal. 5.24. and that upon account of eternal fruition of him. She that is married careth how she may please her husband, 1 Cor. 7.34. she is not to go in any manner of atti●e or dress to please herself, but in that which may please him. That which he dislikes, she must cast off. The believer is betrothed to Christ, his care then is to walk in all wellpleasing, and to cast off all that doth displease him. If men can do that for Christ, which the Galatians were ready to do for Paul, even to pluck out their eyes for his sake, rather than lose him, than all is well; but if they look into their thoughts, and see that there is any thing dear unto them which is abhorrent to Christ, any thing which they love, that he loatheth, whether it be inward filthiness, as pride, vainglory, earthly-mindedness, etc. or outward uncleanness, as drunkenness, whoredoms, etc. this evidences a total want of grace in their souls. A believing drunkard, a believing adulterer, a believing extorting oppressor, as to assent to the doctrine of faith and profession of it, may well stand together; and reading the Scriptures, and looking among Christian professors, we may find too many such believers; but as to the grace of faith, they stand in full opposition to it; and in this sense we may justly say, there is not a believing drunkard, or covetous worldling upon the earth. As our Saviour said concerning those devils that had held their haunt in the young man from infancy, that his disciples could not cast them out because of their unbelief; so I may say of all that cast not out these lusts. It was weakness in the disciples faith that disabled them, that they could not cast devils out of others: It is want of faith that disableth these that they cannot cast them out of themselves. 2. Faith makes that resolute choice of Christ, that it suffers all manner of afflictions rather than to be driven and divided from him. After ye were illuminated, (saith the Apostle to the believing Hebrews) ye suffered a great fight of afflictions, Heb. 10.32. To save the labour of turning over large Volumes of Martyrologies, read over that little book of Martyrs, as some have called, Heb. 11. especially, ver. 35, 36, 37, 38. Faith kindles that flame that many waters cannot quench. Christ upon earth was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with griefs, yet he had those disciples that never left him, till he came to the Cross, and then solicitously enquired after him. Where Christ dwells by faith, there the Spirit strengthens for sufferings, Ephes. 3.16, 17. If men now look into their hearts, and see themselves willing to follow Christ in fair weather, and to own his cause whilst it costs them nothing, but in worldly respects rather gain by the bargain; but when trouble ariseth, they are gone; These may look into the Parable of the sour, whether this be not an evidence of a rocky and stony heart. A strong wind is the trial of the root of the tree, of the foundation of the house; an hot scorching fire of the truth of the metal. It is true, that self-ends sometimes put a man upon sufferings; But it is always true, that self-ends only put a man upon profession, when he will not stand out in sufferings. They whose Religion is the State's Religion, the Time's Religion, will not lose an hair by any profession they make; Self and not Faith carries on that profession. 3. As faith carries the soul up to Christ to be one with him, so also it carries it on in every affection and office of love to his brethren. In Jesus Christ, neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love, Gal. 5.6. It is not to be of this opinion, or of that, which men call their faith; nor of this Nation, nor of that, which too oft prescribes all that men in their way of faith believe; But to be possessed of that faith which works by love, which commends us unto God. A man may be of this or that faith according to pleasure, and yet his faith utterly destitute of that grace. Faith carries a man not any further at all towards Christ then his love carries him on towards his brethren. An idle faith is a dead faith, and a dead faith never reacheth righteousness to Justification and life. James never disputed against Paul's assertion of Justification by faith only: Writing after him (as is generally confessed) he did not write to contradict any doctrine, or correct any errors delivered by him. When Paul concludes Justification by faith, James concludes that it is by a working faith; Where it works not, it doth not then justify; and where it works to acceptation, it works by love.    

CHAP. XIII.  

SECT. I. Of the number of Sacraments.  
AS a result from all that hath been said of the nature and use of Sacraments, we may conclude the definite and distinct number of them. So many Ordinances that we can find in Old or New Testament-Scriptures, that are signs and seals of this nature, as here hath been set out from the Apostles words, so many Sacraments there are truly so called, equally worthy of that honour of Sacraments with this of Circumcision, being every way of the same nature and use, they are deservedly to have the same esteem. But falling short of such, they are to have esteem as they are, and their dignity may challenge, but not to be put into this number. 
The way to find out the number of Sacraments.  And I know no other way then this to find out the set and definite number of them. Those trifling arguments made use of by some, that the matter of New Testament-Sacraments, viz. Water and Blood, came out of the side of Christ, and that blood and water, as John affirms, bear witness on earth, are not worthy to be mentioned, save only that they are used by some of eminent name. And upon diligent search we shall find only two stated, standing Ordinances in Old Testament-Scriptures, and only two in New Testament-Scriptures, that are to be thus received. We have not indeed any distinct Text in either of both Testaments, expressly testifying that there are two, and two only Sacraments, as we find it ordinarily in Catechisms. Neither is there any distinct Text in the Law or Prophets, that as we would that men should do to us, so we should do to them. Yet our Saviour, Matth. 7.12. tells us, that that rule is both in the Law and in the Prophets, being a clear result from that which the Law and the Prophets have delivered. The like may we say concerning the number of Sacraments. It is as clear a result from that which is delivered to us both from Old and New Testament-Scriptures; so that the conclusion is twofold, drawn by way of deduction of this nature.  
1. 
Two only standing Ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments. Two only Sacraments in the New Testament.  There were in Old Testament-times only two standing Ordinances of the nature of Sacraments, viz. Circumcision and the Passeover.  
2. There are in New Testament-times only two Sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper.  
We shall begin with Old Testament-times; and here our way of discovery is; First, To find out all those Signs, or Ordinances that are set up in competition as Sacraments. Secondly, To inquire into the nature and use of them. Thirdly, To find out how nigh they come to the nature of Sacraments, and what agreement they have with them. Fourthly, where it is that they are defective, and fall short of Sacraments truly so called.   

SECT. II. Rainbow no Sacrament.  
THe first that offers itself is the Rainbow, of which we might speak; First, as it is in nature, for discovery of the physical being of it. Secondly, as a sign appointed of God. But the first consideration of it is not my business, but the work of Philosophers; who out of Aristotle have defined it to be, A Bow of many colours seated in an hollow and duskish cloud, 
The definition of a Rainbow.  appearing upon the reflection of the Sun in opposition against it. He that pleaseth may read further in Magirus physiol. peripat. lib. 4. cap. 5. Keckerman Syst. Phys. lib. 6. ad finem. Zanch. de oper. Dei, lib. 3. cap. 3. Valesius de Sacrâ Philosoph. cap. 9 So that the efficient cause is the Sun. The subject in which it appears is a cloud standing in Diametrical opposition. The thing itself is the reflex of the Sun. The form and shape is a bow of variety of colours. Whereupon it is generally concluded, that there were bows of this nature before the flood, the Sun being then in equal vigour to produce it, and clouds in which the reflex might be apparent. And the cause being then as well as now in act, the effect must needs be likewise. But it was from that time, and not before, that it was appointed as a sign; and under that consideration we find it mentioned and largely spoke to, Gen. 9.8. 
Gen. 9.8, etc. opened.  and following verses, God spoke unto Noah and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my Covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the , and of every beast of the earth with you: from all that go out of the Ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my Covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood, neither shall there be any more a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the Covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a Covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my Covenant which is between me and you, and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh; and the bow shall be in the cloud. And I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting Covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the Covenant, which I have established between me, and all flesh that is upon the earth. In which words we may observe, 1. A Covenant entered. 2. The sign whereby it is ratified and confirmed. In the Covenant itself we see, 1. The parties in Covenant, God on one part; Noah, his sons, their seed, every Living Creature on the other part. 2. 
The Rainbow hath respect to a Covenant improperly so called.  The nature of this Covenant, absolute, and not conditional, as Pareus observes, and therefore it is a Covenant improperly so called, as appears upon a double account. First, In that it is absolute; when a Covenant properly so called, hath its conditions, as elsewhere I have largely showed. Secondly, In that beasts and birds, that are here parties in Covenant, are subjects capable of receiving mercies, but not of entering into Covenant, no more than the stones of the field are of capacity to enter league with man, as, Job 5.23. or to be witnesses in any cause, as, Josh. 24.17. therefore as a bare command is called a Covenant, Jer. 34.13. as a bare seal is also so called, Gen. 17.10. so promises elsewhere called a Covenant likewise, all of them in an improper sense. In the Covenant we see the mercy promised, ver. 11. not to cut off all flesh any more by a flood. In the sign for ratification and confirmation we may see, 1. The Author. 2. The sign itself, the appearance of a bow. 3. The place of situation, the Cloud. 4. The way of signification, and that is by institution, as appears in that God sets it for that very end. Some make the Rainbow a natural sign of that which the text saith is signified by it, which according to them is not that which is generally understood, that God will destroy the world no more by water, but only that no such deluge shall at that time come when the Rainbow appears; seeing it is a sign that the Sun hath got victory over any such clouds, that might have tendency to such a deluge: So Cajetan, as he is quoted by Rivet exercit. in Gen. who yet (as Rivet observes) contradicts himself, in that he says any deluge of such kind must needs be supernatural. It might then come upon the earth, from the hand of God, at the instant time that the bow appears, any such natural cause notwithstanding. It is then, 
The Rainbow an instituted sign.  no natural, but an instituted sign, to give assurance of the fulfilling of this promise. Upon sight of this bow, we may call to mind, that it is of free grace, that all flesh does not perish, and that the waters that are so useful to us, do not presently destroy us: and to assure ourselves, that through grace we shall be kept from perishing. Pareus says that the Jews upon the appearance of the rainbow, used to go out and make such express acknowledgements. But open professions of that nature, are in danger to turn to ostentation, and mere formality, which yet must not hold us from our duty in humility, confidence and praise to make observation of it. 
Correspondencyes observed by some in the Rainbow with the promise.  Some find fit correspondencies in the Rainbow to signify, and seal this mercy. First, Because of the place, which is in the clouds of heaven. whence came the rain that drowned the world before. Secondly, Because the bow is bended upward towards God, not towards the Creature below, as when it is taken in hand, to shoot at a mark; nor is there in the bow any arrow, which is said to be made ready upon the string, when hurt is intended, Psal. 11.2. Thirdly, because the Rainbow appeareth commonly with rain; and so where men might begin to fear the judgement, there they may take comfort against it in that it is a sign of his Covenant for safety. Fourthly, because the Rainbow appears not, but when there is a clearness and brightness in some part of the sky, but at the general flood it was all black with rain. Fifthly, That the Rainbow consisting of divers colours, by the watery colour is represented the overwhelming rain past, and not to return; and by the fiery colour is prefigured the destruction of the World by the element of fire, as is foretold, 2 Pet. 3.10. Sixthly, Because the Rainbow where it toucheth upon any shrubs, leaveth a very sweet and fragrant smell behind; (as some Naturalists observe) it holds out the pleasant acceptation of God as a sweet smelling savour in his nostrils. But seeing that these are not taught us in the Word, but found out by men, and Zanchy says of them, that they are piae, but parum firmae, I shall pass them by. And to wind up all that we have to say of this thing, 
How far the Rainbow is Sacramental.  we see; First, How fare there is an agreement between the Rainbow, and the Sacrament. The Rainbow we see, 1. Is a sign. 2. A sign not natural, but by institution. 3. The institution is of God. 4. It is to signify and seal a promise made of God. 
How far it falls short of a Sacrament.  Thus fare it is of Sacramental use, yet it falls short of a Sacrament properly so called in several particulars. 1. Sacraments are signs and seals of a Covenant properly so called; but here is no Covenant, but such as is Synechdochically, and improperly such as we have heard. 2. Sacraments are engaging signs, with restipulation; these are absolute, nothing at all being called for from man, much less from other creatures. 3. The Covenant people of God are the adequate subject of Sacraments; but here the whole world of mankind, and all flesh is entitled. 4. This is only to be seen as it is set of God in the Cloud; but Sacraments are to be received, upon tender from God, and not only beheld. 5. Sacraments are seals of the righteousness of faith appointed for ratification of spiritual and saving mercies; but this is only a ratification of a temporal deliverance. As to this last dissimilitude perhaps some exceptions might be taken. As the Rainbow was immediately a sign and seal of a temporal mercy, so it was with the Passeover in like manner. The freedom of Israel in Egypt, when the first born were destroyed, seems to have no more spirituality in it, than our security from a deluge. And in case we make that of Egypt a type of a further deliverance in Christ, so we may make this deliverance a figure of like mercy, and so Zanchy indeed makes it. And the last Annotations hint such a thing, Though this Rainbow (say they) be a sign of a temporal Covenant in the general extent of it to all creatures, yet the Godly may look upon it with reference to Christ, in whom all promises of what sort soever, are Yea and Amen, and who is represented sitting in his throne, compassed with a Rainbow in light like unto an Emerald, Rev. 4.3. And in case this sign had been peculiar to the Church, as was that deliverance in Egypt, and given of God, only to his people in Covenant; and in New Testament-Scriptures so applied, as that of the Passeover is, it had been unquestionable: but being common to the world, all creatures in the world having like interest in it, and there being no touch of it in New Testament-Scriptures, it cannot be so conceived. Only we may safely yield thus much, that as the godly may see a sonlike title to every common mercy in Christ, and not barely as they are to others, a common providence and largesse: so they may see the Rainbow shadowing out a like mercy; but in case this would conclude it to be a Sacrament, every creature enjoyed by a Child of God, would have the nature of a Sacrament likewise.   

SECT. III. Sacrifices not Sacraments.  
THe next Old Testament-ordinances that offer themselves, as of the nature of Sacraments, are sacrifices. These being of several kinds are usually ranked under four heads, The Burnt-offering, The Sin-offering, The Trespasse-offering, and the peace-offering. Some of which also admit of several subdivisions. Other distributions of them are also made by some under other notions, which would be besides my purpose particularly to mention. There is much agreeable to the nature of Sacraments in them. 1. They had their institution from God, as we may see in the Levitical Law, and so had all sacrifices that from the beginning the people of God did offer. By Faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, Heb. 11.4. And nothing can be done in faith without warranty of a Divine prescript. 2. These were given in command of God, to his people in Covenant, Psal. 50.5. Gather my Saints which have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice. 3. Christ was held out in these Sacrifices, and consequently, the righteousness of faith signified, as the whole body of the Epistle to the Hebrews shows. Some therefore will have them to be Sacraments properly so called, and are angry at that Divinity, as they call it, magisterially imposed by some, that the Jews had but two Sacraments, Circumcision and the Passeover; and oppose against it, the Cloud, the Sea which Israel passed through, and Manna, and the Rock, which were to them in stead of the Lords Supper; and also the Sacrifices under and before the Law, appointed to the people of God. And doubtless they had much of Sacramentality in them, being external rites appointed of God for his people in Covenant, Leading them unto Christ and remission of sins by his blood, and the Church (as it appears) for a long time had no other; yet doubtless there are differences to be assigned between them. 1. Sacrifices were received of God from the hands of his people, being given to God by man, they were accepted of him. If the Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt-offering, and a meat-offering at our hands, Judg. 13.23. But Sacraments (as we have heard) are given of God to be received of his people; Abraham offered Sacrifice to God, but he received Circumcision from God; And the Passeover was to be eaten by those of the family, Exod. 12.4, 10. And though perhaps it may be proved, that the people had liberty to eat of some of their Sacrifices, yet that was not the proper end, and reason of them, as it was of the Passeover. The people brought them to offer rather than to eat of them. 2. These Sacrifices led men unto Christ for atonement, by him to attain it; Sacraments are to seal up an atonement made, and already actually perfected, upon God's terms to be applied to us in particular. And so their difference from Sacraments properly so called is evident.   

SECT. iv The Cloud, the Sea, Manna, and the Rock were Sacraments extraordinary.  
THe next that offer themselves to our consideration, are those providences of God over his people, as they passed out of Egypt, and whilst they were in the Wilderness; and these are four, The Cloud, the Sea, Manna, and the Rock. For the cloud we have the history of it, Exod. 13.21, 22. And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a Cloud, to lead them the way, 
Exod. 13: 21, 22. opened.  and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, to go by day and night. He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people. As also, Exod. 14.19, 20. And the Angel from God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them: and the pillar of the Cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came between the Camp of the Egyptians and the Camp of Israel, and it was a Cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these. So that the one came not near the other all the night. Which is further enlarged in other texts of Scripture, Numb. 9.15, etc. Numb. 14.14. Deut. 1.33. with observations upon it, Neh. 9.19. Psal. 98.14. concerning which many questions are multiplied, of which some are not so needful to be answered. 1. For the number, 
Whether there were two clouds or only one?  whether there was one only Cloud or two? The text quoted, Exod. 13.21. seems to imply that there were two Clouds; one dark, and the other bright, but the other text, Exod. 14.20. as also, Numb. 9.21. rather makes it to be only one, dark on the one part, and bright on the other, which seems more probable. The first being fitly understood of the various appearances of one and the same Cloud, 
The Cloud not ordinary but supernatural.  and not a variety of Clouds. 2. For the nature of it, or matter whereof it did consist, which doubtless was Supernatural, and extraordinary. Had it been of the common nature of Clouds, which is a thick moist exhalation drawn up by the heat of the Sun, it could not have been of so many years' durance, neither could it have subsisted at all elsewhere, then in the middle region of the air. The reflex from the earth would soon have dissolved it. 3. For the Motion of it, It is plain that it followed not the motion of the heavens, 
The motion of it guided by an Angel.  so it could not at any time have stood still; neither was it carried at all uncertainty with the blasts of winds as ordinary Clouds are, but the motion was ordered according to the good pleasure of God, by the Ministry of an Angel, 
The form of it was in appearance as a pillar.  Exod. 14.9. 4. For the Form of it, it was in appearance as a pillar. The smoke which in a calm season ascends out of Chimneys, sets out the shape of it, being called pillars of smoke, Cant. 3.6. of no greater breadth than the tabernacle, as appears, Numb. 9.15. Had it been of any greater breadth, it had hindered the Israelites prospect; and had it not been of eminent height, it could not have been visible for the guidance of Israel in that distance in which many of them were often from it. The Use is that which is most considerable and that was twofold. 
The use of it. 1. As Israel's guide.  1. As Israel's guide, as, Numb. 9 is fully held forth. When the Cloud stood still, they were to keep in their quarters, and when that moved they were to march, and to march that way that it led. This was the constant use of it, as the Psalmist, Psal. 98.14. observes, and also the Levites on their day of Israel's humiliation, Neh. 9.19.2. As Israel's guard, 
2. As Israel's guard.  Exod. 14.19, 20. It used to be in the van, now it was placed in the rear. It had formerly gone before them as a guide, but now it stood behind them as a guard; so that Egypt eagerly set upon the pursuit of them could not come near them. Of this the Psalmist takes notice, Psal. 150.39. He spread a Cloud for a covering, and a fire to give them light by night; so that here God was a Sun and shield.  
The second observable providence is, Israel's passage through the Sea, which we find, Exod. 14.21, 22. 
Exod. 14.21, 22. opened.  And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong East-wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground, 
Several things observable in Israel's passage through the Sea.  and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. With frequent Scripture-observations upon it, Josh. 4.23. Psal. 78.13. Psal. 114.3. Heb. 11.29. In Moses words we see; First, The Author of this great work, and this is twofold; 1. Principal, the Lord. 2. Secondary, Moses stretching out his hand upon the sign given. Secondly, The instrument, a strong East wind employed of God to force the waters against their natural current. In which we see, 1. The continuance a whole night. 2. The effect that it wrought, to divide the waters, and to make the land dry; God will keep up his agents until his work be done. 3. Israel's passage, They went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground. 4. Their security, The waters were a wall unto them on the right hand, and on the left. Some have thought, that there were several divisions of the sea into parts, according to the several tribes of Israel, but this is without ground; all that we can collect is, that the whole of Israel, and of those that joined themselves to them had a safe passage made them; they all went out, both old and young, sons and daughters, Exod. 10.9. and all these had a passage cut to their hand.  
The third remarkable providence is Manna, The narrative of it we may see, Exod. 16.14, 15. 
Exod. 16.14, 15. opened.  And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar-frost on the ground. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is Manna; for they witted not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread that the Lord hath given you to eat, and mentioned in several other Scriptures, Num. 11 7. Psal. 78.24. Deut. 8.3. Nehem. 9.20. Joh. 6.31, 49, 58. Several remarkable occurrences might be observed about it, which is not needful to stand upon. 
From whence Manna hath its name.  It had the name from the Israelites question upon the sight of it, not knowing it they said Manhu, which is, what is this? It was given to Israel upon their complaint against Moses and Aaron, that they had brought them forth out of the land of Egypt to kill them with hunger, Exod. 16.3, 4. And it continued with them till they came into the Land of Caanan, 
The time that it did continue with Israel.  and had eaten of the old Corn of the Land, Josh. 5.12. Whether it were of the same kind, with that which at this day in several Countries is found, is much disputed; but whether it were the same, or in nature differing from it, it was certainly miraculously provided to their hands, 
It was miraculously provided.  otherwise it would have been found in that wilderness, both before and after those forty years of Israel's travels through it. It was called by the name of Angel's food, Psal. 78.23. Not that the Angles feed upon it, but by reason of the excellency of it, as the tongue of him that excels is called the tongue of Angels, 1 Cor. 13.1. Though that which some talk of the rarity of it, 
A fable concerning it rejected.  and would gather out of the Wisdom of Solomon, Chap. 16.20, 21. that it was fitted to every man's taste, and as any did fancy, so it was. If any did desire to eat of an Egg, that was turned into an Egg, or to eat of an Hen, or Lamb, that was forthwith turned into such a dish, (and so was a figure of transubstantiation) may well be reckoned amongst the Legend-tales. Then the Israelites would never have complained that their soul loathed that light bread, Num. 21.5. Nor had they had cause to have said, as they did, Num. 11.4, 5, 6. Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely: the Cucumbers, and the Melons, and the Leeks, and the Onions, and the Garlic; but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all, besides this Manna before our eyes. They might (according to this fancy) have found flesh, fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, garlic, and all things else in the Manna itself, unless any will turn it into an Allegory, that that which answers to all is found in Christ whom Manna did typify.  

Num. 20.9. opened.  The last of these providences is the Rock. The history we may see, Exod. 17. Num. 20.9. and observations made upon it by the Psalmist, Psal. 78.15. Psal. 105.41. Psal. 114.7, 8. and the like by the Levites, Nehem. 9.25. As the Manna was given upon Israel's want of bread, so this upon their complaint of want of water. Go on before the people, (saith the Lord) and take with thee of the Elders of Israel, and thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb, 
How the rock is said to follow Israel.  and thou shall smite the Rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. How it is said to follow the Israelites, 1 Cor. 10.4. is the great difficulty; Rocks being above all other things immovable: The Jewish fable that it was carried those forty years on Chariots in the wilderness is not worthy to be named, in order to our inquiry into it. This must be taken for granted, that the Rock itself is not here intended as a sign, but the water flowing out of the rock; As the cup is not the blood of Christ in the New Testament, but the fruit of the vine that is in it, and this of following the Israelites being referred to the water which flowed out of the rock. That resolution which is generally received, is most probable, that many running streams, were framed to draw the water along, according to their several stations, and removals, to which River will have that song, Num. 21.17, 18. to allude, Spring up O well, sing ye to it; The Princes digged the well, Nobles of the people digged it by the direction of the Lawgiver with their staves. But if we refer it to Christ, the thing signified as Diodate on the words says, it is very properly spoken; for not only his benefits are perpetual, but he himself who is the spring of them, is ever separated from his, but resideth always in and with them by his Spirit. If now we look upon these respective signs with our Saviour's, and St. Paul's Comment upon them, we shall not find for the time that they were in use, any thing that serves to make up the proper nature of Sacraments that was wanting in them. 
All that is essential in Sacraments was found in these providences during the time that they served the Israelites.  And the Apostles hope at which, it appears, he aims when he speaks of these, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. plainly doth evince it. The Corinthians taking themselves to be high in the favour of God, by reason of their privilege of Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord, the Apostle lets them know that the Jews had that which answers to our Baptism; figuring out salvation by Christ to them, as Baptism to us: They were all baptised unto Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea. As the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt was a figure of their redemption by Christ; and their pilgrimage through the wilderness, an image of the Elects life in the world; and the Land of Caanan, a shadow of that Kingdom of heaven: so their passage through the Red-Sea, and their being under the Cloud, were a sacred figure, correspondent to Baptism; And Manna, and the water coming out of the rock, a sign which had its relation to the Lords Supper. And our Saviour applies that type of Manna to himself, as we see, Joh. 6. throughout. When the Jews said, v. 31. Our Fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, quoting the Psalmists words; He gave them bread to eat: Christ answers, Verily, verily I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. And upon their request, Lord, evermore give us of this bread, v. 34. he answers, v. 35. I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. So also, v. 49, 50, and 51. Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness and are dead; This is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here is an outward visible sign given of God, and received of his Covenant-people, sealing Christ, or righteousness by Christ unto them. The whole therefore that is of the essence of a Sacrament is found in them. Only these were found with Israel, but for a time, namely, the time of the pilgrimage in the wilderness, when Circumcision, and the Passeover, Baptism and the Lords Supper are Ordinances, stated and constant; therefore the observation is, that in Old-Testament-times there were only two standing Ordinances, of the nature of Sacraments.  
Here some questions might be put necessary to be answered.  
Object. 1 1. Though we have the word [Baptism] in this text of Scripture, yet the addition seems to make it no Sacrament; They were baptised into Moses, saith the text, and being baptised into Moses, how could it be the same with Christian Baptism? We are baptised into Christ, and not into Moses.  
Answ. Ans. Into Moses, is here no more, than the Ministry of Moses, or by the hand of Moses, who was a Mediator in type, between God and that people. And though some would overthrow our argument drawn from Baptism into the Name of the Son, and holy Ghost, as into the Name of the Father, to prove that the Son, and the holy Ghost are God, as is the Father, seeing we are baptised (as they object) into Moses; yet Moses is not God; It will not yet serve their turn, seeing the Name of the Son, and of the holy Ghost are made equal in Baptism, to the Name of the Father, and so is not the name of Moses. We are Baptised into the Name of Christ, and called by his Name; so the Israelites never were into the name of Moses no more than the Corinthians into the name of Paul, 1 Cor. 1.13. That is Christ's peculiar with the Father, and the holy Ghost, not communicated to any creature.  
2. It is objected, that these outward elements were given not Object. 2 only to the Israelites, but also to their beasts; for the water of the rock, the text says, They drank of it and their , Num 20.11. And as for Manna, Bellarmine contends that there can be no question, but the Domestic creatures, as Dogs, and Hens did eat of it; that not by casualty, or wickedness, (as he confesseth they may of the Eucharist, and so a Dog or a Swine eats Christ) but ordinarily or commonly.  
Answ. We must distinguish between the Natural and Mystical Answ. 1 use of this Manna, and of this water. The natural use was for their bodies, as well men, as beasts; and of all such beasts as they had in their possession. The Mystical use, was as pledges of Spiritual mercies and favours.  
2. The whole of those elements were not Sacramental, but Answ. 2 the eating and drinking of men in Covenant, is necessary to make them Sacraments. Participation is a part, (as I may say) of consecration. The bread and wine is not unto us the body and blood of Christ, unless it be eaten and drunk; neither was this Spiritual meat, or Spiritual drink before the Israelites eaten and drank of it.  
3. It is objected, that the Israelites saw no such thing as Baptism Object. 3 in the Cloud, or in the Sea: nor any such thing as remission of sin, which is the fruit of Baptism: nor any such Spiritual nourishment in Manna, or the Rock. They saw the Cloud to be their present safety, and Manna and the Rock their sustenance.  
Answ. 1. What Israel did see is one thing, and what these Answ. 1 did hold forth to be seen is another.  
2. That they saw not Christ in these Sacraments; nor yet Answ. 2 in Circumcision in that explicit clear way, as we see him in Baptism or the Lord's Supper, is evident: but they saw these to be evidences, and signs of God in Covenant with them, and that as they were hereby kept from the present, that so he would keep them from everlasting danger. They saw Christ implicitly, though not explicitly in these Ordinances, and so for the time of their continuance, they had the nature, and were of the use of Sacraments.   

SECT. V The five supposititious Sacraments of Rome Examined.  
IN the next place we are to make it appear that there are in New-Testament-times, only two Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lords Supper. In this we may be more clear, seeing none is set up in competition with any fair colour. And here the five suppositious Sacraments of the Church of Rome offer themselves; which are either such which (according to them) belong to all in general, or those that are restrained to some in peculiar. Of the former sort there are three, Confirmation, Penance, and Extreme Unction. Of the latter two, Orders, and Marriage.   

SECT. VI Confirmation no Sacrament.  
THe first of these is Confirmation. For discovery of which we must leave the fountain of Scriptures, to rake in the dunghill of Popish Writers. In case therefore we should dwell too long in it, the Reader would be in danger to nauseate it; yet perhaps it may not be ungrateful to look into it, to see the mercy of our deliverance from it. Though they put it after Baptism in order, 
Confirmation preferred before Baptism.  yet with them it goes before it in honour. In Baptism we are made the servants of Christ: in Confirmation they become his Champions or Soldiers; Confirmation therefore perfects what Baptism gins: and before confirmation, baptised one's are only one half Christians; The lowest Priest may therefore ordinarily baptise, and any other upon emergent necessity: but the Bishop only may confirm. Concerning this the Council of Trent hath determined: If any shall say, that confirmation of baptised one's, is an idle Ceremony, and not rather a true and proper Sacrament, or that heretofore it was nothing but a certain Catechism in which young persons of growth, gave a reason of their faith before the Church, let him be accursed. And now it is time for all that have sworn to that Council to see that they defend it. I shall briefly out of Bellarmine lay down the whole of it. The matter of it he lays down in four propositions. 1. Chrism or Unction is the matter of Confirmation. 2. The matter of Confirmation 
The matter of confirmation.  is not simple oil, but oil mixed with balsam. 3. Chrism which is the matter of confirmation is first to be consecrated and blest. 4. The ointment of Chrism ought to be made in the form of a cross in the forehead of the baptised person, that it may be the true and immediate matter of this Sacrament. The form 
The form.  of this Sacrament is this, I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation in the Name of, etc. The fruit 
The fruit.  of it is, 1. To confer grace, to strengthen the soul against Satan's assaults. 2. To confer an indelible character whereby men are received into the Army of Christ, as in Baptism they are received into his family; so that it may not be reiterated any more than Baptism. The Minister 
The Minister.  of this Sacrament is only the Bishop, and no other; He that administers other Sacraments, hath nothing to do with this Sacrament. The Ceremonies 
The Ceremonies.  are twofold. 1. At consecration. 2. At administration. At consecration 
At Consecration.  there are four Ceremonies. The Oil and Balsam are blessed with prayer, with the sign of the Cross. The Bishop breathes certain times on the ointment, he salutes it with these words. All hail holy Chrism. At the administration 
At the administration.  there are eight Ceremonies. There must be a Godfather present, prayers must be used over them, the Bishop gives a pax to the party now confirmed, he gives him a blow upon the face, the forehead must be bound with a fillet, some say seven days, others only three. The head must not be washed, nor the forehead for seven day's space. It must be administered at the feast of Pentecost. Lastly, it must be done with fasting. When all this is considered we may well think that Austin was much deceived, when he said that the Sacraments of the New Testament are few and easy. Bellarmine in order to prove this to be a Sacrament, lays down three requisites in a Sacrament. 1. A promise of grace. 2. An outward sensible sign as an organ or instrument to convey the promise. 3. A command of God for administration. But all of these we say are wanting in this Supposed Sacrament, and therefore according to himself it is no Sacrament. The promise of grace he thinks he finds in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth Chapters of St. John's Gospel: 
Joh. 14.15.16. chap.. Luk. 24. Act. 1. vindicated.  where the Holy Ghost is promised to the Apostles, to make them valiant and undaunted in the profession of the faith. And, Luk. 24. where they are commanded to tarry at Jerusalem until they be endued with power from on high. And, Act. 1. where they are promised to receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon them. Here if our Author may be heard, is enough. A divine promise, and that in Scripture, made to men baptised, for a larger measure of grace, for strength, for confession of faith. But our acute disputant should show us where this promise is made to his Chrism made up of oil and Balsam. and thus crossed and blessed. 2. He should remember that he himself tells us, that the Apostles had this promise made good unto them without this or any sign at all. 3. He might have found many of these promises in Old-Testament times, which yet made up no such Sacrament in those days. 
Act. 8.17. vindicated.  The outward sensible sign he finds, Act. 8. where it is said, They put their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. But, 1. Papists use no imposition of hands in this supposed Sacrament. 2. In other Sacraments, both we and they make the outward sign and matter, to be one and the same; why is it then that imposition of hands is the sign, and other things the matter? 3. The gifts there mentioned are not saving, but miraculous, proper to those times, and not found in ours. 4. Those were conferred before Baptism as well as after, Act. 10.44. Who can forbid water that these should be baptised, seeing they have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? The command from God Bellarmine will prove from the Apostles use of this sign; If God had not enjoined imposition of hands, 
The Apostles imposition of hands no proof of Confirmation.  they would not so ordinarily (saith he) have laid on their hands in conferring of gifts. Answ. 1. we look for a command for that which our adversaries do use, viz. their Chrism, Balsam, Cross, and not for imposition of hands, which they use not. 2. John did baptise, yet our Author will not allow that for a proof that he had a command to baptise. 3. The penmen of the Holy Ghost wrote Scripture, yet that is no proof with him, that they had a command to write 4. Alex. Hal. part. 4 quaest. 9 affirms that Christ the Lord did neither institute nor dispense this Sacrament as it is a Sacrament. 5. Thomas Aquinas is more modest likewise, as we heard before when we spoke to the Author of Sacraments, confessing that their Chrism is not found in Scriptures, and he excuses it as not belonging to the being but solemnity of Sacraments, therein confessing that all that belongs to the being of Sacraments ought to be written in Scriptures. But though his answer is more modest, yet it is less advised; that which all his fellows make the matter of this Sacrament, he denies to belong to the being of it.  
The ancient use of that which afterwards did degenerate into this soppery, 
The ancient use of confirmation degenerated into this practice.  Bellarmine out of Chemnitius lays down in six Propositions. 1. When a child baptised in infancy comes to discretion, he is to be instructed in the principles of Religion, and then to be brought before the Church, and put in mind of his Baptism, how and why he was baptised. 2. He is to utter a profession of his own faith according as he hath learned. 3. He is to be examined in the principal heads of Christian Religion. 4. He is to be admonished that hereby he now differs from Heathens, Heretics, and all of profane opinions. 5. There is to be added an exhortation concerning the vow of Baptism, and the necessity of perseverance in the doctrine. 6. This is to be concluded with prayer. And if laying on of hands be used, it may be well done, saith Chemnitius, without any superstition. But when care in Catechising, and examination is wanting, it is no better (saith he) than an idle Ceremony, and with addition of the forementioned Ceremonies a mere foppery.   

SECT. VII. Pennance no Sacrament.  
THe next that they would obtrude upon us as a Sacrament is Penance; Satan not enduring the grace of Repentance, hath made it his business to rob us of the Word, and to bring in that of Penance in the stead of it, leaving little that is of God in it, and making it up with the device of man. It is not my work in this place to speak to Repentance, as it is held forth in the Gospel to us, and to be practised of Christians, whether as it is inward, the change of the mind and will from evil to good, from Satan to God; or outward, in answerable works of obedience. We confess a necessity of it in this sense, in the highest degree, a necessity as well medii, as praecepti, being not only enjoined by command from God, but of that necessity that salvation cannot be obtained without it, Luk. 13.3. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish; but the Sacramentality of it, which they assert, we wholly deny. Our souls having all made shipwreck in our first parents, and upon that account made liable to wrath, the first plank for safety they say is Baptism; in which all sin, Original, or Actual, before contracted is actually pardoned; and that Sacrament is (as they say) of no further use, for the pardon of any sins following after it. The second plank for safety after shipwreck with them is Penance, which is a following Sacrament for remission of sins, not so easy as the former; but attended with more trouble, 
The parts of penance. 1. Contrition.  consisting of three parts, Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction. The first of these aright understood, we willingly acknowledge to be a Christian duty, and a necessary requisite to the grace of Repentance, 2 Cor. 7.10. Godly sorrow worketh Repentance to Salvation not to be repent of. Upon sense of sin, we are brought to turn from sin. 
2. Confession.  Confession we likewise acknowledge, knowing with Job, that it is an evil to hid our sins as Adam, Job 31.33. and that the Apostle tells us, If we confess our sins, God is just and faithful to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, 1 Joh. 1.10. But that which they would bring in, which is a whisper of all in a Priest's ear, in order to take from him some bodily Penance, and accordingly receive his absolution, we deny, and well know that it were a vain labour to search into the Scriptures, or antiquity for it. Satisfaction we so fare receive, that offenders to public scandal, must make that public acknowledgement, that the Church may with freedom receive them into communion. 
3. Satisfaction.  But for satisfaction to God, we must let it alone for ever, unless we will shoulder Christ out of that function, and take it upon our own persons; he will never suffer that we should be sharers with him in it, and so we should be for ever on the work (as the damned in hell are) and never able to go through with it. This is, as though a man were fined of his Prince, as much as the servant in the Parable was indebted to his Lord, ten thousand talents, and should attempt to pay it with a few pence of a counterfeit coin of his own stamp, making good a lesser crime with high treason. And whilst these add all this of their own, they leave out the very whole of that, which according to Scripture is essential to repentance, which is a thorough change, and amendment of our ways. And how they got it into their heads to thrust it among Sacraments, a man might think of it, even to amazement. And they themselves are so confounded about it, that they know not how to find any thing of a Sacrament in it. Bellarmine says, 
Papists agree not what that is in penance that makes up a Sacrament.  that they affirm with great consent; that Penance is a Sacrament but confesses, that there is difference among them, to assign what in Penance is the Sacrament; here then sure is a glorious agreement. And it were easy to multiply arguments against it. 1. There is no outward visible sign appointed of God in this Penance of theirs, with any promise annexed, 
Arguments evincing penance to be no Sacrament.  which even adversaries confess is of necessity to the being of Sacraments. Bellarmine (who makes every thing to be visible that is any way sensible) says, That both confession, and absolution, is a visible sign in Penance; so that the words of the Pennance-taker, and Pennance-doer concur together to make a visible sign, and this sign in that way visible, as he can make it, he only affirms, but never proves to have any Divine institution. And his brethren, Scotus, Major, Gabriel, Dionys. Cistersiensis, deny that confession is any part of Penance, as Amesius observes; and Soto denies, that absolution is any part of it. 2. Repentance was in use in the Church, and of equal efficacy as now, when yet by their own confession it was no Sacrament, viz. in the time of the Law, in the time of John Baptist, and of our Saviour Christ; and therefore now it is no more a Sacrament than it was then. 3. Baptism is of the same use, and serves for the same purpose, as that which they imagine to find in their Penance, and engages to Gospel-Repentance for remission of sins. And this is an undoubted confessed Sacrament, and there needs not therefore any fiction of a second. And the Reader may find this so at large disputed in Chamier, Vorstius, Amesius, that I shall cease to add any more concerning it.   

SECT. VIII. Extreme unction no Sacrament  
THe third which they obtrude, is Extreme Unction: A rite which they administer upon men's departure out of this life, as a viaticum to carry them hence. And Bellarmine undertaking to make it good by reason, saith, It is meet that men should have support by divine providence in their departure out of the Church, as they have in their entrance into it. As they are saluted with a Sacrament, so he would have one for their farewell likewise. It is then wonder that the Jews had not one to answer Circumcision, as they have now found out one to answer Baptism. Providence it seems was then wanting in that which the Jesuit thinks meet should then have been provided. The matter 
The matter.  of this Sacrament is, oil olive blest by the Bishop. The form 
The form.  is in these words, By this holy ointment and his most tender mercy God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast offended by sight, etc. The effect 
The effects.  of it is, first, the healing of the body if it be found good for the soul; though they never apply it, till this be desperate. Secondly, the taking away of the remainders of sin; but what sin, they cannot determine. The Minister 
The Minister.  of it is a Priest, consequently a Bishop, if he please. For the subject capable of it, six qualifications are required: 
Qualifications of the person capable of extreme unction.  1. He must be a Christian. 2. A weak one. 3. One dangerously sick and weak. 4. One of years, with the use of reason. 5. One not excommunicated. 6. One that hath taken confession and absolution, if he be found guilty of sin. Ceremonies 
Ceremonies.  used in this Sacrament are two: 1. The Litany and certain other prayers must be repeated. 2. Seven parts of his body must be anointed, viz. eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, by reason of the five senses, and the reins where is the seat of concupiscence, and the feet upon account of the loco-motive faculty. But whether all of this be essential, they are loath to determine. They have two only Texts which they offer to produce to establish this Sacrament. The first is, Mark 6.13. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. 
Mar. 6.13. vindicated.  This Bellarmine denies to hold out any Sacrament, and see also Jansenius upon the words, likewise Ruardus, Soto, as Bellarmine tells us. Bellarmine is induced to this opinion, as he says, because Luther, Calvin, and Chemnitius hold, that the ointment, Jam. 5. & Mark 6. are both the same. And he will make an hard adventure towards the loss of a Sacrament, rather than he will join so far with such heretics in opinion. And this Text also together with that of James 5.13. is rejected by Cajetan, as he is quoted by Chamier and Amesius. It doth not appear (saith he) either from the words, or from the effect that these words speak of the Sacramental anointing of extreme unction, but rather of that ointment which the Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be applied by his disciples to the sick; For the Text doth not say, Is any sick to death? but absolutely is any sick? And the effect is the raising up of the sick: And it speaks of forgiveness of sins no otherwise then conditionally, when extreme unction is not given but even at the point of death. And as the form of it speaks, it tends directly to the pardon of sin. Besides, James commands that many Elders be sent for to one sick person, and many for prayer, 
Jam. 5.14, 15. vindicated.  which is not done in extreme Unction. So that when there are but two texts pretended for this Sacrament, one Cardinal hath robbed them of one, and another of both. Against the Sacramentality of this oil we have these arguments. 1. Sacraments are for all the covenant-people of God in general, without respect had to this or that condition, and this is for the sick only. 2. Sacraments are signs and seals of spiritual grace, this is a sign only of recovery from sickness, being appointed for the sick to raise them up. And whereas it is objected that pardon of sin is here mentioned; it is plain that it is only mentioned in order to the cure of the bodily infirmity, and to be obtained by prayer, not wrought by the oil. The pardon of such sin that may have brought upon the patiented any such sickness, as, 2 Chron. 7.14. When the Land is under famine or pestilence, there the Lord says, If my people that are called by my Name, do humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, than I will hear in heaven, and pardon their sin, and heal the land. The pardon of the Lands sin is there in order to the removal of the Lands judgement. The pardon of the sin of the sick patient, is here for his healing likewise. Much more might be spoke against our adversaries use of it. They limit it to Oil olive, when Scripture speaks of Oil in general. They must have the Bishop's blessing upon it, when Scripture hath no such thing; And in Scripture he that administers a Sacrament, is sufficient for the blessing of it. No one word of their form is found in the Scripture. They never intent recovery when that yet is the whole of Scripture-intention. For a right understanding of this text in James, about which most of the controversy lies, 
Jam. 5.14, 15. opened.  it is not so easy to determine. It stands much upon matter of fact, and we are at too great a distance, for any clear discovery. It is ordinarily understood of a Miraculous power, as that other text, Mark 6.13. must be understood. And the miraculous gift ceasing, the rite (say Divines) would soon appear ridiculous; and that it doth cease, we need no more for proof then our own experience; and in case it had constantly held, it would have been looked upon as ordinary, and not miraculous. But I ingenuously confess, I see more difficulties attending this interpretation, than I know well how to salve. 1. I see not in any age of the Church, any rule given to all that were sick, to look after a miraculous way of healing; but that they made use of it as providence extraordinarily did offer the opportunity. 2. Had they had direction from God to seek for a miraculous cure, it should still have answered their expectation, when yet that is denied on all hands. And whereas it is said, that they that had this power, had also with it a spirit of discerning to whom to apply it; why should then the command be given to all promiscuously to inquire after it? 3. Miraculous gifts were for healing of deaf, dumb, blind, as well as sick persons; (as Bellarmine not impertinently observes) why then are only the sick here mentioned? 4. It seems to imply that all Elders of the Church had this gift of healing, which is contrary to that text, 1 Cor. 12.29, 30. Others understand it of a medicinal power in the oil, but all Elders were not Physicians, and one oil would not cure all diseases. Some speak of it as an hieroglyphic or outward Symbol which was in use amongst the Jews, to hold out any thing that is spiritual; but it is very doubtful, whether the Apostle would permit, much less can I think that he would prescribe the use of these to Christians. I most readily therefore subscribe to that of Amesius, which I confess gave me great content when I found it in him, that so I might not be said to be alone in the opinion 
a Oleum potest Synechdochice poni pro medicamento salut.  This oil (saith he) may be taken Synechdochically for any healing medicine whatsoever; And answering Bellarmine's objection, why direction is here given only to the sick, and not to the blind, etc. he says, 
b Consilium datur tantum de aegrotis, quia non de miraculoso usu olei in genere, sed de aegrotorum directione tractatur.  that it is given only to them, because the Apostle speaks not of the miraculous use of oil only, but the way to deal with sick persons. So that miracles where the gift was, are not excluded, but all means, whether ordinary or extraordinary, according to the Apostles prescript, are to be applied. The Elders are to be sent for (saith he) especially for prayer and consolation; but so that the use of means upon that pretence be not neglected, so that it is little other, than that which Christ gave in charge concerning the damsel that he had raised to life, that something should be given her to eat, Mark. 5.43. Some, as is said, have made an essay to revive this custom in these times, and in their visit of the sick, will follow the Apostle in the letter, they will pray, and praying will anoint with oil likewise. I would that these would give some distinct account of their proceed. 1. Whereas there are in the world so many sorts of oil, even beyond number, whether any that is called oil will serve the turn? Trayn-oyl (which yet in most places is readiest) would sure be thought too gross to be employed in it. 2. To what part of the Patient they do apply it; and in what quantity? In our colder clinates, and especially in colder seasons, in stead of helping perhaps this liquid stuff may soon wrong weak persons. 3. What effect they expect from it; whether corporeal, or spiritual, or a mixture of both? 4. Whether they use it as an instrument, to work that which they expect upon application of it, or only a symbol for assurance that God will work? If they make use of it as an instrument, it must either be for conferring of spiritual grace which (as we have heard) is denied to Sacramental signs, or else for the obtaining of bodily health; then they must see that it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, otherwise they are in danger not only to use it in vain, but for harm. If they make use of it as a symbol or sign to assure that God will work, then let them first produce a promise: there the effect is attributed not to the oil, but to the prayer of faith; and secondly, let them acquaint us how to discern those unto whom we may with success apply it, otherwise we shall not only lose our oil and our labour, but expose it unto scorn likewise. And it cannot be expected that all should be thus healed.   

SECT. IX. Orders are no Sacrament.  
THe fourth which they would obtrude upon as is Orders, or the solemn way of the call of Ministers to their functions. This, or rather these; they will have to be a Sacrament properly so called. And these Orders are divided into seven, 
The number of orders and their divisions and offices.  and one of the seven is subdivided inco two so that this one Sacrament if it hit right, hath gained seven more, and so they have fourteen Sacraments. The first of these is, the office of Priesthood, which they subdivide into two; Bishops, and Presbyters, which as they say, differ in order, and not in degree only, as a Bishop, and an Archbishop; and therefore must have distinct Ordinations. The next is of Deacons, to assist the Priest in all things which are done in the Sacrament. The third is, Subdeacons, to bring the Chalice and Patin, the Cruse with water, and Towel, to the Altar. The fourth is Doorkeepers, to receive the Keys. The fifth Readers, to read Scriptures in unknown languages. The fixth Exorcists, to cast out unclean spirits. The last Acolythes, to carry Torches or Tapers when the Gospel is read, or the sacrifice to be offered. Bellarmine tells us that the Ordination of Presbyters is a Sacrament by the consent of all, and he himself determines, that the Ordination of Bishops is a Sacrament, and according to him there is no other Scripture-Ordination, seeing all the Scriptures that speak of it, speak (as he says) of the Ordination of Bishops; 
Most of these doubted among themselves whether they be Sacraments.  though he multiplies Author's denying their Ordination to be any Sacrament. Ordination of Deacons, he says, is very probable, and to be believed that it is a Sacrament, though it be no Article of faith to believe it; which he proves, because it cannot be evidently deduced out of the Written Word, or tradition: Neither is there (saith he) any determination of the Church for it. For Subdeacons, he says there is not that certainty as of Deacons, yet (he says) it is very probable that it is a Sacrament, though he hath such an argument against it, as that none but himself will be ever able to answer. Imposition of hands, he says, (and proves out of the fourth Council of Cartharge, Canon 5.) is not used in it, and yet his whole nineth Chapter is spent to prove, that imposition of hands is essential in this Sacrament. It is a Sacrament, save only that it wants the essentials of a Sacrament, as do indeed all their five supposititious ones. The four last which with them are the lesser Orders, have not, (as he says) that probability that they are Sacraments, as that of subdeaconship: yet the opinion that affirms their Sacramentality, 
The matter of these Sacraments not agreed upon.  is far more probable than that which denies it. Their learned Council are not yet agreed, what is the matter of this, or these Sacraments, whether it be the imposition of hands, or the holding out of such an instrument, as belongs to their function, as a Chalice to the Priest, etc. The words uttered to each respectively, 
The form.  when such an instrument is delivered, are the form. The effect 
The effect.  of these is, 1. A Spiritual and perpetual power for discharge of their function, of which the indelible character is a token. 2. Saving grace for a right discharge of their function. The Minister 
The Minister.  of these is a Bishop, and the Ceremonies, Anointing, and Shaving. That the Ordination of Ministers for their function is Gospel Ordinance, we willingly grant, and that no man should take upon him this honour, to deal for men in things appertaining to God unless he be called, as Aaron; Tymothy was this way called to the work, 1 Tim. 4.14. and he hath a directory given him for the call of others, 1 Tim. 5.22. Titus is left in Crete for this purpose, Tit. 1.5. and Paul and Barnabas, in every City where they come, act in it. Yet it is far short of the honour of a Sacrament properly so called. 
Reason's evincing it to be no Sacrament.  The outward rite of imposition of hands was used, not so much for significancy, as decency, being an usage in religious acts, of solemnity before the Law, under the Law, and continued in Gospel-times, as standing with the simplicity of it; yet we dare not with Bellarmine, make it essential to Ordination, finding no institution of it for a sign, much less any saving grace annexed to it by way of promise; so that here, both an outward instituted sign, and inward grace are wanting. ●●ither is it such in which all the people of God are interested. One peculiar order only can claim to it. In the time of the law, this was in use, and yet by their own confession, it was then no Sacrament. And it is very strange, that not only power given for administration of Sacraments, should be a Sacrament, but authority to open the door for these that come for the Sacrament; as for other Ordinances, should be a Sacrament likewise. The greatest thing that adversaries talk of is, that Calvin in Instit. lib. 4. 
Calvin vindicated.  cap. 14. sect. 20. saith, that he can willingly suffer Ordination to be called a Sacrament; but they are unwilling to take notice that he denies to number, or reckon it among Ordinary Sacraments, and therefore it is plain, that he takes the word in a more large acceptation then ordinary: which is further clear in that in his Comment on Jam. 5.14. he makes the oil which Christ's Disciples used, Mark 6.13. for the time that the use of it continued to be a Sacrament, when yet he restrains the whole effect or fruit of it to the health of the body only, which falls far short of his famously known definition of a Sacrament; so that Ordination neither according to Scripture nor Calvin is to be accounted a Sacrament.   

SECT. X. Marriage no Sacrament.  
THe last Sacrament which they would obtrude upon us is Marriage, which they have determined to be a Sacrament, as well as the rest that serve to make up the number, whilst the solemnising of it holds; and the parties are upon the work. The words, or signs expressing consent (according to Bellarmine) is both matter 
Matter.  and form 
Form.  of this Sacrament: But when the work is over, than the married couple, in their persons are the matter; and the words or signs are the form. The married persons expressing their consent in any manner whatsoever, are themselves the Minister 
Minister.  of this Sacrament. Canus seeing how great a dishonour it is to Sacraments, to make that which is acted in the most profane and clandestine manner, a Sacrament, resolves that the words of the persons, thus expressing consent, are the form of the contract of Marriage, and that upon that account marriage is valid; but it is no Sacrament, according to him, unless it be done by a lawful Minister; but this Bellarmine opposeth as a singular and new opinion. A Sacrament then, according to him, is, wheresoever a marriage is, and marriage is, where consent of Parties is expressed; though in the lewdest way, by persons under Parents power, and not at their own dispose, by divine appointment. We willingly yield it to be an Ordinance, 
Reason's evincing it to be no Sacrament.  established by God, but very short of the nature or honour of a Sacrament, for divers reasons: 1. It was the same, as it Reas. 1 is now, from the beginning; and yet all that space of time from Adam to Christ's coming in the flesh it was no Sacrament, by our adversaries confession. 2. It is an Ordinance Reas. 2 in common for mankind, and no Ordinance peculiar to the Church; The whole world of mankind have their interest in it; and Sacraments are known to be only Church-priviledges. 3. All the people of God are not tied to it: some Reas. 3 have their liberty to abstain from it; and all Sacraments are under a precept; yea, according to our adversaries, it is a degree of perfection unto merit in all to keep out of it, and unto men of some orders a defilement. Lastly, as Durand Reas. 4 doth observe, The whole that is done in it speaks its own use and signification, and the use and signification of Sacraments wholly depends upon divine institution. They have nothing that bears any colour to say for the Sacramentality of it, save that Text of the Apostle, Ephes. 5.32. where the Apostle having illustrated that love, which is due from the husband to the wife, by that similitude of the love of Christ to the Church, concludes, This is a great Mystery: and having spoke, both of the union betwixt Christ and the Church, and between man and his wife; to prevent all mistakes, he adds, but I speak of Christ and his Church; so that first we have not the word Sacrament there, but the word Mystery, which by Bellarmine's own confession is not elsewhere in Scripture to be understood of any Sacrament: and Cajetan on the words (as Amesius observes) warns the prudent Reader to observe, that we have not from Paul in this place, that Marriage is any Sacrament. So that neither word nor thing is found in Scripture, that Marriage is a Sacrament. Every one of these might have born a large discourse, as is well known to all that are versed in these controversies. But so many having spoken so fully to them, though I was unwilling (intending a Treatise of the Sacraments,) wholly to omit them, yet was resolved, that the Reader might not be overburthened, to be as brief as possible in them.    
FINIS.   

A POSTSCRIPT TO REVEREND and LEARNED Master BAXTER, IN WHICH, These following QVESTIONS are friendly debated.  
Whether faith in Christ, quà Lord, be the justifying act?  
Whether man's Evangelicall, personal righteousness, be here perfect?  
Whether the Moral Law is a perfect rule of righteousness?  
Whether Unbelief, and Impenitence in professed Christians, are violations of the Covenant of Grace?  
Whether Faith and Repentance be God's conditions, or man's, in the proper conditional Covenant?  
Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection, and accept sincerity?  
With an enquiry into the judgement of Antiquity about several things in reference to Justification.  
Sicut meritum Christi non potest apprehendi ad justitiam & salutem, nisi per organon fidei, divinitùs ad hoc ordinatum: ita si fides alibi, quàm in suo proprio & principali objecto, quaerat Justificationem, non invenit nec accipitillam.  Chemnit. exam: council: Trident: de fid: Justif: pag. 159. 
LONDON, Printed by S. G. for Abel Roper, at the Sign of the Sun, against Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. 1655.   


THE INTRODUCTION.  
REverend, Beloved, and much Honoured, I have received your Apology, according to your appointment, from your Stationer, for which I return you hearty thanks, as for the gift itself, so for the pains that you have taken to rectify me, where, in your judgement, I have publicly stepped aside. An error in Divine things, if it stand alone, without addition of further aggravations, is not light. Truth being of such divine excellency, that no pencil can draw out; all deviation from it into opposite error must needs answer, in black deformity, and darkness: But when it is not simple error, but joined with endeavour to engage others, it is far above itself in foulness. To reduce a brother therefore, not only erring, but thus erring, must needs be an high, acceptable office of love. But in this, I need to do no more, than to say over to you, what you have said to me, in your first and second page, which you style your Prologue. In this (if we both speak our hearts & thoughts) we are one. And I wish that in all other things, there were a like unity in judgement, and the time I hope (with some confidence) is near at hand, that all mists and clouds will be so dispelled, that we shall arrive at perfect union. And as for infinite other reasons, so for this, glory is infinitely . In order to a right understanding between us, I must acquaint you, that your first words, after your Christian salute, have their mistake, though not much material; whether upon mistake of my words, when I last saw you in Shrewsbury; or failing in memory, I cannot determine. I told you not, that I had then sent to the Press a treatise of the Covenants, but wished you, indeed, not to be offended, in case I should in such a treatise, publish somewhat in the way that you mention. In which I do not barely oppose my memory to yours; but also the witness of the Reverend Brother, whom you know was then present: together with the computation of time, which speaks it to me to be above contradiction. It was May 3. that we spoke together; as I well know by the errand, that I had at that time into those parts: and my book saw not the light, till towards the end of November following; and yet made speedy haste, after it went out of my hands. I was glad of the opportunity, as of a brief discourse of some things, (as the little scantling of time would bear,) so also to understand your mind, in the thing already mentioned, before any further proceeding, that there might be no unbrotherly difference, which at that time you expressed with all possible candour, for my encouragement in that way. Yet, you now complain, that I have given the first onset, and so put you upon a necessity of this way of dealing against me; which you mention in your Preface Apologetical, and in this Prologue, and more at large in the Preface of your Confession: preferring in your judgement a more private Collation, and enquiry into things, before this public way of appearing in the Press. And indeed, I had it in my thoughts to have written to you, before I had any settled resolution at all, any more to have appeared in public; & had done some little that way, as soon as your Aphorisms came to light, (which was more than three years and an half, before my treatise of the Covenant was published, as may be seen, comparing the dates of either) but after-thoughts took me off: And indeed I see no cause of Repentance; considering the issue of things between you and others. After so much pains of writing on both sides, I do not hear that any of those eminently learned men, which you say from most parts of the land have taken this way, to impart their animadversions, have at all prevailed to change your mind. Neither do I hear, that any of your replies have wrought any change in them for satisfaction. And in the mean space, those elaborate writings on both sides, are buried in your Study and theirs; and no other, but yourselves, have any benefit at all; Only we have their complaints (such is humane frailty) that their names suffer in your public writings. As to the Charge against me for making the first onset, I had not appeared at all, had I not upon other occasions (which may be seen in my Preface) been put upon it, to come out in open view. And how far I stand guilty of that in which I stand charged, I desire the indifferent Reader impartially to consider. In that of Sacramental Seals, you had given me at least some occasion. When I had delivered myself in private to you, and also made my judgement public, that they seal conditionally; you are pleased peremptorily to determine the contrary. Herein being not alone unhandsomely censured by your Quaerist, (with whom you there deal) but terminis terminantibus by you also gainsaid. I indeed make mention of your name, yet so, as almost wholly agreeing with you in the thing in question, and differing in some notions and expressions only. In which, I made it my work to beat out the right meaning, for a true understanding; and in language, I hope, altogether without offence; And therefore that piece was scarce worthy the name of a difference. In one or two more problematical things, I likewise mention your name, taking notice of your opinion; perhaps with some dissent, as we are constrained to deal with all, since the penmen of the Holy Ghost completed that Canon. But for the points that are worthy the name of controversal, (whether already inserted into the foregoing treatise, or following in this Postscript) the Reader may see, that your name is not so much as once mentioned, unless it be with approbation. I was loath indeed to appear your professed adversary, and more loath, to honour those Tenants of which I had no other esteem, with the mention of your name. Had you held like course with me, how inobservant would the differences have been that are between us? Not many that read your Aphorisms, read my treatise, and so on the contrary: and all Readers would not have observed the author of arguments, when the Man industriously is concealed. The offence of Br. against Bl. and Bl. against Br. would, howsoever have been avoided. I had indeed many debates with myself, whether or no I should not have totally waved all, that in opposition to that which I intended to publish, you had delivered. My inclination to peace, and that great respect I had to you, led me strongly that way. On the other hand, being resolved upon a tract, in that method, and way, that found you in full oppposition; Conscience of duty (to appear against all, where I was convinced that truth was opposed) put me upon it to deal with your arguments, yet with resolution to let alone your name. So, that I think, the indifferent Reader will judge you, rather than I, (respective to these bicker in this Apology of yours, where, in this public way, you deal with me) to be the beginner. You are pleased to tell the Reader in the Preface to your Confession, that you have used more care to avoid offensive words to me, than any other; which cannot but much engage me. But truly Sir, to speak of things, as they are, I am apprehensive of not a little gall, in the ink that thou spent upon me, and take myself to be much more bedabled through your writings, than the cause required. And indeed it is seldom the cause that I defend, that hears so much (which yet must fall before arguments, & not words,) as my weakness, as you endeavour to hold it forth to your Reader. Were it alone my thoughts, exceptions might soon be put in; but being all Readers thoughts, (as I think) as well as mine, there is no likelihood that I am much deceived. I may over-value myself, but others will not be so hasty to put that over-high esteem upon me. Let your Index speak, which appears in the vann; Many eyes will fasten there, that perhaps will look no further; And what honourable language Mr. Bl. upon all occasion hears, will soon be discerned. But I hope I have learned better than to make returns; If I can, I fain would avoid it. But to leave the Porch, and to get more near into the House. You see my thoughts in three particulars already laid down, in the preceding treatise. I was there resolved to wave nothing that fairly came into my way; nor to take in any thing that was impertinent to the work in hand. The first, I must confess, is most in my thoughts, viz. The interest that faith, which is short of justifying, gives to Baptism. In which you are pleased to charge me with a doctrine of a very dangerous nature; Though in all that you have said, I hear not a word of any dangerous consectary that follows upon it. And truly, Sir, if I should have a thought of changing my opinion, I know not how to look to the end of the danger that will follow. 
Dangers that attend the restraint of right to Baptism to the- Regenerate.  I must first necessarily engage myself, in an everlasting Schism; being not able to find out a Church in the world of any interest, in which I shall dare in this account to hold Communion. I shall see in many members (unless I offer violence to my judgement) too clear symptoms of non-regeneration; and unbelief, as to that faith which justifies: And though this will not bear a separation (as is clear in all the examples that we find to the contrary in the Scriptures, and the Epistles wrote from heaven to the Churches in Asia) yet this consideration of their non-baptism, will necessarily enforce it. Church-communion is not to be held with any that are no Church-members; But all in non-regneration (according to this tenant) are no Church-members, upon account of their non-baptism, or their null-baptism. And if I meet with men that are able to give a good account, (and as to men satisfying) of their regeneration; yet if there ever were a time, since their baptism, that they were unregenerate, that concludes the nullity of their former baptism. And being Baptised upon the account of their Father's faith, That failing and falling short of that which justifies (as often it doth) Their baptism fails; and I must upon my new taken up principle, renounce Communion, till they have made all good by a new baptism. And if I shall betake myself to the Antipaedobaptists (for so many of them as I do know, where I now live, or have lived, or hear of by report) I must upon all occasions among them plead for Anabaptism; So slender signs of regeneration, but all on the contrary, being too evidently manifested for the most part by them. The great reason that ever I could gather from the principles of Antipaedobaptism, why God should so blast that way, wheresoever it appears (as you, after Bullinger, Bucer and many others, have abundantly shown) is, the Schism in which they unavoidably engage themselves. The whole face of Christianity through the world, had their baptism in infancy; and this proving no more than the sprinkling of a little common water, and mere mock-baptism, they are eo nomine, put upon a separation, and necessitated to disband themselves, and deny society to the whole Church on earth. The like will (as appears to me) here follow upon this principle, That only the faith that justifies, gives title in a man of years, either to his own (if unbaptised) or to his Child's baptism, upon the grounds before mentioned. And If I be here helped out (as indeed I utterly despair) by any distinction of Forum Dei, or Forum Ecclesiae, Vnivocall, or aequivocal; what thoughts then shall I entertain of the Holy Scriptures? As you say of an opinion that you oppose, Confess. pag. 5. when you do but open the Bible, you can seldom meet with a leaf that is not against them; And I think your Hyperbole is very tolerable; The same, I think, I may assert of this opinion which here I oppose, if you except the book of Genesis, and that needs not wholly to be excepted, as Gen. 6.1. doth witness. After the Church was gathered into a visible body in Abrabam, the leaves are very rare, through the Old and New Testament, in which a man may not find, testimonies, or instances, of a people in Covenant-relation to God, and received by Circumcision, or Baptism, into a Church-state, in an unregenerate condition. Let Mr Ball be consulted in his Friendly trial, pag. 192. What high titles, implying a Covenant-relation, are given to men of most vile qualifications? To which many more might be added. They are called (saith he) by God himself, His People, His Children, A chosen People, An holy Nation, The peculiar People of God, The Daughter of Zion, The Daughter of his People, His pleasant Plant, A right Noble Vine. To which may be added, Children of the Kingdom, Children of the Covenant, Heirs of the promise, Saints, Believers, Disciples, Together with many compe●l●tions, I am God, even thy God, etc. And all of this (as this Reverend Author shows) of a People that were a stiffnecked People, Foolish and Unwise; That did rebel against the Lord, That did not understand, were a most Sinful Nation, As Sodom and Gomorrah, passing Sodom and Gomorrah in iniquity. Here is enough to speak a Covenant, and upon that account, interest in Circumcision and Baptism. Yea these were called, The People of the Lord, and the People of his holiness. And to come off with such distinctions, that they were aequi●ocally, not univocally, nomically & not really such; That they had these names, as a Corpse, or Picture hath the name of a man, is that boldness with Scripture on which I dare not adventure; Especially finding those great advantages and privileges in Scripture annexed unto them. May not the worst of Antinomians, whom you follow with just indignation, give like answers, and find like starting holds? when they deny any necessity of good works, and we bring Scripture Texts in the fullest and plainest way against them, May not they reply, that all this is respective to our carriage towards men, and not, as to any notice that God takes of them, either as to displeasure or acceptance? That they are not necessary in foro Dei, but in foro humano only. As Trask in a journey that he made into Stafford-shire, there delivered, That a Christian was to live amongst men, as though he were under the obligation of the Law of God, (or words to that purpose) but must not account himself obliged. And I once heard one that had got into a Pulpit, pretending to advance Christ, (but in such a way, as I hope I shall hear no more) mentioning Sanctification, he said, There was such a thing indeed respective to man, but God regards it not; And objecting the Apostle's words 2 Cor. 8.12. If there be a willing mind, it is accepted, according to that which a man hath, and not according to that which a man hath not, This he said was not any acceptation of God, but of the Saints. I must confess the gloss with me, is alike in the one, as in the other; and either of both, such, as the Text will not bear. Not that I charge all that hold that tenant, as so highly guilty. They see not (as is plain, in that they deny) the connexion between them, as the Ubiquitaries deny that any thing that they hold is destructive to the humane nature of Christ; but with me, the consequences before mentioned, are palpable. And if on the other hand, when God says Hear O my people, and I will testify against thee, I am God even thy God, Psal. 50.7. I entered covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine, Ezek. 16.8. I shall believe that God speaks as he thinks; and that this covenant-relation is real, and not barely equivocal, or nominal; I cannot see any danger that follows upon it. To leave this to your further thoughts, and the Readers more serious judgement, I come to that which is behind, which I think I may reduce to these three heads.  
1. Those things, wherein you and I really differ in judgement. 
The Contents of this Postscript.   
2. Those things, in which there is an agreement between us.  
3. Those things, which we on either side problematically dispute, and inquire into.  
In the first, I believe your business is to beat down error, and find out truth; In the second, your end might be judged to be only to discover my weakness, (being satisfied with my Tenent, but unsatisfied it seems with my reasons) but you profess other, and better intentions; In the third, I believe that amidst what seems doubtful, you would fain find out that on which you might fix as certain. In all of these I would willingly be brief upon a several account. 1. There is none of them in which this Treatise doth directly engage me, and that, at this time is my work; And I think I had never appeared at all in any of these, had not this work led me to it. 2. I would not be thought to have a mind to differences, when indeed my endeavour is to take my mind off them. 3. I doubt I shall put the Reader to too much cost and pains. The Book itself is of that bulk (though I hope of a necessary subject) that he may be tired, before he comes at the Postscript.   

SECT. I. Faith in Christ, quà Lord, is not the Justifying Act.  
THe first of those points which you have made choice of, is, That the acceptation of Christ, as a Lord, and not only as a Priest, doth justify, In opposition to some passages of mine Chap. 12. pag. 79. of my Treatise of the Covenant. In all of which, as I do not name you, so I think there is never a sentence that is positively yours; so that, had not you thus owned it, few would have observed it. I there say what you repeat, [That, it is true, that faith accepts Christ as a Lord, as well as a Saviour; but it is the acceptation of him, as a Saviour, not as a Lord, that justifies: Christ rules his people as a King, teacheth them as a Prophet, but makes atonement for them only as a Priest, by giving himself in sacrifice, his blood for remission of sins: These must be distinguished, but not divided: Faith hath an eye at all, The blood of Christ, The command, The doctrine of Christ; But as it fastens on his blood, so it justifies. He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.24. not through faith in his command. It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin; and not the Sovereignty of Christ. These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship, and the special offices of faith, may not be suffered. Scripture assigns each its particular place and work; Sovereignty doth not cleanse us, nor doth blood command us: Faith in his blood, not faith yielding to his sovereignty, doth justify us. 
Mr. Brs. reply analized. ]  
In your reply to this passage of mine, you  
1. Acquit me of any further error, than what is found in my method, affirming, that I agree with you in substantiâ rei.  
2. You lay down six several distinctions.  
3. You lay down nine propositions. All of which, both distinctions and propositions, I believe you intended for illustration of the point in debate, but your Readers (and those neither of the younger nor duller sort) complain of your obscuring of it.  
4. You fall upon your charge of me, and here you charge, 1. My expressions, with confounding that, which was my business, as well as I could, to distinguish. 2. You charge my implications, or employed sense (which it seems you far better know than I) with triple injustice. 1. Against the truth and word of God. 2. Against the souls of men, 1. In such nice mincing & cutting the conditions of their salvation, to their great perplexity, if they receive my doctrine. That which all complain of, in your expressions, you are pleased to blame me withal in my implications. Upon the coming out of your Apology, I was wrote unto by an eminently-learned hand in these words. I wish that it may not divert you from better employment, and namely your Treatise about the Sacraments, to which if you adjoin as an appendix, something by way of reply to Mr. Br. not so as to trouble yourself and others, (as Mr. Br. doth too much) with Logical niceties, but to clear and confirm the main matter, I think it will be most convenient. 2. I am charged, as not affording one word of Scripture or reason; when yet in those few words recited, I think the reader may see as many as in all your distinctions and propositions. Lastly and leastly (as you term it) my charge is of evident injustice to my friend, (For it is, as is said, no hard matter to know who I mean) in charging him with confounding the distinct parts of Christ's mediatorship. I am expressly spoke to, and charged without injustice for confounding Christ's actions, with man's faith; How truly let the Reader judge; And am yet guilty of injustice, in charging my employed friend, in my employed sense, with such a crime.  
5. You excuse yourself, for your not much troubling me with arguments; Giving your reason, that you have done it, over, and over, to others. Where I would have the Reader to observe, that you have other Adversaries, besides me, in this point, and those of the most learned, who (as else where you say) have vouchsafed that condescension as to give in animadversions. 2. That we hear none of these learned men's reasons. A few words of mine let fall by the buy, are fallen upon, and elaborate learned Treatises of others lie dormant, industriously written on this subject.  
6. You come in with your ten arguments; which it seems you take to be a number below trouble. It would trouble you, If I should say, your employed sense is, That they are such, to which I may without trouble give in an answer.  
7. You amplify your tenth argument, with a large discourse, and all of this before you can reach my words. I should trouble the Reader in his purse and patience, if I should follow you in all these particulars, and indeed I was scarce ever brought so near to a nonplus. To speak to all, Time will not suffer; and to take to some, and leave others, will expose me to censure. Your distinctions should be looked into, and if they had been either proved or explained, you had done your Reader a Favour. Your first distinction is between Constitutive Justification, 
His distinctions considered.  or remission by the Gospel-grant or Covenant; and Justification by the sentence of the Judge. I hope you do not make these two distinct Justifications, that so it should be a distribution of a Genus into its species, So I think few Readers will own it. But if you mean by the former, a Justification wrought, and in itself perfect and complete, as your word constitutive would seem to imply; And by Justification by the sentence of the Judge, Justification manifested and declared, than I freely yield. That is Justification in itself, perfect and full, that renders a man blessed; And this your constitutive Justification, which you call remission by the Gospel-grant doth, Psal. 32.1. Commented upon by the Apostle, Rom. 4.7, 8. Whether the Elect shall have any other justification, or this manifested, and more fully held out, let Christ himself determine. At the day when God by him shall judge the world, he will pronounce this sentence, Come ye blessed of my Father, Matth. 25.34. This Justification then by the sentence of the Judge is a manifestation of this blessedness, which is in remission and non-imputation of sin. Your next distinction is between, Constitutive Justification as begun, and as continued or consummate. And here I doubt not but you may distinguish, provided that you donot divide and make one condition to be required for the first, (as you use to do) viz. Faith only, and another (which is works) the condition of the second; When David through faith was put into a justified state, and after fell into sin, there was a necessity of his return in the order established of God. You may say, if you please, that works must now acquit him from this second guilt: but this I shall hardly embrace. He sought in his fallen condition, to have sin by free grace remitted, and to be purged with that, which Hysopin Ceremonial purifications did typify, Psal. 51.7. A justified state is carried on in a way of obediential affiance; But faith in Christ's blood, first and last doth only justify. The Apostle speaks of the falls of the Children of God, when he says, If any man sin, 1 John 2.1. and tells us the way to be acquitted, not any new, but the old and first way: We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sin; And I know no other way of propitiation, then through faiths in his blood. I know what you say, Pref. to your Confess. pag. 8. if I number right, They are very different questions, How we are constituted just, or put into a justified state at our conversion; & How we are sentenced just, or justified at God's Judgement seat. You may if you please make them two questions, but were I to be Catechised by you, I should give you the same answer. And I believe Paul was of the same mind, when he desired to be found, (as I think, in judgement) not having his own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. I think he could find no other, which would be as a Screen, or cover, to hid sin, or keep off the wrath of God. He knew nothing by himself; He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent; Yet he was not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4.4. Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience, they are all within the command of the Law; and I dare not rest there for Justification. And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousness. You farther say in in the place quoted: They that will needs (to the great disgrace of their understandings) deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgement, mu●t either say that there is no Judgement, or that all are Condemned; or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation, as its distinct species; but some men shall then be judged, who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned. All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch, I know no Justification to be expected then, specifically distinct from that which did precede. I would for the bettering of my understanding learn, whether this Justification at the day of Judgement be not a Justification of men already justified, yea of men already in possession of their Crown, (except of those who then are found alive) though not complete, in regard of the absence of the body; I have fought a good fight, (says the Apostle) I have finished my course, henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown. This must needs be, unless we will be of the Mortalists Judgement, to deny any separate existence of the Soul; Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping: both of them against the Apostle, who saith, To be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord, 2 Cor. 5.8. And upon that account, had a desire to departed, & be with Christ, Phil. 1.23. which present advantage seemed to him to over-weigh, or at least to balance all the good that the Church might reap by his labour surviving. Your third distinction is between the Physical operation of Christ and his benefits, on the intellect of the Believer, per modum objecti apprehensi, as an intelligible species; and the moral conveyance of right to Christ, and his benefit, which is by an act of law, or Covenant-donation. If you call the first a Justification, than very bad men, in the Church on earth, and the worst of Devils in hell, may be justified: They may have such operations upon their understanding. You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith, and this moral conveyance of right. Your fourth distinction is between those two question, What justifieth ex parte Christi, and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris. Which as it is laid, is without exception. Your fifth is, between the true efficient causes of our Justification, and the mere condition, sine qua non, et cum qua: Which I can scarce tell whether to approve or disapprove; with your comment upon it, I have spoken to it. Your last distinction is between Christ's meriting man's Justification, and this actual justifying him by constitution or sentence, which, as the fourth, is above exception.  
Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration.  
1. You say, Christ did merit our Justification, or a power to Justify, not as a King, but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant. This I embrace with thanks, and do believe that it will draw more with it.  
2. You say, Christ doth justify constistutiuè, as King and Lord, viz. ut Dominus Redemptor, i. e Quoad valorem rei, he conferreth it, Ut dominus gratis benefaciens; But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi, Ut Rector et Benefactor. For it is Christ's enacting the New Law, or Covenant, by which he doth legally pardon, or confer remission, and constitute us righteous, supposing the condition performed on our part. And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer, but jointly, Ut Benefactor et Rector. Hereto me are termini novi, and Theologia nova. But let the terms alone of Dominus, Redemptor, Rector, Benefactor, That which you ascribe to Christ in this place, (so far as I understand) Scripture still gives to the Father. Christ gave himself for us, indeed, according to his Father's command; but the Father gives him to us, and he that gave his Son, appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, John 3.16.  
So that this New Law (if you will call it so) is of the Father's appointment, John 6.40. This is the will of him that sent me, that every one who seethe the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life. And in this sense, if we will follow Scripture, The Father justifies, Rom. 8.33, 34. It is God that Justifies, which is that condemneth? Christ's work, is to work us into a posture, to obtain it. The Father judicially acts in it.  
3. You say, Christ doth justify by sentence as he is Judge, and King; and not as Priest. Answ. If he justify by sentence, Then he condemns by sentence, when yet he says, I 1.47. He judges, (that is) condemns none. The truth is, as the Psalmist speaks, God is Judge himself, Psal. 50.6. and the Apostle tells us, he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by the man whom he hath ordained, Act. 17.31. This unquestionably Christ doth as King; but in this Kingly power, he is no other than the Father's Agent, who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion, Psal. 2.6. He is therefore at the Father's right hand, as prime in power for that work. Those that are next to him, that is chief, are so seated, and Zebedees' Children looked for it, in Christ's temporal Kingdom. When this is done, Christ's mediatory power will be finished, and he shall give up his Kingdom to the Father.  
4. You say, sentential Justification, is the most full, complete and eminent Justification, That in Law being, quoad sententiam, but virtual Justification. Answ. To this I have spoken upon the first distinction.  
5. You say, Faith justifies not, by receiving Christ as an object; which is to make a real impression and mutation on the intellect; according to the nature of the species, I say to justify is not to make such a real change, etc. Answ. To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith. The works ancedent to this of Justification, as Humiliation, Regeneration, faith, imply a real change. Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul, though the act of Justification do not work it.  
6. You say, Faith can have no physical causation or efficiency in Justification, seeing that the work to be done by us, is not, nosmetipsos Justificare either in whole or in part, etc.  
7. You say, The legal formal interest, or conducibility of faith towards Justification, cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law sense, etc.  
I have spoken to both of these in the place last mentioned.  
8. You say, Scripture doth not say (that you can find) that faith justifies, but that we are justified by faith, and therefore (you say) you use the latter phrase, rather than the former. Ans. This sure comes to fill up, or make a number, To say that we are justified by faith, and not that faith justifies, is a distinction without a difference: We have warmth by Clothes, but Clothes do not warm u●. Faith hath no less efficiency in Justification, then in miraculous cures, and yet in them faith made whole.  
9 You say, Though ex parte Christi, our several changes proceed from his several benefits, and parts of his office exercised for us; Yet ex parte nostri, i.e. fidei, it is one entire apprehension or receiving of Christ, as he is offered in the Gospel, which is the condition of our interest in Christ, and his several been fits; and the effect is not parceled, or diversified, or distinguished from the several distinct respects that faith hath to its object, etc. Answ. It is well that this is confessed, on the part of Christ. And I think you cannot show, why Christ should undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorship, and make them known to us likewise; That we should be taught in our Catechism (which is so honoured with your approbation) That Christ executeth the office of a Prophet, in revealing to us by his word and Spirit, the will of God for our Salvation; That he executeth the office of a Priest, in his once offering up of himself a Sacrifice to satisfy divine Justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continual intercession for us; That he executeth the office of a King in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, if our faith is not to observe, which way these various privileges accrue unto us; Why does the Scripture so distinctly speak of them, if we may not distinctly consider them? Must our intellect go without our faith in this thing? I think it may be proved, that the Saints faith, hath thus distinctly acted. In danger of enemies they go to God in Christ, in consideration of his sovereignty, As Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 20.6. O Lord God of our Fathers, art not thou God in heaven, and rulest not thou over all the Kingdoms of the heathen, and in thy hands is there not power and might, So that none is able to withstand thee? etc. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher, We see the censure that the Psalmist passes upon himself, So foolish was I and ignorant, I was as a beast before thee, and presently addresses himself to God, Thou shalt Guide me with thy counsel, and bring me unto glory, Psal. 73.22, 24. Under the burden of sin, to look to be cleansed and purged; To what else did the sacrifices tend? and why else did David make his address? Wash me thoroughly from my sin; Deliver me from blood-guiltiness. Here I must lay down certain propositions, in a more full way to explicate myself.  

Propositions tending to explain the Author's meaning  1. That these several functions of Christ must be distinguished, but may not be divided; He that is one is all, Christ a Priest doth rule, Christ a King doth merit and teach, Christ a Prophet doth both merit and rule: But as a Priest he doth not rule, as a King he doth not merit; he is still one, in all of these functions, but acts under a distinct notion.  
2. There is a necessity of the actual improvement of his Kingly and Prophetic office, to bring men into a Justified state; and to bring Justified one's to the end of their Justification. There must be light to lead men to Christ, power to subdue men unto him, as well as a price paid to reconcile them. When the price of our redemption is paid by Christ, and not published, it is like the hid treasure, by which no man hath advantage: Yea, were it made known, and by faith applied and brought home, our enemies yet are so potent and numerous that they would still prevail against us. Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Father's Justice, we must be rescued by a power out of the hands of Satan; When his right determines, (as it is with many unjust possessors) he will yet keep his hold.  
3. Our faith hath respect to whole Christ, to every part and piece of his Mediatorship. It yields to his sovereignty, is guided by his counsel, and rests in his atonement. So that the faith which Justifies looks at his Kingly office, at his Prophetic office, as well as at his Priestly office, but not as it justifies. Quà teaching, it looks upon him as a Prophet, and learns; Quà ruling, it looks upon him as a King, and submits to him; Quà sacrificing, and making atonement, it looks upon him as a Priest, and rests there for acquittal and discharge. Where the Gospel distinguishes, our faith is distinctly to act and look.  
As to the charge laid against me, I shall say little. I had rather speak for truth then for myself. You tell me, that my expressions confound Christ and his actions, with man's faith in our Justification, or these two questions [by what we are Justified ex parte Christi] and [by what we are Justified ex parte nostri.] For answer, I only leave it to the Readers eyes, whether I do not mention, [our faith] as distinct from [the blood of Christ] in the words by you recited; And it is faith by which we are Justified ex parte nostri. The employed sense which you accuse, I shall further consider in some express reasons.  
Now for your arguments, we have ten in number, and not above two of them conclude the proposition in question.  
Your first concludes, That Christ is not received as Christ, 
Mr. Brs. Arguments examined.  if not as Lord-Redeemer, which is a new phrase, which I remember not, that I have read before I read this Apology. For Answer, I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer, and as our Master or Teacher, but faith in Justification, eyes Redemption, not Dominion.  
Your second concludes from the authority of the Assembly, That Justifying faith is the receiving of Christ, as he is offered in the Gopel; But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord. All which is that which never was denied.  
Your third concludes, That to save from the power of sin, is as true a part of a Saviour's office, as to save from the guilt, which is not at all to the question. Saving from the power of Sin, Sanctifies, and not Justifies.  
Your fourth, Of faiths receiving Christ, as he Justifies us, affirming, that he Justifies us, as King, & Judge, and Benefactor, is the same, for aught I can discern, with your tenth, and there is to be considered.  
Your fifth is, If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor, be the only faith that gives right to Justification; then on the same grounds we must say, It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification. If you put this argument into form, the word [meritor] will be found aequivocal, and the Syllogism to consist of four terms. We look at Christ for Justification, as satisfying Justice, and meriting pardon and remission, not as meriting Sanctification.  
Sixthly you say, Rejecting Christ as a King, is the condemning sin, therefore receiving him as King, is the Justifying faith. This is like the old argument, Evil works merit condemnation, Ergo good works merit salvation. An ill meaning damns, Prov. 21.27. Our good meaning therefore saves. I further answer, Rejecting Christ as a King, is a sin against the Moral Law, which damns: Yet somewhat more than subjection to the Moral Law is required, that a sinner may be saved. You give in your reason of your consequent, Because unbelief, say you, condemneth, (at least partly) as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith; explaining yourself, that you speak of that condemnation, or peremptory sentence, which is proper to the New Law. To this I answer, Unbelief, if we speak properly, doth not at all condemn, further than as it is a breach of a Moral Commandment. The privation, of which you speak, only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us: which me thinks should be your judgement as well as mine, seeing you are wont to compare the New Law (as you call it) to an Act of Oblivion, And an Act of Oblivion saves many, but condemns none: If a Traitor, or Murderer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion, it is their crime that condemns them, only the Act provides no remedy for them. It harms them not, only it does not help them. If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent, Numb. 21. had refused to have looked on the braz●n serpent, The sting had been his death, and such obstinate refusal had kept him from the means of cure.  
Your seventh is, Kissing the Son, and submitting to him, as King, is made the condition of escaping his wrath. Answ. If you had said A condition, you had spoken fairlier [The condition] implies the sole condition. The yielding up of ourselves to him in all his functions, as the Lords Christ, vers. 2. is there understood, which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath.  
Eighthly, you say, Matth. 11.28, 29, 30. The condition of case and of rest (from guilt as well as power of sin) is our coming to Christ as a teacher and example of meekness and lowliness, and our learning of him, a taking on us his yoke and burden. Answ. This text shows the duty of men to be, not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ, but to learn of Christ, and follow him: But neither their learning nor their imitation, but faith in his blood, is their freedom, or Justification.  
Ninthly, you say, That faith which is the condition of salvation, is the condition of Justification or remission: But it is the receiving of Christ as King, as well as a satisfier, that is the condition of our salvation; Therefore, etc. Answ. Here the Conclusion is safely granted. You know that we yield, that the faith that accepts Christ as a King, Justifies: But that is not the Justifying act. The hand hath more officers than one; It works as well as receives; and so hath faith. And that there is more required as a condition to Salvation then to Justification, (speaking of it in Scripture phrase) you yield sufficiently, where you distinguish of Justification begun, the condition whereof is faith only, and Justification consummate, there you bring in Repentance and Obedience; That which you call Justification begun, is Justification properly so called. Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God; but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications, to hold us up in communion with God. Of this I have spoke, Chap. 1.2, 13, 14. of my treatise of the Covenant.  
Your tenth and last reason is, If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat, i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis, than it is merely, strictly, and properly the Justifying act of faith, as the accepting of Christ's righteousness is: But the Antecedent (you say) is granted by all Divines that you have to do with: Therefore, etc. Answ. If they grant your Antecedent simply, as in this phrase you deliver it, I much marvel. This seems to imply that Christ acted quà Lord, in paying the price of our Redemption: and that this work of his, is to be referred to his exaltation, and not to his state of humiliation: And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise. That which I yield is, That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer, is the faith which Justifies, and the condition of our Justification; But as it looks upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priesthood, 
The distinctias fides quae and fides quà, asserted.  done by him who is indeed a Lord and King, sit only Justifies. But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat, and Fides quà Justificat, is (as you are pleased to say) the general cheat, so that your Antecedent it seems is granted you, by all those Divines with whom you deal, under this limit; And as it seems, you have met with a pack of impostors, & that of the most learned in the Land, that out of their great condescension, have written for your satisfaction. This word, you think, sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon, as indeed it doth, and is no small blemish to his great pains, you may then judge how it will take from yourself, in the ears of others: And I much marvel that this distinction, that every where else would pass, and be confessed to be of necessity, to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities, in which men usually act, should here not alone be questioned, but thus branded. Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them? And do not men that make address, address themselves in like variety? He that is at once, a Husband, a Parent, a Master, a Schoolmaster, a Physician, acts variously according to all of these capacities. Some come to him as a father, some as a Master, some as a Teacher, all of them come unto him, as a Physician; But only they that come to him, as a Physician, are cured by him. Believers through faith go to Christ, that bears all the relations mentioned; But as they seek satisfaction in his bloodshedding, which is an act of his Priesthood, they are justified. Learned Amesius may worthily be ranked in the first place amongst those that you thus honour. As soon as he enters upon the dispute of justifying faith, in answer to Bellarmine's first question, What that faith is that is required to justification? he says in the name of Protestants, 
(a) Hoc ipsum vel imperitè, vel sophistice, in quaestionem vocatur. Name, 1. Multa ad justificationem requiruntur quae non justificant. 2. Non tam quaeritur quae, aut quid fides quae justificat, quam quae sit ratio quâ propriè dicitur justificare.  This is either unskilfully or sophistically put to the question, giving in his reasons. 1. Saith he, There are many things required to justification, which do not justify. 2. It is not so much enquired into, what that faith is, which does justify; as in what notion it is that it is said to justify? And giving answer to farther words of Bellarmine, he saith in the same page, that 
(b) Observandum est, nos non restringere fidem illam quae justificat, sed tantum quà justificat, ad promissionem misericordiae. Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Christ only justifies.  Protestants do not restrain the faith [which] justifies, but faith [as] it justifies, to the promise of mercy. Much more may be seen in this Author in his next Chapter, Sect. 1. Sect. 8. which I leave to the Reader to consult at pleasure. And together with it, that which may be seen largely in Chemnitius, enquiring into the proper object of justifying faith, in his Examen Concil: Trident: mihi pag. 159. under this head, Quid verè & propriè sit fides justificans, & quo sensu scriptura velit intelligi, quando pronunciat impium fide justificari.  
I shall here take the boldness to give in my arguments to make good, that faith in Christ, quà Lord, doth not justify.  
1. That which the types under the Law, appointed for atonement and expiation, lead us unto in Christ, our faith must eye for atonement, expiation, and reconciliation; This cannot be denied; These Levitical types lead us doubtless to a right object, being Schoolmasters to lead us unto Christ, and shadows whereof he is the substance; As also to that office in him (who is the object of faith) that serves for this work: But these types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office, for the most part as Sacrificing, sometimes as interceding, John 1.29. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Pet. 1.18. A great part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a proof of it.  
2. That which the Sacraments under the Gospel, setting forth Christ for pardon of sin, lead us unto, That our faith must eye, for Reconciliation, Pardon, and Justification; This is clear, Christ in his own instituted ordinances, will not misguide us: But these lead us to Christ suffering, dying for the pardon of sin, Mat. 26.28. This is my blood in the new Testament shed for you, and for many for the remission of sins. Here is a confirmation of both these arguments in one; The types of the Law, and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, lead both of them to his blood, for this reason of atonement and forgiveness. There was an old Testament enjoined of God, in which the people in convenant were sprinkled with blood, Exod. 24.1, etc. commented upon by the Apostle, Heb. 9.20, etc. That blood, and this cup, lead to Christ's blood for forgiveness, and in them the death of Christ is remembered. A broken, bleeding, dying Christ, in the Lord's Supper is received.  
3. As the Spirit of God guides faith, so it must go to Christ for propitiation and atonement; This needs no proof; The Holy Ghost is the best leader: But the Holy Ghost guides our faith to go to the blood of Christ for atonement, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, Ro. 3.25. It is blood is our propitiatory or mercy seat: We are justified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. And faith is our way of interest, and thither the Spirit of God, by the Apostle, leads our faith, as we see in the words mentioned. I am checked indeed by you, because I say, through faith in his blood, not faith in his command: quo jure nescio, say you. My reason, or warranty is; because I durst not add to the Apostles directory; when he leads us one way, I dare look no other. If he had intended to have led us to Christ as a propitiation, without further direction, under what notion our faith should have looked upon him; It had been enough to have said, that he is our propitiation: but distinctly pointing out [his blood] and [faith in his blood] I think I have warrant sufficient to lead souls hither, and only hither: especially seeing I find him still in the same language, Rom. 5.8, 9 God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath, through him. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins, Ephes. 1.7. The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. For as much as ye know that we were redeemed— with the precious blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish. You demand, Will you exclude his obedience, resurrection, intercession? To which I only say, I marvel at the question; If I exclude these, I shall exclude his blood; His shedding of blood was in obedience, John 10.18. Phil. 2.8. His resurrection was his freedom from the bonds of death, and an evidence of our discharge by blood: His intercession is founded on his blood; He intercedes, not as we, by bare petition, but merit: He presents his blood as our high Priest in the holy of holies. You tell me further, that the thing I had to prove, was not the exclusion of [faith in his commands] but of [faith in Christ as Lord and teacher.] I can no more distinguish [Lord] and [command] then I can [blood] and [sacrifice] it being the office of a Lord to rule, as of blood to make atonement. You yet tell me, It was fittest for Paul to say [by faith in his blood] because he intends to connote both what we are justified by, ex parte Christi, and what we are justified by, ex parte nostri, but the former principally. To this I say, If this were fittest for Paul, than it is unfit for any to come in with animadversions, and tell us of any other thing, either ex parte Christi, or ex parte nostri, for justification. I pray you rest here, and we are well agreed. Here is Christ's Priestly office on his part alone, and I am resolved to look no further.  
4. Our faith must look upon Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him, by virtue of which we may appear before God as righteous: But it is by his obedience as a Servant, that we obtain righteousness, and stand before the Lord as righteous, Rom. 15.19. By the obedience of one, many are made righteous.  
5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God, our faith must eye and follow: But Christ by death, the sacrifice of himself, brings us to God, 1 Pet. 3.18. Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.  
6. As Christ frees us from the curse, so he justifies us, and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification. This is plain; Justification being no other but our acquittal from the curse, which is the sentence of the Law of Moses, Acts 13.38. But Christ frees us from the curse, in suffering as a sacrifice, not ruling as a Lord, Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.  
I said in my Treatise of the Covenants, [there are several acts of justifying saith, Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification. It is not Abraham's obedience, Moses self-denial, gideon's or Sampsons' valour, that was their justification, but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit; Paul went in these duties as high as they; and I doubt not, but he overtopped them; yet he was not thereby justified.] Here are many exceptions taken. 1. At the phrase [an act of justification] with much ado made to know my meaning, when I had thought all had well enough understood it: You would fancy that I mean that justification itself acts, speaking of it, not as an object, but an efficient; but I must acquaint you, that it implies, that justification acts, when I speak of the acts of justification, as it doth, that harvest works, when I speak of harvest-work. I mean acts tending to justify, or exercised in, or about justification. 2. It is demanded, Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts, Heb. 11. are acts of justification? The proper importance of your words, say you, is for the former: but that, (say you) is a dangerous untruth, giving in v. 13. as an exception against it. Answ. I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith, in that indefinite speech of mine, which you cannot make necessarily to be universal. You have justly made exception of one, vers. 13. which in my ministerial way, preaching on those words, I have interpreted, as you say, our Divines do. It see●s by you, that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me. 3. You tell me, you should not (in my judgement) have called [abraham's obedience, Moses self-denial, gideon's valour] acts of justifying faith. Are these acts of faith? If you mean, (say you) that these acts are fruits of faith, it is true, or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul, etc. Answ. And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith? Is not this his error, as the former is mine? I pray you what was that [work of faith] that the Apostle mentions, 1 Thes. 1.3? Faith wrought and acted somewhat. 4. You demand, what mean you to say, obedience and valour was not their justification? Answ. If no act of faith, sano sensu, by an ordinary Metonymy, may be said to be justification, make then a comment upon the Apostles words, Rom. 4.3. where to overthrow justification by works, and to establish justification by faith, he says, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness: which is as much as, it was his justification. That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification, is not unfitly called justification. Faith in Christ's blood is such a plea, and therefore not unfitly called our justification. Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two; Then how come you to say next, (say you) that it is Christ's blood? The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification, etc. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been, which is the justifying act of faith, and which not? And therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification, (which I am forced to interpret [justifying acts] I expected to find the true act asserted; but in stead of that, I find the opposite number, is [The blood of Christ.] Is this indeed the controversy? Whether it be [accepting Christ as Lord] or [the blood of Christ] that justifieth? Never was such a question debated by me, in the way here intimated. I am wholly for you, if this be the doubt. H●re you meet with the greatest advantage, that I think in my Treatise you any where find; when I say, [these acts were not their justification] and put in opposition, [but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit,] it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties; but each one may see, and some have said, (that before we read this objection of yours,) that it is plain that I meant it. S●venthly you tell me, It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified, without flying to great impropriety of speech. Answ. I believe you think, that justifying faith includes in it, all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions, as Faith Dogmatical, or Historical, and (in all that had the gift of miracles,) Faith-miraculous. They had not one faith, whereby they had their interest in Christ, and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths, and a third whereby they wrought miracles: And to say that we are justified by such assent, or they, by such miracles, I think were a speech more than improper. You say further, That by justifying faith, I must mean the act, habit, or renewed faculty. And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts, that I should mean the last. Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute, whether that the acts and habits of man's soul, are of so distinct a nature, that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects, yet the habit producing all these is one and the same. To which I say no more for answer, but that I shall take it for granted, till I see (as yet I do not) convincing reason against it. Eighthly you tell me, that 1 Cor. 4.4. is nothing to our business. Paul was not his own justifier. Though he knew not matter of condemnation (sensu Evangelio) for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner) yet that did not Justify him; because it is God only that is his Judge. Answ. I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words, as to the first branch. He was one whose heart, as John speaks, condemned him not; but your reason why he was not thereby justified is very strange: Because, say you, that it is God only that is his Judge. And thus then the Apostle argues; God only is Judge to justify: But my innocency, or integrity is not God: Therefore it doth not justify. It seems that Abraham's works with you are God, for you tell us presently that he was justified by them. The Apostle indeed adds, in the following words, He that judgeth me is the Lord; But those words have not reference to these now in hand, as is plain in the context, but to that which he had spoken to vers. 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's Judgement, yea I judge not mine own self, to which these words come in direct opposition, But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues, He that must stand to the Judgement of the Lord, may account it a very small thing to be judged of men: But I must stand to the Judgement of the Lord: Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball, quoted by me in this treatise, which might be seconded by the authority of several others, and such (as he saith) renders the text strong against Justification by works. When you have expounded the words as you have done, they serve to shut out all works, in which Paul ever appeared, from Justification. There follows such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another. Can you hence prove (say you) that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification than you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Saviour.  
It seems every word in a whole treatise must immediately of itself, formally prove the main thing that is in question. It proves that works parallel to Abraham's offering Isaac, or leaving of his Country, are none such whereby men are justified. It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove.  
I brought in by way of objection that text of [James, and endeavoured to give some answer to it: 
James 2 24. vindicated.  James indeed saith, that Abraham was Justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his Son on the Altar, Jam. 2.21. But either there we must understand a working faith, with Pisator, Paraeus, and Penible, and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions, The one, whether faith alone Justifies without works? which he concludes in the affirmative; The other, what faith Justifies? Whether a working faith only, and not a faith that is dead and idle? Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle, who straight infers from Abraham's Justification by the offer of his Son, And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. How otherwise do these aceord? He was Justified by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, he was Justified by faith?] Here are many exceptions taken, If James must use the term [works] twelve times in thirteen verses, a thing not usual, as if he had fore-seen how men would question his meaning, and yet for all that we must believe, that by [works] James doth not mean [works] it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture, as the Papists would persuade us that it is. Answ. First, it seems the difficulty of interpretation is supposed, when the word is used 12 times so near together, otherwise I doubt not but yourself will confess a necessity of interpretation of this kind, which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity. Secondly, If I durst take the liberty that others assume, the doubt were easily solved, and say, that Paul speaks of a real Justification, James of an equivocal, which interpretation would far better suit here then else where. A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification, and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth, as a dead corpse doth of a living man. Thirdly, were you to interpret that of David, Psal. 22.6. I am a worm and no man, I think you would so interpret it, as to make him a man and no worm. But to leave Metaphors, 
Metonymies frequent in Scripture.  and come to the Metonymies of this kind. How frequently are such found in Scripture? which enforce us to say, that not to be in strict Propriety of speech, what Scrippture says, is. He hath made him to be sin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. When yet we must say, he was not made sin, an entity cannot be made a non ens, or mere privation; He was made then an atonement for sin, a sin-offering as we say, a Metonymy of the Adjunct. These died in faith, having not received the promises, Heb. 11.13. They had received the promises, Rom. 9.4. It is a contradiction to say, They died in the faith, and had not received the promise. It is taken there for the land promised; a Metonymy of the Object. When Herod the King heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him, Matth. 2.3. Jerusalem was not troubled; It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled, by a Metonymy of the Subject. This is the Will of God, even your Sanctification, 1 Thes. 4.4. and this was not, voluntas Dei, but res volita, not the Will of God, but the thing willed, by a Metonymy of the Cause. A Thousand more of these might be named, which yet are as well understood, as we understand each others common Language.  
2. Do but read (say you) over all the severses, & put [working faith] instead of [works] & try what sense you will make? Answ. Here is employed, that, As [works] are taken in some of these verses, So they must be taken in all, If there be no Metonymy in all, then there is no Metonymy in any. As one, so all are to be understood. But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ, Matth. 23.27. Com. 1. Pag. 110.111. 

One and the same word is often repeated in the same verse, or near to it, in a different sense.  
Infirma est haec consequentia, nititur enim falsa hypothesi, quasi ejusdem verbi repetitio semper eundem sensum postularet: cum contra pro circumstantiarum ratione saepe diverso sensu accipiatur, quem admodum illustria ex empla demonstrant.   You will find frequent instances where the same word, in the self same place or verse, must be taken in a different sense; in one properly, and in the other figuratively. Interpreting those words, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem; there lies an objection against him, that in Luk. 13.33. the words immediately before are, It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem, where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City itself, and not for the heads and leaders of the people. He answers, This consequence is weak: For it is built upon a false ground, as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense, when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place, it may be taken in a different sense, as many illustrious examples make manifest; Instancing in Joh. 3.17. God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, Where world in the first place signifies the earth, in the second place men on the earth, 2 Cor. 5.21. Him that knew no sin, he made sin for us, Where in the first place sin is taken properly, in the latter place by a Metonymy. 2 Chron. 35.24. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchers of his Fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. In the first place, Jerusalem is taken for the City, in the second place, for the Inhabitants of it. And so also, Matth. 2.1, 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem. When Herod the King heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; With further instances which there may be seen, concluding, that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false, that the repetition of the same word must be always in the same sense.  
3. No doubt, say you, but Paul and James handle two distinct questions, but not the two, that you here express. Paul speaks of meritorious works, which make the reward of debt and not of grace, if you will believe his own description of them, Rom. 4.4. But James speaks of no such works, but of such as have a consistency with grace, and a necessary subordination to it. I prove it: The works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform, or perish, 
Paul excludes not only works of merit, but all works, from Justification.  (supposing time) but the works that Paul speaks of, no man must endeavour, or once imagine that he can perform, viz. such as make the reward to be of debt, and not of grace. To this I answer, 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works, then according to you, he speaks of no works at all, for there are none such, no not in Angels, Confess. Chap. 3. §. 6: Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt, and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit, seeing, as he mentions none such, so there are none such. He exclude then works to which a reward is due, vi promissi, rather than meriti, As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace: for there is a matter of boasting in these, as we see in the Pharisee, Luk. 18.11. 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit, and I must believe him, so elsewhere he speaks of other works, and there both you and I are to believe him likewise. 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done, Tit. 3.5. Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace, v. 7. and it is of faith, that it may be of grace, Rom. 4.16. 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works, or that righteousness, which is not the righteousness of God by faith, Phil. 8.8, 9 that is, all the righteousness that is inherent in us, and not in Christ alone, and made ours by faith: therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousness, Jer. 23.6. and said to be made of God unto us righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. 3. He speaks of, and excludes, all those works which the Law commands, Rom. 3.20. Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge, yea the Law commands to take in grace, wheresoever there is a tender of it, for our assistance, Requiring a duty, it requires all necessary helps to it. And therefore Chemnitius observes, that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification, his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest, not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons, but Abraham, David, or the most eminent convents. 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works, that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto, in the place quoted, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by myself, yet I am not thereby Justified. He knew no matter of condemnation say you, sensu Evangelico, he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for: And yet he is not thereby justified. Though God will not condemn a man of that integrity, through grace, yet this doth not justify. This place, (saith Cartwright on the words) is the death of your Justification by works. For if Paul knew nothing by himself (in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty) and was not so much as in that point Justified before God, who is he that dares to Justify himself before God in any work? And Fulk on the words. Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithful service, and labour in the Gospel, therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace, in as great perfection as can be done of mortal man. If the whole discharge of Paul's ministerial function, wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines, was not such where by he could be Justified, How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaac, or Rahab in her hiding of the spies? If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit, we see what works he also excludes with it. You further say, Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally, but of Christ's merits and free grace, directly and purposely: So that the chief part of Paul's controversy was, Whether we are justified freely through Christ's merits, or through our own meritorious works. But James question is, Whether we are Justified by faith alone, or by faith with obedience accompanying it, and both, as subordinate to Christ's merits. Answ. Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the buy. Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often, 
Paul treats diversely and industriously of Justification by faith.  and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification, but that his scope is no less to show what justifies ex parte nostri, which it still faith, than what that is that justifies ex parte Dei, which is grace, or ex parte Christi, which is his blood or merit? Paul's question, you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification, James his question of the condition on our part. If you are in the right, Paul certainly was much defective in his Logic. We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion, & see how he concludes Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law. Inferences are made, and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute, and not from that which is collaterally mentioned, and upon the buy only touched upon: Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith, mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri, peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5.1. You further say, Paul speaks of Justification in toto, both in the beginning and progress, but especially in the beginning, but James speaks only of Justification as continued, and consummate, and not as begun, For both abraham's, and every man's was begun, before works of obedience. I Answer, Then works do not consummate; for Paul casts off all works from this office, and he speaks, according to you, of Justification in toto, and if James speaks of it only as consummate, and finished, why does he instance in Rahab, this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace? The Authors that you follow are wont to say, that Paul speaks of the first, and James of the second Justification, and it had been more for your advantage, fully to have followed them, then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first, yet speaks of the second likewise. Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it. Bellarmine, that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another, says, that Paul speaking of the first Justication, fetches a proof from Abraham, which is understood of the second Justification: and James speaking of the second Justification, fetches a proof from Rahab, which is the first Justification, which as long since I have observed, in the vindication of this text, agrees like harp and harrow. So that if the Authors that I follow have miss the meaning of these Apostles, those that follow you, are much less like to find it. Yet after all this labour, for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles, the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you, where we see in what judgement he both lived and died, taking it up as (he says) when he was a novice, and persisting in it to his last, wholly differing from you, and agreeing with me. In Paul the question is (saith he,) of sin in general, concerning which, when any man shall be therewith charged, there is no means whereby he may be justified, that is, justly assoiled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner, but by his faith in Christ's blood: Christ's blood having made satisfaction to God's Justice for sin, and his faith in it, giving him a right to it, and interest in it. This he understands of all sin, through the whole course of a believers life; first and last, faith is his way of Justification; Whereas in James saith he, the question is concerning some special sin, and the questioned persons guilt of it, or freedom from it. What special sin he means, he explains himself, to wit, Whether a man be a true or counterfeit, believer, a sound and sincere, or a false and feigned professor? In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged, may plead not guilty, and offer himself to be tried by his works, as in some cases Gods Saints have done, even with appeal to God himself. And what differs this from what I say? only the faith that is not counterfeit, but evidenced by works, justifies. The truth of his faith is questioned, whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged. This is no more than that which is ordinarily affirmed, that faith justifies the person, and works justify faith.  
4. You say, 
The ordinary exposition of the word (faith) Jam. 2.24. vindicated.  If with the named Expositors you understand by [works] a [working fâith] either you grant as much as I affirm in sense, or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end. Answ. It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse, and you very well save me the pains, when you add, I suppose you will say, Faith which Justifies must be working, but it Justifies not, qu● operans; And so indeed I do say, and you answer, true, nor quà fides, i. e. q●à apprehendit objectum, if the [quà] speaks the formal reason of its interest in Justification. To this I say, If it neither Justifies quà operans, nor quà apprehendens objectum, I would fain know how, or under what notion it justifies. Does it justify nihil agendo? I may well say, Cedo tertium? If you say, as I think you will, it justifies quà conditio: Is it conditio, nec operans, nec apprehendens? A faith neither working, nor receiving, is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of, that profits nothing. You demand further, Why cannot faith Justify except it be working? I answer, Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive, than it is in life: for if not alive, it cannot receive: If it be alive, than it doth work. You say, The Apostle doth not plead for a mere necessity of signification or discovery, but for a necessity, ut medii ad Justificationem, Even, that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness, and that by God. I answer, He inquires what that faith is, that is medium ad Justificationem, and determines, that it is not a dead but a working faith, that is this Justifying medium, and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation.  
When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation, you set upon my reason, and say, As for your single argument, here I answer, And I may reply, 1. That one argument to the purpose, is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the question. 2. That you might have found a double argument, but that you industriously leave out one, to make it single. You say, it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses, by [works] means not [works,] and by faith alone (which he still opposeth) doth not mean faith alone, and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former, or the force of one cited Scripture. And I hope I may without offence tell you,  this kind of reasoning, or answering, adds advantage, neither to your cause, nor reputation. You take it for granted, and would persuade your Reader, that if I suppose the word is once figurative, (where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense, and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel, which was my second reason by you omitted) that I must therefore so interpret it all along. But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary, and are directed where you may be further furnished. I conclude, that when James affirms that faith without works is dead, and therefore cannot justify, ad says, Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac, which Scripture says was a work of faith, of if that do not please, was done by faith, Heb. 11.17. and further says, that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfilled, which says, he was justified by faith; Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith; which is alone of possible power to justify, when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham, to the faith of Abraham, as we see, Heb. 11.17.  
In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenant; which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place. What sad effects, say you, it may produce, to teach the world, that the only justifying act of faith, is, the accepting of justification as merited by Christ's blood, or the accepting of Christ's righteousness to justify them, it is not hard for an unprejudiced man to discern. For my part, in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have trial of, I can find no commoner cause of their general delusion and perdition, than this very doctrine. Answ. To this I might have many things to say.  
1. It is the hard fate, 
Desperate Conclusions inferred from right principles.  (if I may say so) of Christian Religion to have inferences of this kind drawn from her principles. And yet the way of Christians hath not been, either to desert the principles from which they are drawn, nor yet to own or defend the inferences or conclusions that are drawn from them. The Apostle affirming that the exaltation of God's glory, in not utterly casting of the Nation of the Jews, was eminently seen in their disloyalty and covenant-breaking with him; Inference is presently made, that covenant-breaking, and disloyalty, cannot then be blamed. If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner? That which advanceth God's glory cannot be charged as a sin, Bat covenant-breaking with God, (according to the Apostle) adds to his glory, and therefore it cannot be charged as a sin: If answer be made, that this exaltation of God in his glory is by accident, and no thanks to him that breaks covenant, but to the goodness of God that brings good out of evil: From this, inference is made also, Let us then do evil that good may come, which Conclusion was slanderously charged upon the Apostle, Rom. 3. vers. 8. The doctrine of God's free election of some, and passing by of others, occasioned two desperate inferences; 1. That there is then unrighteousness with God, as deserting, yea hating his creature without cause, Rom. 9.14. 2. That God then without reason finds a fault with his creature, this being his will, who can resist it? Ro. 9.19. The wits of some have been indeed busied to put such a comment upon the Apostles words, that no such inference as these, with any colour, or show of reason, can be drawn: and thereby make it appear that their comment is utterly dissonant from the Text; for from the Apostles doctrine, these inferences, in the judgement of blinded reason, and rules held between creature and creature, seem directly to follow, as evidently appears in the Apostles answer. To come nearer to the business in hand, the Apostle making it his work to advance Gods free grace in man's justification, some feared lest their sin was above the grace of a pardon: To satisfy these, the Apostle tells them, that where sin abounded, grace doth superabound, Rom. 5.20. So that the greatness of their sin exalts the free grace and favour of God: an inference is presently ready, Let us then continue in sin, that grace may abound, Rom. 6.1. And here indeed was as fair and full encouragement to sin, as any that you hold out, in your objection against this doctrine; this very use which you say is now made by wicked ones, of this Doctrine, generally taught by Protestants, was made (as is said) in the Apostles times, by the Gnostics and others, who maintained, that it was enough to believe that Christ died for sin, though a man lived in all wickedness and ungodliness. How could this so soon spring in the Church, but that carnal ones found somewhat that would bear some colour on which they might bottom it? as, omne mendacium fundatur in aliquâ veritate, as may be seen verified in the instances mentioned. Let not Christian doctrine then be blamed upon the account of such desperate deductions, and cursedly wrested inferences. As soon as reformation began, and this doctrine among others appeared, it is well known what from the adversaries it suffered. As it was laid to the Reformers charge, that they made God the author of sin, so that Gibieuf with his black mouth, makes Calvin worse than the Manichees: so also that they utterly laid aside all care and regard of good works, or ways of godliness, and that upon account of their doctrine, that faith alone justifies. It is well known with what a belly they use to picture Luther, as if his work had been alone to drink. And Bellarmine taking upon him in the preface to his fourth Tome, out of the Revelation, to set out what a creature a Lutheran is, saith, that those that are addicted to their belly for the most part fall to them. And their orator, Turner, in his elegy of Drunkenness, applauds the Lutherans with a bene secistis, in that they have lest the Catholic Church, to betake themselves to that party. How full their invectives were against Calvin and Beza, and all of their opinion, as enemies of all godliness, and friends of profaneness, almost all books of popish writers may witness. Those things are famous that Bellarmine out of Bolsecke and Colcheus quotes to this purpose. Granatensis in his dedicatory Epistle before his Dux peccatorum, having laid this down as a maxim, that Holiness and purity of doctrine is a certain mark and note of true faith and Religion, and asserted, that there hath been no sect from the beginning of the world, if we run through all ages, to be compared with Christians, for doctrine of concernment to man's Moral conversation; he enters comparison, first, with Heathenism, then with Turkism, then with Judaisme after Christ's coming, and lastly takes notice of the lives of Heretics in the primitive times; of the Manichees out of Austin, Of the Gnostics out of Epiphanius, Of the Carpocratians out of Austin, than he falls upon his own times, and says, The Heretics of our own times are no more holy. They that have fetched back the errors of faith of former Heretics from hell, are also diligent followers of their practices; what holiness of life, saith he, is to be expected from the Lutherans, that with their special faith have set open a door to all impiety? and the wicked practices of the Calvinists are better known, saith he, than we desire: and thereupon tells us two tales, first, that some that neighbour upon Geneva, being demanded, why they did not reject the Catholic, and receive Genevas Gospel, answered, That was not to be wondered at, for said they, the words and books of Calvinists, stuffed with lies and fraud, are carried further than the narrative of their wickedness; But to us (say they) that go every week to their Market, it is well known to be a kingdom of hellish confusion, and therefore their Gospel doth not take with us. His next is, of a certain Minister of theirs, who a few years before went into Hungary, & petitioned a Bashaw of the Turks for liberty to preach their Gospel to the Christians that lived among the Turks under tribute; and to persuade the said Bashaw to grant his Petition, he began with many reasons to tell him, that the Religion of the Calvinists was most near to that of Mahomet. And having ended his request, the said Bashaw answered, I see that you Calvinists and we are like to be shortly one, Save only that leaving the drinking of water to us, you will keep yourselves to wine, and be drunk with it. Charges of this nature, Lutherans and Calvinists were wont still to hear, but divine providence, through grace, hath so ordered, that these Calumnies, as with a beam of the Sun, have been dispelled. The holy lives of those that appeared for this doctrine hath been an abundant real comfutation. Not to look beyond the seas where we might be furnished with several instances, let Jewel, Grindall, Pilkington, Raynolds, Fulk, Whitaker, Perkins, Fox, Greenewood, Dod, Hilderson, Pemble, Ball, and many others, with their Followers, witness. In so much, that by degrees, shame hath caused them to forbear this Language. And as for those who of latter times have receded from this doctrine of this supposed danger (as Montague and his followers, as may be seen in his Gag, and Appeal) whether their lives and zeal for the Gospel did at all outstrip those already mentioned, whose supposed errors in doctrine they went about to correct, I leave to all of impartial judgement to witness. How great a trouble is it then to have this, by a man of your name and reputation, now revived? For that experience of yours, of which we have already heard, and you further enlarge, 
The assertion (that faith in Christ's blood is the only justifying act) acquit from danger.  in your affirming that you never met with the most rebellious wretch (except now and then one under terrors) but when they have sinned their worst, they still think to be saved, because they believe; and what is their believing? why they believe that Christ died for them, and therefore God will forgive them, and they trust for pardon and salvation from Christ's death and God's mercy. To this I answer: Though I do not in any other thing appear in competition with you, yet here I may say, my experience hath been of a longer standing than yours, yet I can say, it answers not that which you here mention. When I have to deal with such that you name, if they look out of themselves at all, it is usually to God's mercy. He is, say they, a merciful God, and at what time soever a sinner repenteth from the bottom of his heart, he is ready to receive, and so relying on God's mercy, they will take their time for their return. Which is answered also, as is evident in the experience of others. Read Practical Treatises, and published Sermons, and see whether this plea be not commonly spoken to: Ordinarily their answer is, that their good do, their Prayers, and Repentance, must save them. Few comparatively will have Christ in their mouths, till he be put into their heads. And if they hit upon faith, as sometimes they will, they yet know not how to terminate it on Christ's blood. It is only a good belief, that God will not deal so with them. Such a faith the Plain man's pathway to heaven, out of much experience of such men's answers, doth notably decipher. It is a rare thing to meet with one that will argue as you would put it into their mouths, viz. He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified: But that have I; For I accept of Christ to forgive and justify me by his blood: Therefore I am justified. But in case any shall thus reason, you say you are not able to answer, and I shall not presume to be your teacher. But me thinks you might deign to learn of Mr. Gataker, and tell such a disputant, that it is not every thing that bears the name of faith, that is an acceptation of Christ to justification. You may acquaint him, that there is a true and sincere faith, and that there is a false and counterfeit faith; and that it is not enough for justification to say, that a man hath faith, but sound and sincerely to believe. If he say, that his faith is not dissembled, but sincere, put him upon that which Mr. Gataker says, is Saint James his way of trial, If he will have faith to justify his person, let works then justify his faith. There is life in that faith that takes Christ's blood for justification, and that faith that hath life to take, hath life also to work. Where a receiving or taking faith is, there Christ is, and where Christ is, the soul can do all things through Christ that strengthens. So tha● if the man be such as you speak, his faith is cast, at the first sight, and evidenced to be no better then counterfeit, and is no medium to justification. He may talk that Christ is his, but it is clear that it is on a cracked title: and his faith being no better than you say, had he all the Logic in the world, here he must be non plussed. And here I would willingly learn how you will convince such a man of whom you here speak, upon your own principles. If he shall argue, He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified: but that have I; for I take Christ as my Saviour, and Sovereign Lord: Ergo. Seeing there are many that profess to take Christ for a Lord, as well as a Saviour, that must never enter into the kingdom of heaven, Mat. 7.21. If they do not spit at Christ and defy him, they persuade themselves that they serve him. A service of Jesus Christ, with their own most favourable and easy comment upon it, they doubt not will save them. And I know no viler persons in the world, than those that say, that they love and serve Christ with all their heart, and that their good works and serving of God must keep them from hell and damnation: As I once heard a man stark drunk on a Lordsday profess, that fall back, fall edge, he would never leave serving God whilst he lived. These, if they may be believed, have as good an heart to God, as he that is most precise in all the world. And if they be wanting in that acuteness of Logic that you before mention, they may be well helped, out of your principles, which they may find anon, thus to reason. He that falls short of the precepts of the Law, and requisites in the Gospel, may yet be justified and saved, if he answers to the conditions of the Gospel-covenant: But thus do I: although I come not is to the precepts of the Law, not to what is required in the Gospel, yet I answer to the conditions of it, for according to you, these come short both of the commands of the Law, and the precepts of the Gospel. Though they do not all that is commanded them neither in Law nor Gospel, yet they hope they do that which will save them. They have their faults, they confess, and who, say they, is free? Few days pass over their heads, but they say, God forgive me. What you say is their wickedness, they will say is innocent and praise worthy; I never knew a more vile wretch than one that would say, that he thought in conscience he served God better on a Sunday, spending six pence in an Alehouse to help a poor woman with her children to live, then in going to Church, when his own wife and children stood in a much need, as any Ale-wive's whosoever. Look among Papists, who look upon works, not only as such that justify, but also merit, and supererogate, and see how far they exceed those that hold this, which you call so dangerous a principle. They are Saints here, they say, compared with those in Italy and Spain; this being the place of their persecution: Yet Doctor Hall observes in his serious dissuasive from Popery, that he never yet could know that Papist, which made conscience of all Gods ten moral Laws: so that in leaving our principles to choose theirs, upon a design to advance good works, you much mistake your way, and go about to work with a wrong engine. And I can conclude no other, but that these inferences are without reason, and that there is no Gospel-principle that can be laid down, but men may alike wrest to their own perdition.   

SECT. II. Man's Evangelicall, Personal Righteousness, is not here perfect.  
THe next in order which you examine is, concerning the instrumentality of faith in Justification, which is already spoke to and inserted into the body of the Treatise: and therefore I pass to your third, to which you speak, Sect. 28. pag. 41 entituling it, Of Evangelicall, personal Righteousness: Where you set down words of mine at large; and then subjoin; The third opinion which you rise against, is, that which you take to be mine, as your citing my words doth manifest. Where I do not then cite any words which are yours, nor use your name, I pray you, let me not hear any such charge. I am loath to cause this piece to swell with repetition of all my own words. That which I excepted against, was, 
The author's concessions vindicated.  [That our personal inherent righteousness is affirmed to be perfect] and a charge of intolerable ignorance laid upon learned men that speak otherwise.] Here, I partly employed, and partly expressed several concessions, which you take hold of, and raise several questions about them. 1. I yield [a righteousness of this kind inherent in Christians, though I deny such a perfection] as I take to be asserted in your Treatise. And here you think, I am already caught. For ens and perfectum, are, say you, as convertible, as ens and bonum, or ens and verum. And after pains taken out of Scheibler, and Scaliger to correct my ignorance, you tell me, It is a Metaphysical, transcendental perfection that you speak of, which hath no contrary in being, which consisteth in the presence of all things necessary to being, etc. And you warn me still to remember, that you take it not, de perfectione accidentali but essentiali. And I wish that you had told your Reader so: I am confident there was not one that did so understand you in your Aphorisms. When we dispute, whether such, or such a thing be perfect, or imperfect, we take it for granted, that there is such a possible imperfection, of which we dispute. If I dispute the truth of this proposition, Coelum movetur ab intelligentiis, I do not question whether this be truly a proposition; but whether in the common acceptation, it be logically true; whether the predicate be truly affirmed of the subject. Did not you speak of righteousness, and so of holiness, as it denominateth the subject? not as an abstract, but a concrete, and so susceptible of magìs and minùs, (if Qualities do suscipere magìs and minùs,) and such as is subject to contrarieties? When learned divines have spoke in your hearing, (as you imply that they have done,) of imperfect righteousness, can you think that it was in their heads to take it in that sense, in which a little learning might acquaint them, that there is no possible imperfection? 2. I further yielded [a perfection of the subject, as opposed to hypocrisy, dissimulation, or doubleness, and a perfection of the entireness of the object, respecting, not one, or only some, but all commandments, called a perfection of parts.] This you say, you do not understand, though I think, few other Readers have been so quick, as to discern any difficulty. When Divines speak of universal obedience grounding their words on several Scripture-Texts, do not they ordinarily explain themselves, 1. Of an universality of the Subject? when the whole man is brought into obedience, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Thes. 5.23. The very God of peace sanctify you [wholly] per omnia perfectos, Vatablus reads it, and puts in the margin, vel totos, according to our reading, wholly: And then adds his comment, The following words declare what that [wholly] is, 
Vel totos, sequentia declarant istud totos: hoc est in spiritu & in anima & in corpore.  viz. in soul, in spirit, and body. This is the perfection of the subject of which I spoke, and as I thought, sufficiently explained myself. 2. Of an universality of the Object, when not one, but every command is heeded, as Psal. 119.6, 128. You tell me, you charitably conjecture, that when I speak of a perfection of the object, I mean a perfection of our acts, as they respect the object extensively. And if you please but to make use of your eyes, they will inform you, that nothing else can be my meaning, and so I shall not stand in need of your charity in it. And hereupon you fall to distinguish of objects, I know not why, but that I may know, (which I well knew before) that you can distinguish. You tell us of objects of absolute necessity, and objects of less necessity. For answer to which, it is enough for me, that there is such an entireness in the soul, respective to all known obliging commandments, that denominates the man in an Evangelical sense, universal and entire in his obedience.  
After a large discourse to show how our righteousness is essentially perfect, you seem thus to sum up all, pag. 43. Take up all together then, and you will so, that, 1. Righteousness is formally a relation, 2. And that not of our actions or dispositions to the mere precept of the Law, determining of duty as such (Commonly called the Moral law) but 1. To the law as determining of the conditition of life or death, 2. To the promise and threatening of that Law which are joined to the condition. But you should consider, that we are talking of a Rule, without consideration either of reward or punishment, and you run out into a discourse of a Covenant. The query is, Whether righteousness be perfect or imperfect: You fall upon it, as a condition of Justification, which never was put to question. And you well know, that those learned men whose ignorance you thus challenge, never had any such thing in their thoughts, Making the Scripture their study, and Protestants writers their Comment, they find Justification by the blood of Christ, Rom. 5.9 and interest in this blood alone by faith, Rom. 3.25, 28. and works they find again and again excluded. I wish you to consult the Homilies of the Church of England, especially the Homilies of the Salvation of Mankind by Christ our Saviour, pag. 14. Having touched upon divers passages of Saint Paul, This is added, In the aforesaid places the Apostle toucheth especially three things which must go together in our Justifycation, upon God's part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ's part, Justice, that is, the satisfaction of God's Justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, & shedding of his blood, with the fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ— And therefore Saint Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his Justification, but only a true and lively faith. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God to be joined with saith in every man that is Justified, but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying, With much more to the same purpose. Your Readers that are not so much seen in the Language of Bellarmine, and Suarez, as they are in the Scriptures, or at least, that do not so much heed them, deny all that you take for granted. In which also you have phrases more uncouth to your Readers, than any that I have uttered can be to you; to be righteous signifieth, say you, quoad legem novam, non obligatus ad poenam, & cui debetur praemium. This signification, according to this new law, I think was never found in any of our old and new Dictionaries. Those that are righteous shall be thus acquit, and rewarded, we believe, but not upon account of any righteousness inherent in them, but the righteousness of Christ made theirs by faith: and so their faith is accounted to them for righteousness. You than add, So that you see that your first righteousness [non reatus poenae, vel jus ad impunitatem & ad praemium] as it requires Christ's perfect satisfaction as a medium to it, by which all the charge of the Law works must be answered; So it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace, as an other medium, by which Christ and his benefits are made ours. I had thought that our righteousness had not been non reatus poenae that is not the thing, at best, were it as perfect as adam's was, but reather non reatus culpae. If a man be charged with Murder, his righteousness as to this charge, is, his not-killing, and not his non-obligation to the Gibbet, That follows upon it; non reatus, is not of the essence of righteousness, nor is reatus of the essence of sin, otherwise then consecutive. And that Christ's righteousness should be thus called a medium, I do not see. I think it is the thing itself, and not a medium to it. And that our righteousness is any medium to Justification as it is inherent, I deny: and that our inherent righteousness required by the Law of Grace, stands in any such subordination to the righteousness of Christ, as a necessary means to make it ours, I see your word for it, but I think (and the reformed Churches are of the same mind) that I have the whole current of Scripture against it. You close up this discourse thus; And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty, that it might be not my fault, that you are in ignorance all over; But I have said the less, because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our righteousness, in answer to the Animadversions of an other learned brother. But it is worth inquiry whether this learned Brother have received satisfaction from that more exact pains of yours. Perhaps his learning may serve to give as exact an answer. And if his greater learning be not satisfied, with that which is more exact and elaborate, my less learning may well remain as much unsatisfied with less exactness. And your Reader will think you were not so well advised, to publish yourself, and conceal your most exact opening of this point of so great concernment. Though you might think, that any thing might serve me, yet all your exactness will, I believe, be little enough in this point to give satisfaction to many Readers.  
Whereas you had said in your Aphorisms, pag. 122. Imperfect righteousness, is not righteousness, but unrighteousness. 
Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction.  It is a contradiction in adjecto, yet there admitting an imperfection in holiness, I answered, [I never took imperfect righteousness to imply any such contradiction, more than imperfect holiness] To this you reply, 1. By a way of concession, that holiness is taken, first, for the relation of a person or thing dedicated to God, So it admits not of magìs and minùs more than righteousness; 2. That the common use of the word, Holiness, is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man, & this is confessed to have its transcendent perfection, as well as righteousness. Hitherto we are agreed; but here, say you, is the difference, Holiness thus taken is a quality, which though it have the truth of being, yet it is intendend and remitted or doth recipere magìs & minùs righteousness is a relation which in suo formali is not intended or remitted. And is not Righteousness a quality in like manner, which is intended and remitted? when Zachary says, 
Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted.  We are delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, to serve in righteousness and true holiness, Is not the one a qualification by a new work of the Spirit, as well as the other? When the Angel said, Rev. 22. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still: As [unjust] and [filthy] hold out vicious qualities from the flesh, so [Holy] and [righteous] both signify renewed qualities by the Spirit. It follows, Nay if you will exactly open it, it will appear that the righteousness in question is a relation founded in a relation. Yea more, that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis nec intenditur, nec remittitur, & this is that I mean by perfection, besides the aforesaid transcendental perfection. And how shall we know what the righteousness in question is? either it must be gathered out of your own words, or out of their words, that you censure as guilty of such ignorance, as before; Let us look upon your own words, Thess. 2.2. which you there comment upon. In this fore-explained sense, it is that men in Scripture, (say you) are said to be personally righteous: And in this sense it is, that the faith and duties of believers, are said to please God, viz. as they are related to the covenant of Grace, and not as they are measured by the Covenant of works. Are not [faith] and [duties] here our personal righteousness? and is not [faith] a branch of holiness as well as it is of righteousness? And hath it not its degrees as well as righteousness? Surely the Apostles thought so when they prayed, Lord increase our faith, Luk. 17.5. And the Lord Christ had no other thoughts, when he rebukes his hearers for their little faith, Matth. 6.30. And commends the Woman of Canaan for the greatness of her faith, Matth. 15.28. And as it riseth and falls, so do other duties with it: they are more intense, or remiss, in like manner. And as for their speeches which you challenge; do you think that their ignorance was in that measure intolerable, as to believe the righteousness of what they spoke was a mere nonentity, i.e. had nothing of the being of righteousness in it? They doubtless looked upon righteousness as a renewed quality, as you do upon holiness, and the Apostle, both upon holiness and righteousness, Eph. 4.24. The new man is so put on that we must be still putting it on. It follows, that seeing these things are exactioris indigationis, understand that the reason of my assertion lies here: The law as it is the rule of obedience, doth require perfect obedience in degree, and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree, as being short of what the rule requireth, and it being these actions with their habits which we call our holiness, therefore we must needs say, our holiness is imperfect. And if our righteousness were to be denominated from this law, commanding perfection, we must say, not that such righteousness were imperfect, because the holiness or obedience is imperfect, but it is none at all, because they are imperfect. It seems you intent here, exactness equal to that in which you appeared to the learned brother before mentioned; and as you did distinguish before of a metaphysical and moral perfection, so you seem here to distinguish of righteousness and holiness: either as a duty performed by men in the Covenant of grace according to rule; or else as a condition required by the Covenant of works, respective to the attainment of life upon terms there required. This seems to be your meaning in your last words in this Paragraph: Duty simply as duty, and holiness or supernatural grace as such may be more or less; But holiness and duty, as the materia requisita, vel subjectum proximum justitiae, consistit in indivisibili. How duty and holiness can be the subject of itself, I know not; for so they are, if they be the subjects of righteousness. That righteousness in which we must exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees is our duty, and our holiness as well as of our righteousness; but if you carry it thence to make it the righteousness of the covenant of works, it is easily granted, that the imperfection of it, renders it as no righteousness respective to that end of attainment of life by it. A Pharisee might as well be justified upon the terms of that covenant, as Noah, Daniel, and Job, Zachary, and Elizabeth, or any other of those, that were most perfect and eminent in righteousness. But I think, no Reader could observe either in your own words, or theirs that you censure, any such meaning.  
To assert the imperfection of our righteousness I said, [Isaiah, I am sure, saith, All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, Is. 64.6. no greater charge of imperfection can lie against the most imperfect holiness, than the Prophet lays upon our righteousness, Interpreting the Prophet's words, as I think the sense of them is generally given by interpreters ancient and modern. But seeing you go off to speak of righteousness of another kind, I will not contend. I there added, [Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect, taken materially, and righteousness perfect, taken formally in reference to a rule.] After such courteous censure that you please to give, you fall to examine what that is, that I understand not. In which you take one piece of my sentence apart, and say, [How holiness should be imperfect, taken materially,] sure you understand that. It is therefore, say you, no doubt, the other branch that you mean, How righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a rule. If the Reader please to consult my words, he may see that I put them not divisim, but conjunctim, giving in my reason, why to me it is non-intelligible, telling you that [we may for aught I know, as well make holiness formal, and refer it to a rule, and righteousness material, in an absolute consideration, without reference to any rule at all.] This you disjoin from the rest, and fall upon my words apart; for what reason, is best known to yourself; And I leave it to the Reader to judge, whether that I may not call holiness perfect, and righteousness imperfect, as well as you may call righteousness perfect, and holiness imperfect; and whether there is not a materiality, and formality, (not in the one, or the other)) but in the one, as well as the other: and this was that which I spoke to. And any man that understands no more than I, will (I think) take this to be a material exception against that which in your Aphorisms was delivered. You say, if you, or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness, if I once know your minds, I will not contradict you, for I find no pleasure in contending about Words, but for myself, I must use them in the common sense, if I will be understood. 
Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used.  But you might have done well to let us know that, that is the common sense of the word righteousness, (taken for personal inherent righteousness) which you here use; till I see that made good, I shall judge it to be your own peculiar acceptation of it. I would know what interpreter of Zachary's words, Luk. 1.75. of Paul's words, Eph. 4.24. of John's words, Revel. 22.11. do put such a difference as you make between righteousness, & holiness, as to make one a renewed quality of the Spirit, the other no such thing, but a relation in esse formali, to what you must explain yourself; I have read so much difference indeed made, as to put holiness for duties of the first Table, in immediate reference to God; righteousness for duties of the second Table, in immediate concernment to man: but thus taken, they are both equally new qualities from the Spirit, and have their intention and remission, one, as well as the other. And I have read a rule given, that where they are put together (as in the Scriptures quoted) they are to be distinguished as before, but where the one is put apart, it is to be understood as comprehensive of both. It were easy to show, that writers of most eminent name promiscuously use these terms of righteousness and holiness. But for your interpretation, for aught I know, you are alone in it, speaking as you do, and entituling your discourse of personal inherent righteousness. I added, 
Moral perfection, or imperfection is in reference to a rule.  [And in such consideration, (viz. without any reference to any rule at all) I do not know how there can be perfection, or imperfection, (either in holiness, or righteousness: Is is as it they come up to,) or fall short of the rule, that they have the denomination of perfection, or imperfection.] To this you say, At the first view the sentence seemed so strange to me, that I thought it meetest to say nothing, because it is scarce capable of any apt answer, but what will seem sharp, or unmannerly: Now you have found out a way to speak, both mildly and mannerly, you think, (it seems) that your words will be more heeded, then at other times. You further say, That which I say you may consider, is something, or nothing: if something, and yet not capable of perfection, or imperfection, it is such a something, as the world never heard of till now. I had thought, on the contrary, that there is many a thing in the world, (& I believe shall think, when you have spoke all that you can against it) capable neither of moral perfection, or imperfection, and of such perfection we speak, when we speak of inherent personal righteousness, and therefore uncapable either of perfection, or imperfection, because there is no rule by which they are measured. The Schoolmen, you know, speak of actions preventing reason, which they say are actions of men, but deny them properly to be actions humane, as you may see in Thom. 1, 2. quaest. 1. art. 1, 2. as to move the foot, rub the beard, when a man's thoughts are intent on somewhat else. These, they use to say have neither rectitude, nor irrectitude in them, are neither good, nor evil, and therefore neither perfect, nor imperfect. But if all actions of men must be also humane, and such that reason orders, according to rule, or at least ought to order, and are therefore either right or obliqne, as some in opposition to Schoolmen do determine; yet doubtless it is not so in the actions of brute creatures: These have neither moral perfection, nor imperfection, seeing they act by no rule, save that of nature's instinct. And if all rule were taken from man, his actions would be parallel. Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, and consequently no conformity, nor inconformity, no rectitude, nor irrectitude, and so neither perfection, nor imperfection. You add, But upon second thoughts, I find that your words, de justitiâ may be born, for it is nothing that you speak of. This I think is such an answer, that few will see either mildness, or manners in it. I speak of man's personal righteousness, and so do you: This you affirm to be perfect, and charge learned Divines, as before, for charging it with imperfection. And if it be nothing, you might well have kept silence, for [nothing] suffers nothing by their language. That which follows, must at least be repeated: But that holiness taken for spiritual habits and acts, can have neither perfection or imperfection; or that, that they are capable of no perfection, or imperfection, in any other sense, but as related; nor yet in relations to God, or the person dedicating, save only in relation to the Rule; all these for the first reason, shall have no answer but a recital. I might say of much that is here repeated, Tu male dum repetis, incipit esse tuus. And I think that which you now repeat, is not such that you may say, magnâ front recitâsse, est refutasse. To this supercilious reply, I only say; that this is the first time that ever I heard of holiness of separation, dedication, or relation, applied to acts, or habits of this nature. And what else, but the reference to the rule, can denominate them imperfect, I would you had spoke out. They are sinful only, according as they transgress the rule, and righteous as they hold to it, and by consequence, I think that they are either perfect, or imperfect, on like account.  
I added in my Treatise; [Paul's Gospel's frame, whether you will call it righteousness, or holiness, is set out I am sure, Rom. 7. full of imperfection, yet all this as in reference to the rule, as it answered, or fell short in conformity to it, v. 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man.] Here you begin to quarrel with the phrase, and say, Is not [righteousness] or [holiness] as scriptural, as Logical, as plain a term, & as fit for disputants as [Gospel frame?] I answer, yes doubtless, when they are used Scripturally, or Logically: but when your Reader is confounded with the use of these terms, making one imperfect, and the other uncapable of any imperfection; making one to stand in conformity to a rule, the other without any such conformity at all; taking one Metaphysically, and not telling us how you take the other: sometimes telling us that you take holiness for the qualities, and actions of a spiriturally renewed man, elsewhere, that it signifies no more than a dedication to God, either by separation only, or, by qualifying the subject; first, with an aptitude to its divine employment, and then separating, or devoting it, I was put upon it, to seek a third word, to hold out that which I mean by righteousness, and holiness; and learned men mean, when they speak of imperfect righteousness, which also is the same with your qualities, or actions of a spiritually renewed man. You further say, Till I further know whether by [Gospel-frame] you mean, Habits, Acts, Relations, (and what Relations) or what else, I shall pass it, as uncapable of a better reply. Adding further, Did not I acknowledge expressly as much imperfection, as you here affirm, of Paul's frame; why then do you intimate by your arguing, as if I did not? Answ. If you did expressly make such acknowledgement, surely you knew what you meant, when you did expressly acknowledge it, and how is it then that you are so to seek in my meaning? you tell me further, There is a twofold rule, or action of the Law; which our habits, and actions do respect, as you say, you have oft said. The first is the precept determining the duty simply; this, all our habits, and actions, come short of, and therefore no man hath righteousness consisting in this conformity, The second is the promise, or that act going along with the promise, whereby God determineth of the condition. To this I say, If I had spoken of [action of Law,] confounded [rule] and [action] together, I should have heard of it. And if you have often said, that there is such a twofold rule, I think no other man, but yourself, hath said it, and I neither hear of Scripture, nor reason for it. We are speaking of agenda, and not credenda; and that here should be any rule de agendis, but the precept determining of duty, or that the promise, 
There is a righteousness, in an imperfect conformity to the Law.  or any act that goes along with the promise (which what it means, I cannot imagine) should be any rule of our actions, I never heard, but from your mouth. And for your inference, That all our Actions and Habits, coming short of the precept, determining of duty, no man therefore hath a righteousness consisting in this conformity, I should think, all but yourself, would take to be a Non sequitur. There is a righteousness in conformity to the precept, which yet falls short of a full and perfect conformity. Look I pray you upon Zacharie, and Elizabeth; that have this praise in the Gospel, that they were both righteous before God, and by what rule this righteousness had its denomination, let the Text be consulted. If walking in all the ordinances, and commandments of God blameless, give men the denomination of righteousness, than there is a righteousness in conformity to the precept? But walking in all the commandments, and ordinances of God, denominates men righteous; Ergo, doing righteousness denominates righteous; He that doth righteousness, is righteous, 1 John 4.7. And what should be the rule of doing, but the precept, I cannot imagine: If we break the precept when we sin, the precept is our rule; but we break the precept when we sin, 1 John 5.4. Abel hath often that Testimony to be righteous, and that because his works were righteous, 1 John 3.12. And so Lot, in like manner, 2 Pet. 2.8. there is a righteousness then in conformity to the Law of works, though not to the covenant of works. Zachary says, We are redeemed to serve without fear, in holiness and righteousness before God, 
B. concedimus renatos diligere deum & proximum; sed imperfectè diligere, & per consequens imperfectè legem implere.  Luk. 1.74, 75. And this righteousness, is not without its rule, and hath no other rule then that which Zacharies righteousness had, in the sixth verse of the same Chapter. There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law; and so an imperfect righteousness in conformity to it. (b) We grant (saith Davenant) that the regenerate love God, and their neighbour, but they love imperfectly, and by consequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly, de Justit. actuali, p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Paul's frame, (as you say, you do,) you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law, and an imperfect conformity to the Law. It is in reference to the Law, that he had his imperfections, and gradual inconformity. He delights, he says, in the Law, in the inward man, but sees an opposite power, drawing him aside, and he quotes the precept, and not the promise annexed, Thou shalt not covet, to which in such imperfection he conformed.  
I added in my Treatise, [Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers, that commonly understand the word [Righteousness] and [Righteous] as it refers to the old Rule, I profess myself to have little of their learning, but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance. I know no other Rule, but the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.] Here you first complain of want of candour in me in not repeating all that you spoke, and if is but this once, that I know, that I am thus charged: And the sense, I think, is full in those words that I do set down. Secondly, you go about to clear yourself from some aspersions, concerning harsh speeches used by you against learned Divines: in which, you say, you speak not to me, but to others, standing thus charged by them, and not by me. In which I am well content that you should stand as right in your Readers eyes as you can desire, and shall forbear to rake further into that ulcer. Thirdly, you take me to task, and are content to put my name at length, As for Mr. Blake's profession, that he hath little of their learning, but is wholly theirs in this ignorance, I did still think otherwise of him, and durst not to have described him: But yet my acquaintance with him is not so great, as that I should pretend to know him, better than he knows himself, and I dare not judge, but he speaks as he thinks. Good Sir, say it over again, that it may be known from an hand of your eminence; that I say, my learning is little; and that I speak it, not more modestly, then truly, neither do you know, how much I suffer, that it is no more. Yet, lest the cause in which I appear should suffer with me, or rather in me, let me assume so much boldness, as to tell you, that I yet think, that, that little which through grace I have obtained, may serve to satisfy those arguments, which this piece of yours holds forth against me. I have been often confounded with your multitude, but never perceived myself shattered by your strength; not that my learning is equal with yours, (I know myself better, then to enter such comparisons) but your cause is unequal to mine. Your advantage is not so great against me in the greatness of your abilities, as mine against you in the goodness of the cause. It would often go ill with a good cause if the most able Advocates should not sometimes be worsted, in the presence of impartial Judges. Should you and I make exchange, So that I were to appear in the cause that you maintain, and you in that which I defend, a weaker than you, would easily do that, which I think you have not yet done. But your willingness is observable to take a hint from my mouth, to strip me of all the learning of these learned men, charged with intolerable ignorance; and leave their ignorance only with me, as the whole you are willing to allow me. Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavours to help me out of my ignorance in this. Let me be hold to show him, (say you) part of that, which he saith he is wholly ignorant of: That our personal inherent Righteousness is not denominated from the old Law, or Covenant, as if we were called righteous (besides our imputed Righteousness) only because our Sanctification, and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works. But I were ignorant indeed, if you could surprise me with your confounding of these terms, [Law] and [Covenant.] Those two I take much to differ. In your Aphorisms, (where you think you speak most full, and here complain, that I omitted somewhat of that which you there said) you have the word [Law] and the word [Rule:] But I hear not of the word [Covenant] at all. But here, Law, and Covenant, are confounded, as though every Law were a Covenant, and every Covenant a Law. And I were yet more in ignorance, if I should let your Syllogisms pass, as you have laid them down. The first of your seven is, If no man be called Righteous by the Law of works, but he that perfectly obeyeth, (so as never to sin) than no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous (nisi aequivocè) by that Lawy: But the Antecedent is true; Therefore so is the consequent. Here I would desire that you would explain yourself, in what sense any Law can call any particular man Righteous? The Law lays down general Rules, and makes not particular application to this, or that person. If you mean that no man hath the denomination of a righteous, or just person, upon his observation of the precepts of the Law, you must except Zachary, and Elizabeth, and all other which in Scripture have the title of just, or righteous. I pray you consult Calvin on Luke 1.6. 
(o) Neque enim est haec definitio negligenda, justos esse, qui vitam suam formant ad legis praecepta. Dominus, quia illis peccata non imputavit, sanctam illorum vitam licet imperfectam justitiae titulo dignatus est.  Neither is this definition, saith he, to be neglected, that they are just that frame their lives according to the precepts of the Law; and afterward adds, Because the Lord doth not impute unto them sin, he honours their holy life, though imperfect, with the title of righteousness. See also Rivet, on Gen. 6.9. Exercit. 5.2. 
* Perfectio verò inchoata per omnes parts in nobis etsi non absoluta per gradus, est sincera & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum totam legem obedientia, sive sincerum ac serium studium obediendi Deo secundum omnia ejus praecéta.  Perfection begun in us, in all parts, though not complete in degree, is a sincere and undissembled obedience according to the whole Law, or a sincere and serious endeavour of obeying God according to all his Commandments. God in the Covenant of Grace, looks upon and accepts a sincere endeavour of ordering our conversation according to the precepts of works. All the rest of the arguments, carry it to a denial of justification by the Law, (which is far from me to go about to assert) but touch not upon denomination of [righteous] or [righteousness] upon a sincere endeavour of conformity to the Law. Who knows not but that the Law curseth upon the least trangression, were there not a redress in the Gospel? yet men of Gospel-grace, to whom sin is not imputed, are denominated righteous upon their sincere, though weak endeavour of conformity to the Law. 
(p) Potest homo in se justus denominari ab illâ qualitate justitiae quae est quantumvis imperfecta modo vera: at non potest constitui justificatus coram Deo nisi ab illâ justitiâ quae omnes perfectionis numeros comprehendit.  A man may, saith Davenant, be denominated just 
(q) A man may be denominated just from that rule that will not denominate him justified.  in himself, from such quality of righteousness, which is true, though it be imperfect, but he cannot be constituted, justified before God, but from that righteousness, which compriseth all kind of perfection in it. Davenant, de Just, habit. pag. 342. 
* Mortui sumus legi, diversâ ratione. Nam legi ceremoniali ratione necessaria observationis, justificationis & condemnationis: morali vero non ratione justitiae seu observationis, sed justificationis & condemnationis.  We are dead to the Law, saith, Gomarus, upon a several account. To the Ceremonial Law, as to necessary observation, justification, and condemnation. To the Moral Law, not as to righteousness, and observance, but as to justification. Gomarus in Galat. 2.19. So that the whole of these seven Syllogisms, may be put to the other thirty one, concerning unbaptised persons, believing in Christ Jesus. There is not one of the Conclusions that touch me. I say not that the Law judges righteous, or that men by the Law are judged righteous, but that God in the Covenant of Grace, calls weak conformity to the Law, [righteousness] and men of such conformity [righteous.] Davenants distinction of denomination of a just man, and a justified man, is a sufficient answer to all these arguments.   

SEC. III. The Moral Law is a perfect rule of righteousness.  
IN the next place, you take me up for saying, [I know no other Rule but the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule:] And make it your business to Catechise me better: And thereupon you say, distinguendum est. And so we have a multitude of distinctions, (too many to write out) with this Elegy] upon them: I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions is beyond dispute. But I confess, I cannot be induced to be of your mind. 
Mr. Brs. distinctions discussed.  I think the solidity of some of them may well be disputed; and the necessity of most of them (as to our business) wholly denied. I am to seek, how the preceptive part of the Law of nature, delivered to Moses, and the preceptive part of the Law of nature, now used by Christ, as his own Law, (which is one of your distinctions) do differ. Whether Christ and Moses, in holding out a Law of nature, stand at any such distance, may at least be disputed, though perhaps, when others see it not, you may be able to conclude it. I as yet neither know, any detraction from, or addition to, the preceptive part of the Law of nature by Christ. I think there was neither any abolition, addition, or diminution respective to the Law thus considered, made by our Saviour. I do not yet see reason so much as to recede from that opinion, that this Law, as delivered by Moses, is binding to Christians. If you be able to conclude the negative, yet I know, that as it hath been, so it may be still disputed. And when we are speaking of the rule of Righteousness or obedience, which is the line and thread according to which our actions should be squared, (under which you justly comprehend the prohibition as proeceptum de non agendis) I see no necessity of talking either of a rule of reward, or punishment, or a rule of the condition of the reward, or punishment; which is another of your distinctions. These three last Rules, if they be true Rules, may here, as to this business, be very well overruled. They are not at all essential to a Law, as coming neither within the direction for duty, nor obligation to duty, but only serve ad bene esse, to quicken our obedience, and to withhold from transgression. As to the [Promise] God might have commanded us to work, and never have told us of any pay, and, The [Punishment] is upon supposal of failing in duty. And if you thus bring them in, as accessary parts of the Law, yet I see no imaginable reason to speak of them as Rules, unless it be such as God hath proposed to himself, in his way of distributive Justice. They can be no Rule to us, determining only, (as yourself observe) what shall be done to us, not what shall be done by us. The first branch then of your fourfold distinction of a Rule is here alone of useful consideration, that is, the Rule of Obedience, or what shall be due from us. We have nothing to say here either of the Rule of Reward, or Punishment, nor of the Rule of the condition of the Reward, or Punishment, which are your other branches. And that only, I here intended; and I had thought, all I would have known that I only intended it. This you say, you suppose is my meaning, as well you might: but withal you say, It is strange to your ears; and give your reasons. 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature. Doth not the Law of nature (say you) as well as the Positive Law determine de debito poenae, as well as de debito officii? But sure debitum officii, and not debitum poenae, is our Rule. 2. You say, If you took it for the whole of nature, is that the only Rule? And here comes in, it seems, that which is strange to your ears; that I should make the Moral Law, as determining the debito officii, our only Rule, perfect and complete: Which assertion being so unanimously received, might well have delivered you from all wonder at the strangeness of it, 
With whom they join that oppose the perfection of the Moral Law.  how erroneous soever you had judged it. Undertaking the negative part, and impleading it of imperfection, you have indeed Arminians, Socinians, and Papists, on your part. But Protestants (for aught I know) unanimously your adversaries. Papists have their Traditions added as well to the Law, as to the Gospel, which is an accusation of the written Law, as imperfect: They have also their Evangelicall Counsels, which though they are not commanded, yet (as Bellarmine speaks) are commended, as raising Christians to an higher perfection, than ever the Law required. Socinians (with whom many Arminians join) affirm, that Christ hath instituted new precepts of Obedience in the Gospel; and added them to the Commands of the Law, such as transcend and exceed all that were delivered in Old Testament-times. Gerrard having disputed for the perfection of the Law against Papists, cap. 14. De Evangelio, saith, The Popish opinion of New Laws promulgated by Christ, the Photinians (which is an other name of Socinians) greedily embrace; making a fair way for Mahometism, seeing that in the Alcoran it is in like manner said, That Moses gave a Law, less perfect, Christ more perfect, and Mahomet most perfect of all. Out of the Cracovian Catechism in the same Chapter, Gerrard quotes this passage, Christ came not only to fulfil the Law for us, but added new precepts to it. These new precepts, (the same Author saith) they make twofold: Some of which do appertain to manners, Some to ceremonies, or outward rites in worship. He names three that appertain to manners: To deny a man's self; take up his Cross; and follow Christ: Which three precepts my Author in way of opposition saith, belong to the first Commandment. Peltius in his Harmony of Arminians and Socinians, Chap. 4, 4, 6. showeth their combination against the Orthodox party, as in many other things, so in this proposition now controverted. He there quotes from Socinians these positions: That Christ in the New Testament did not only abrogate the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, but did much increase and add unto the Moral Law: That he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; which fulfilling, (saith he) is nothing else but a perfecting of it, and addition of what was wanting: That we ought not only to observe those things that are given to us of God, and not abrogated by Chrijst, but those precepts in like manner that are added by Christ. Much more from many Socinians, and Arminians, may be seen in that Author to that purpose. Dr. Hammond in his Practical Catechism, speaking of Christ's Sermon in the Mount, agrees indeed with the Papists against the Protestants, That Christ doth not here expound Moses, and vindicate the Law from false glosses, but that he adds to the Law, and names many additions to the 6. & 7. Commandment, & other Commandments, but dissents from Papists that make these Evangelicall Counsels, and makes them precepts; not precepts of Moses, but of Christ, added by him to the Law: but this with much Modesty, as though he would not be peremptory in his opinion. So that 
* Authorities vouchsafed for the perfection of the Moral Law as a Rule.  Mr. Burges, pag. 166. handling controversies about the Law, saith, I shall now handle the perfection of it, and labour to show that Christ hath instituted no new duty, which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses. And this question, (saith he) will be profitable, partly against the Arminians, partly the Papists, and lastly, the Socinians. He further saith, pag. 169. That Christ did not add new duties which were not commanded in the Law, because the Law is perfect, and they were bound not to add to it, or detract from it, Therefore we are not to conceive a more excellent way of duty, then that prescribed. Further, if we speak of holy and spiritual duties, there cannot be a more excellent way of holiness, this being an Idea, and representation of the glorious nature of God. Dr. Ames in his Sciagraphia, handling the Decalogue, makes this his first doctrine, 
(a) Lex ista Dei quae in Decalogo continetur est perfectissima regula ad vitam hominis dirigendam.  The Law of God contained in the Decalogue is a most perfect Rule of the guide for the life of man. He gives four reasons, with an use of information, 
(b)  legem istam Dei eo loco habeamus quo debemus i. e. ut non aliter de eadem cogitemus quam ut de vitae nostrae unica forma & tanquam de illa norma quae nullum habet defectum sed perfecta est in sese & perfectionem omnem à nobis requirit.  That we esteem this Law as it ought to be esteemed, & that, as the only Rule of our lives, and such a Rule that hath no defect, but is perfect in itself, and requires all perfection in it. Davenant de Justit. actual. cap. 40. pag. 463. saith, 
(c) Ipsa le● Christi est exactissima & pefectissima regula Sanctitatis et justitae  The Law of God itself is a most exact and perfect Rule of Holiness and Righteousness: And in the proof of it saith, 
(d) Passim in Scriptures confirmatur quae perfectionem legis divinae mirificè extollunt.  This is every where confirmed in Scripture, which wonderfully extols the perfection of the divine Law. Downham in the preface of his Tables of the Commandments saith, that, The Law of God is perfect, requiring perfect obedience both inward and outward, not only in respect of the parts but of the degrees. The Leyden Professors say, 
(e) Tam perfecta est haec lex ut nihil ei in praeceptis moralibus aut à Christo aut ab Apostolis ipsius additum fuerit quoad exactiorem bonorum operum normam sub novo Testamento sit adducta.  The Law is so perfect, that nothing in Moral precepts, either by Christ or his Apostles, as any more exact rule of good works hath been added under the New Testament. Disp. 18. §. 39 Vrsinus in his definition of the Moral Law inserts this, 
(f) Obligans omnes creaturas rationalies ad perfectam obedientiam internam & externam.  binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience both inward and outward, Pag. 681. Chemnitius entitles his third Chapter de Lege, 
(g) De perfectâ obedientiâ quam Lex requirit.  Of the perfect obedience which the law requires, and presently lays down these words, 
(h) Variis autem corruptelis omnibus temporibus, & olim, & nunc depravata est doctrina de perfectâ obedientia, quam Lex Dei requirit.  This doctrine of the perfect obedience which the Law requires, in all ages past hath been, and is now depraved. Bucan in his Common places, Pag. 188. thus defines the Moral Law; 
(i) Est praeceptio divina continens piè justéque coram Deo vivendi regulam, requirens ab omni homine perfectam & perpetuam obedientiam.  A divine injunction containing a rule to live piously and justly before God, requiring of all men perfect and perpetual obedience towards God. I shall conclude with the Confession presented to both houses of Parliament, by the Assembly of Divines, Chap. 19 2. The Law after his (i. e. adam's) fall, continued to be a perfect Rule of Righteousness, and as such was delivered by God on mount Sinai in ten Commandments; To these, more might be addded, but these are sufficient to take you out of that wonder that I should assert the perfection of it.  
But I shall not rest barely upon the authority of these testimonies, but offer to your consideration these following reasons. 
Arguments evincing the pefection of the Moral Law.   
1. If the Law be not a fully perfect and complete Rule of our lives, than there is some sin against God which is not condemned in the Law, this is clear; Deviation from any rule given of God is a sin; Deviation from that supposed additional rule is a sin: But there is no sin which the Law doth not condemn; Sin is a Transgression of the Law, 1 John 3, 4. He that sins, transgresseth the Law.  
2. If the Law alone discovers and makes sin known, than it is a perfect, full, and complete Rule; this is plain: Omne rectum index est obliqui. But the Law alone discovers sin, Rom. 3.20. This office is ascribed there to the Law, and is no other but the Moral Law. Had not the light of that Rule guided him in this work, he had never made any such discovery. And it is the moral Law written in the decalogue that he means, as appears in the quotation; I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  
3. That which alone works wrath is the alone Rule and guide of our lives. This is clear, in what sense soever it is, that we take working of wrath: whether we understand it of working of wrath in man against God, as some do; Man's heart being apt to rise against him that will exercise Sovereignty over him. Or of the wrath of God kindled against man upon transgression of the Law. But it is the Law that works wrath: it is ascribed to it, and it alone, Rom. 4.15.  
4. That which being removed will take away all possibility of sinning, that is alone, the Rule of our obedience: This is plain; were there any Rule, the transgression of it would be still our sin. But the Law being removed, all possibility of sin is taken away: Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, Rom. 4 15.  
5. If the Law only adds strength to sin, viz. for condemnation, than the Law is the alone Rule of obedience: This is plain; Any other Rule whatsoever adds like strength to sin, and upon transgression will condemn. But the Law only adds strength to sin, 1 Cor. 15.56. The strength of sin is the Law.  
6. Either the epithet [moral] is not justly given to the Law, or else it is a perfect Rule of manners, that is, of obedience: This is plain; for moral denotes, as Amesius observes, that use of it. But this epithet given to the Law, and appropriated to it, was never (as I think) upon any such account challenged. Ergo.  
7. Either this new Rule doth transcend the old Rule of the Moral Law, requiring a more exact degree of perfection (as Papists speak of their Evangelicall counsels, & Socinians of their additional Gospel's precepts) or else it falls short and admits of obedience in a degree more low. If it require obedience more high, then even the doers of the Law, in the greatest height and possible supposed perfection; though equal to the Angels, are sinners: The Law might be fulfilled, and yet disobedience charged. If it fall short of the old Rule (which it seems is your opinion, seeing you confess an imperfection is our personal righteousness, as it refers to the old Rule; and assert a perfection, as it relates to the new Rule) than the new Rule allows that which the old Rule condemns, and so you bring in a discrepency between them, and find an allowance for transgression. So that I think, I have sufficient authority, divine and humane, with reasons that are cogent, to conclude that which I have asserted, That the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, is a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.  
You come in here with six several exceptions taken against the 
(a) Exceptions taken against the perfection of the Law.  perfection of this Law, or singularity of it, as rule.  
1. You demand, What say you for matter of duty to the positive 
(b) 1. Exception.  precepts for the Gospel? of Baptism; the Lords day; the Officers and a government of the Church, & c? Is the Law of nature the only rule for these? And foreseeing what I would answer, as well you might, you add, If you say, they are reducible to the second commandment, I demand, 1. What is the second commandment, for the affirmative part, but a general precept to worship God, according to his positive institution? 2. Do ye take the precept de genere to be equivalent to the precepts de speciebus? etc. To this I think I may answer out of your own mouth. Aphor. pag. 149. The neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second commandment. In case we break the commandments in the neglect of them, than the commandment requires the observation of them. For which you may consult also, Mr. Burges Vindiciae legis pag. 149. Balls Catechism, Amesius his Sciographia, Dod on the Commandments, downham's Tables, Zanchy, each of them on this Commandment; and Cawdry and Palmer on the Sabbath, Part. 2. Pag. 176. For further clearing of this point, we must consider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law, which alone in this place, is our business to inquire after, 1. As it is epitomised in the Decalogue, those ten words, as Moses calls them, Exod. 34.28. or else, us commented upon, or more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law, Prophets, and Scriptures of the New Testament. 2. We must distinguish of the manner how the Law prescribes, or commands any thing as duty, which is either expressly, or Synecdochically, either directly, or else interpretatively, virtually, and reductively; I very well know, that the Law is not in all particulars so explicitly, and expressly delivered, but that, 1. The use and best improvement of Reason is required to know, what pro hic & nunc is called for at our hands for duty. The Law lays down rules in affirmative precepts, in an indefinite way, which we must bring home by particular application, discerning by general Scripture Rules, with the help of reason (which sometimes is not so easy to be done) when it speaks to us in a way of concernment, as to present practical observation. 2. That hints of providence are to be observed, to know what in present is duty, as to the affirmative part of the commandments of God. If that man, that fell among thiefs, between Jerusalem and Jericho, had sat by the way, on the green grass, without an appearance of harm, or present need of help, the Samaritane that passed that way, had not offended, in case he had taken no more notice, than the Priest & Levite did: But discerning him in that case as he then was, the sixth commandment called for that, which he then did, as a present office of love to his neighbour, according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour, Mark. 3.4. When the Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day, He demands of them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evil, To save life, or to destroy? It was not their mind, that Christ should kill the man, only they would not have had him then to have cured him: but not to cure, when it is in our power, according to Christ's interpretation, is to kill. If diligent observation be not then made, the commandment may be soon transgressed. 3. Skill in Sciences, and professions, is to be improved by men of skill, that the commandment may be kept. The Samaritane poured Wine and Oil into the Samaritans wounds, knowing that to be of use, to supple and refresh them: Had he known any other thing more sovereign, which might have been had, at hand, he was to have used it. As skill in Medicines is to be used for preservation of men's lives, so also skill in the Laws, by those that are versed in them, for the help of their neighbour, in exigents concerning his estate and livelihood. 4. We must listen to God's mouth, to learn when he shall be pleased at any time, further to manifest his mind, for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts. There was a command, concerning the place of public, and solemn worship, Deut. 12.5. Unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even to his habitation shall ye seek, and thither shalt thou come. Now they must depend on the mouth of God, to observe what place in any of the Tribes he would choose for his habitation. When God commands, that all instituted worship shall be according to his prescript; this is a perfect Rule implicit, and virtual, tying us to heed the Lord at any time, more particularly discovering his will, and clearing this duty to us. Was not the Law of worship, perfect to Abraham, unless it explicitly told him that he must sacrifice his Son? And if you take yourself to be so acute, as to set up a new Rule, as you are pleased to style it, than you antiquate and abolish the old Rule, and singularly gratify the Antinomian party. Two Rules will no more stand together then two Covenants: In that you say a new Rule, you make the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away, Heb. 8.13. You add moreover, doth not the Scripture call Christ our Lawgiver, and say, The Law shall go out of Zion, etc. Is. 2.3. And was not I pray you the old Law, (as you are pleased to call it) his? Saint Paul I am sure quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law, and calls it the Law of Christ, Gal. 6.2. His Laws were delivered in the wilderness, whom the people of Israel there tempted and provoked; This is plain, for they sinned against their Lawgiver, and from his hands they suffered. And who they tempted in the wilderness, see from the Apostles hand, 1 Cor. 10.9. And as to your Scripture, the words quoted are exegetically set down in those that follow them. The Law shall go out of Zion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem: Which is no more, but that the name of the Lord, which was then known in Judah, shall be great from the rising of the sun, to the going down thereof. You further demand, And is he not the anointed King of the Church, and therefore hath legislative power? For answer, I desire to know what King the Church had when the old Law was, before Christ came in the flesh? the Kingdom was one & the same, & the King one and the same then, and now, as I take it. Many shall come from the East, & West, & shall sit down with Abrah. Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. The Gentiles coming in at the Gospel-call, are under the same King, and in the same Kingdom. And if all this were granted you for which you here plead, it is no more than a change in some positive, circumstantial Rites, and what is this to our question, That our righteousness, which is imperfect according to the old Rule, can be perfect according to the new? when old and new in that which is naturally Moral, is ever one and the same. When the Law required heart-service, and love with the whole heart, upon spiritual ends and motives, upon which account all fell short in their obedience, and performance, shall we say that Christ did dispense with any of this? so the Rule being lower, our obedience now may answer. Others that make Moses and Christ two distinct Lawgivers and agents for God, in holding out distinct precepts, give the pre-eminence to Christ, and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection. You on the contrary seem to make the Laws of Christ to stoop far beneath those of Moses.  

2. Exception.  2. For Justification of your accusation of the Moral Law of imperfection, you say, I think the Moral Law, taken either for the Law given to Adam, or written in tables of stone, is not a sufficient Rule for us now, for believing in Jesus Christ, no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ. For a general command (say you) of believing all that God revealeth, is not the only Rule of our faith, but the particular revelation and precept are part, etc. To this I say,  
1. As before, I think I may answer out of your own mouth, where you say, Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandment, and unbelief is a breach of the first. If we break the Commandment in unbelief, than the Commandment binds us to believe.  
2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former, may be applied to this likewise.  
3. I have already spoke to this, that faith is a duty of the Moral Law, Treat of the Covenant, Chap. 3. pag. 18, 19 To which I refer the Reader.  
4. If Adam had no command for faith, than he was not in any capacity to believe, and by his fall lost not power of believing: And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands, having never had power for the performance of it.  
5. I say, there was power in Adam, for that faith that justified, but not to act for justification. Adam had that habit, and the Law calls for it, from all that are under the Command of it: But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified.  
3. The same answer may serve to your third objection, 
3. Exception.  which indeed is the same with the former, only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed, in discourse of the understanding and will, paralleling them with the Prefaces, grounds and occasions of Laws. And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed, to which enough already is spoken.  
4. You say, But what if all this had been left out, 
4. Exception.  and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty? doth it follow therefore that it is the only Rule? Answ. I take righteousness to be matter of duty, and then the only R●le of duty, is the only Rule of righteousness. You say further, Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding. And I say, Rewarding is none of our work, but Gods, and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours, and that we are to make our business, I confess an imperfection in it to give life, but assert a perfection as th● Rule of our lives, It justifies no man, but it orders and regulates every justified man.  
5. You say, The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment. 
5 Exception.  To which I give the same answer: It is not our work, but Gods, either to reward or punish. And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law: And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old. You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion, and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties. You instance in that of the Parable, None of them that were bidden shall taste of the supper; when th● sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Moral Command.  
6. You say, The principal thing that I intent is, 
6. Exception.  that the Moral Law is not the only Rule, what shall be the condition of Life or Death, and therefore not the only Rule according to which we mu●t now be denominated, and hereafter sentenced, Just or . To this I have already given a sufficient answer, and if I had not, you answer fully for me, Aphor. p. 144 Thes. 28. Where you say, The precepts of the Covenant, as mere precepts, must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions: upon performance of which we must live, or die for non-performance. And I speak of them as mere precepts, and so they are our Rule of righteousness, and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace: And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule, when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant, of which we have heard sufficient. After a long discourse against all possibility of Justification by the Law of works (as though I were therein your adversary, or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer, that a man cannot make the Law his Rule, but he makes it withal his Justification) you go about to prevent an objection and say, If you should say, this is the Covenant and not the Law, you then tell me that you will reply, 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule. To which I say, When my work is to make it good, that the Law is our only Rule, I marvel that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule. But perhaps, you think I do not see, how it cannot follow, as indeed I do not, neither can I see any colour for it. 2. You reply, It is the same thing in several respects, that we call a Law and a Covenant (except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God, of which we speak not) who knows not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law? And that an Act of Obliviom or general pardon on certain terms is a Law, and that the promise is the principal part of the Law of Grace. To which I say, that praemiare and punire are not essential in a Law. Some have power of command, so that their words in just things is to be a Law, where most deny any power of punishment; as an Husband over the Wife. Some Parents have Authority to command Children, (Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth) when they have neither power to reward or punish. Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph (among the rest of his Sons, as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his burial, Gen. 47.29, 30. and Chap. 49.29. So compared) and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him. And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power; Yet they are no parts of a Rule, nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed. I know that an Act of Oblivion or general pardon may be called a Law, as many other things are, catachresticè and abusiuè but that it should be a Law properly so called, I know not. The Romans defined a Law, whilst that a Democraty was in force among them, to be, Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu. Afterwards, when the State was changed, and the Legislative power was in other hands, they defined it to be, Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris. And Tullye's definition of a Law is, that it is, Ratio summa insita in natura, quae recta suadet, prohibetque contraria. Here jussio, suasio, and prohibitio are expressed, which are not found in Acts of Oblivion. That every man, who is within the verge of such an Act, may be said to be acquit by Law, I willingly grant; seeing that Act takes off the form of the Law force condemning him: But that it is a Law, strictly so taken, I know not. You conclude, that you have now given some of your reasons, why you presumed to call that [Ignorance.] And I must presume to acquaint you, that till I hear more of your reasons, I shall remain in this, as Ignorant as ever.   

SECT. IU. Imperfect conformity to the Law, is Righteousness inherent; as an Image, less like the Pattern, is an Image.  
I Said in my Treatise, [The perfection of this Holiness and Righteousness in man's integrity, stood in the perfect conformity to this Law; and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate (in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God) must have reference, as to God as a pattern, so to his Law as a Rule.] Here I pass by some words of yours of a transcendental perfection, not well understanding them, much less understanding that they serve at all to our purpose, and come to your second, 
There is a partial reparation of inherent righteousness in regeneration.  where you answer, That there is a partial reparation of our Holiness in Regeneration, but no reparation of our personal, inherent Righteousness at all. Is Righteousness by the Law of works? I take this to be dangerous doctrine. Answ. You entitled this controversy, pag. 41. Sect. 28. [Of Evangelical personal Righteousness] And now you understand it, of personal, inherent, Legal Righteousness. Are Legal and Evangelical the same, or, are not you the same? When the Apostle joins Righteousness, and true holiness together, as that in which the Image of God did consist, and is to be repaired in the Regenerate, Is there a partial reparation of the one, and no reparation at all of the other? In your former reply, you say, I hope you observe, that we speak not of that called Moral Righteousness, consisting in an habit of giving every man his own, but of justitia forensis: where you seem to make that a full definition of such Righteousness; when I had thought that Moral righteousness had given God, as well as man, his own: And if we speak not of this righteousness, when we speak of a Rule of righteousness, I cannot but observe, that it hath been a wild discourse, and little to purpose, ever since either of us entered upon it, either we speak of this, or else (I think) we might as well have kept silence. I know no inherent Righteousness, that is not Moral Righteousness. You demand, Is Righteousness by the Law of works? I take this for dangerous doctrine. Answ. You put it as though I intended, that the Law raiseth a man to that Righteousness for which it calls in order to justification, and life, according to the tenor of the Covenant of works, which were dangerous doctrine indeed, rendering Christ's death to be in vain, as we may see from the Apostle, Gal. 2.21. And of the more danger it is; the more I suffer. I say, that the Righteousness of which I speak, (and which, all, I think, understand, when they speak (as you do of a believing man's personal, inherent Righteousness) is from the Spirit of God, working with power in the hearts of his chosen, but yet according to the Rule of the Law of God, and led by no other Rule. And here I think there is no danger.  
I illustrated this with a comparison [As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Sampler, is an Image: so conformity, imperfectly answering the Rule, is conformity likewise.] Here 1. You come in with your Dilemma against me. Either that Image say you, is like the Sampler in some parts, and unlike in others, or else it is like in no part, but near to like. If the latter, than it is but near to a true Image of that thing, and not one indeed. If the former, than it is nothing to our case. Answ. You may do well to tell us, what near to like means, in the mean time, I must tell you, that you bring no perfect enumeration. It is like in all parts, though not with a full resemblance, complete in degree. 2. You tell me that Scheibler says, that similitude does lie in punto as it were, and ex parte sui admits not of magìs and minùs, and therefore strictè & philosophicè loquendo, saith he, that is only simile, which is perfectly so, but vulgariter loquendo, that is called simile, which is properly but mi●ùs dissimile. And then you add by way of concession, 
Similitude consisteth not in punto, but admits of magìs and minùs.  that Scripture speaks vulgariter often, and not strictè & Philosophicè, as speaking to vulgar wits, to whom it must speak, as they can understand. Give me leave then that pretend to know no more than a vulgar wit, to speak the language of Scripture, which I think was your own language in the last Section, where you said, that There is a partial reparation of our holiness in our regeneration, and this, the Apostle tells us is the reparation of the Image of God, Eph. 4.24. And as I take it, the language of Scheibler also in his Topics, where I had thought he had spoken strictè or logicè at least, and there he saith, Paria â similibus omnino differunt, and how they differ I know not, if there be not magìs and minùs in simili, as there is not in Pari. As you confess it to be true in Scripture-sense; so I take it, with Scheiblers leave, to be true in the exactest philosophical sense. Similitude is founded in quality, as parity in quantity; And that qualities are intended and remitted, I shall believe, till I have learned new Logic. Davenant in Colos. 3.10. saith, This is to be held, that Christ is otherwise the Image of the Father than we. He is the Image of equality, enjoying the same nature with the Father, whose Image he is. Every regenerate man is the Image of imitation, imperfectly resembling some similitude of the divine nature in certain gifts of grace. You conclude, If all this were otherwise, it is little to your purpose, for in this conformity of ours, there is something of quantitative resemblance as well as qualitative, and so it hath a kind of quantity and parity in it as well as similitude to the rule. Answ. What there is of quantity, and how much, you do not tell, and if there be not only a similitude, but also a parity between God and man, so that when God is judged of man, he should be tried by his peers, I shall say nothing, but rest amazed.   

SECT. V Our actions are denominated good or evil, from the Law only.  
TO your next Section, in which you complain of unfair dealing at my hands, I have spoken sufficiently: your close only is observable. No doubt, say you, but that sincere obedience consisteth in a faithful endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of God's Law, both natural, and positive; but no man can by it be denominated righteous (nisi aequivocè) but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree. Your concession I accept, but wonder at your assertion. Is not doing required in, and by the Law, and did John equivocate when he said, He that doth righteousness is Righteous, 1 John 3.7. And do you equivocate also when you put it in your title page of this piece against me? Is that an equivocal honour that is given to Zachary, and Elizabeth, to Abel, Lot, Joseph, Simeon, and divers others in Scriptures? The men of Sodom were denominated wicked upon their breach of God's Law, being sinners exceedingly: And Lot is denominated Righteous upon his observation of it. I said in my Treatise, [A perfection of sufficiency to attain this end, I willingly grant, God condescending through rich grace to crown our weak obedience; In this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness: otherwise I must say, that our inherent Righteousness is an imperfect Righteousness, is an imperfect conformity to the Rule of Righteousness.] Here you are displeased, with the ambiguity, as you say, of the word [otherwise] and tell me of a natural perfection, or imperfection, of which actions are capable, without relation to the Rule, which you confess is nothing to this business. And then you add, Many a School Divine hath written (& Gibieuf at large) that our actions are specified à fine, and denominated good, or evil, and so perfect, or imperfect, à fine, more especially à fine then à lege. But this requires more sbutilty and acurateness for the discission, than you, or I, in these lose disputes do show ourselves guilty of. Answ. If there be no more subtlety & acurateness in these many Schoolmen & Gibieuf, then that which you please to quote out of them, and particularly out of him; there is no despair, but either you, or I, might soon render ourselves guilty of as much subtlety and acurateness as they: And indeed, [guilty,] is the most proper term, I think, that can be given to discourses of this nature. Actions, (say they, as you quote them) are denominated good, or evil, and so perfect, or imperfect à fine, rather than à lege, Though the Law that commands an action, and the end at which the action aims, or aught to aim, stand in a Diametrical opposition, and the end is wholly without the cognizance of the Law. Did not those Jews in the time of the captivity, transgress the Law of God, when they fasted and mourned, & did not fast and mourn at all unto God? Zach. 7.5. And did not the Pharisees break the Law, when they did their alms to be seen of men, and prayed in Synagogues, and Streets, upon that account also, that men should observe them? The Law, had it been heeded, would have led them hgther, as we may see in our Savious words, Mat. 22.37. According to this doctrine, a good meaning, or intention, will salve the worst action. Saul had then performed the Commandment of the Lord, as he said to Samuel, when he spared the best of the Sheep and Oxen, for sacrifice to the Lord God; that had been a pious end, if no command had prohibited it. But to give Gibieuf his due, I have examined his dispute, De fine, and there cannot find that he makes any such comparison, or puts such opposition, nor that he so much as mentions the Law, when he speaks so much De fine, as you mention. I referred to Dr. Davenant De Justit. habit. 349. disputing against Justification by inherent Righteousness, upon the account of the imperfection of it. To this is replyyd, Do not you observe, that I affirm, that which you call inherent Righteousness to he imperfect, as well as Bp. Davenant. Answ. Why is it then that you laid so high a charge of ignorance on learned Divines calling it imperfect? when you well know, that they had not any such notion of a Metaphysical entity in their heads, but maintained what they spoke, (as indeed Reverend Davenant does) with that which you call a simple objection, that as we are called holy, by an imperfect holiness, so we are called Righteous, by an imperfect Righteousness. They never refer their Righteousness to the Law as a Covenant. You can find no way to charge them and acquit him. As to this, They are as learned as he, and he as ignorant as they. You add, Yea I say more, that in reference to the Law of works, our works are no true Righteousness at all: Answ. If you mean by the Law of works, not a Rule, but a Covenant, I say, with you, That they are no such righteousness as will obtain the grace, or avoid the penalty of it: yet this reference to this Covenant, cannot make imperfect righteousness simpliciter no righteousness, though secundum quid, or versus hoc, it is such. If I am bound in strict justice, to pay the sum of a thousand pound, and bring an hundred instead of it, this is money, though it is no full pay, or total discharge. You say further, He that saith, they are no Righteousness, saith as little for them, as he that saith they are an imperfect Righteousness. Answ. The question is not, who speaks more or less against this righteousness, but who speaks most truth. And Righteousness being, as Rollock on Ephes. 4.24. observes, A virtue in man, whereby he wils and does those things, which agree with the Law of God, and as Gomarus on Mat. 3.15. defines it, An obedience due to God, and still joined with holiness, it cannot be nothing, and yet it can be no better then imperfect. You say, You suppose that I know that Bp. Davenant doth not only say as much as you for the interest of works in justification, but also speaks in the very same notions as you do, referring me, where I may find it in Davenant. Answ. 1. The interest of works in justification, is not to our present question, of the perfection, or imperfection of righteousness: & therefore whether he be, therein for you, or against you, it is not to this question much material. Yet seeing you speak so confidently here to me, and more fully else where, that you have this Reverend Author in that point firm on your part, insomuch that having quoted a Century of witnesses that are (as you say) for you, you add, If the reader would know which of these speak most my own thoughts; I answer, most of them, if not all, in a great part, but Davenant most fully, Confess. pag. 457. It will be worth our pains to make some further enquiry: And at the first sight, the thing doubtless will appear to all your Readers, that have read as Davenant, as wonderfully strange. If he speak your thoughts so fully, how comes it to pass, that you have so many adversaries as you complain of? when he, for aught I know, amongst Protestant writers, hath none at all; If you speak both the same thing, your Adversaries doubtless would be his; And his work being so much more large than yours; he would have found so many more Adversaries than you. His work was published before yours; and if you intended to publish no other doctrine, How could you know, that yours was like to blast your reputation with most Divines, (as in your Printed Letter, you tell, Mr. Tombs Pag. 409) When his work has m●ch advanced and not blasted his reputation at all? In this Apology you tell me, Pag. 16. of four great errors of the Protestant party in the doctrine of Justification; acquitting English Reform rs in one of them only, And all (except that one) Davenant is as guilly as any.  
The first is, That the formal cause of our Righteousness is the formal righteousness of Jesus Christ, as suffering and perfectly obeying for us. And if this be an error, no man is more chargeable than he with it. He makes this the title of his 28. Chap. de Justit. habit. 
(a) Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae probatur  The imputed Righteousness of Christ, is proved to be the formal cause of our Justification. Making it good in that Chapter, by 11. Arguments, and answering contrary objections. Having confirmed it with Arguments, he proceeds in the next Chapter to back it with Authorities: And quoting Justin Martyr in the first place, he thus comments upon him. 
(b) Hic aptrtè doc et Justinus Martyr non modo mortem & satisfactionem imputati ad poenam delendam; sed ipsam conversationem ejus, seu obedientiam activam imputari nobis ad peccatum obliterandum.  Here Justin Martyr doth evidently teach, that no● only the death and satisfaction of Christ, is imputed to us, to take away our punishment, but also his conversation and active obedience is imputed to us, to take away sin, Pag. 374. The like we may find Pag. 378. upon occasion of quotation out of Cyrillus Alexandrinus. The next error charged upon Protestants by you is, about the way and manner of our participation of this Righteousness, which the Divines say, is by imputation. And so Davenant says, as we have already heard, asserting against Bellarmine the greatest necessity (as he speaks) of it, Pag. 32. Quoting against him Scriptures for it, explaining Protestants meaning in it. 
(c) Nos vero hâc imputatione justificationem sitam putamus, non eo nomine solum quod Christus nos regit justitiâ suâ, sed multò magìs quia donat nos justitiâ suà. Neque dicimus Deum nos pro justis habere solummodo quia tectos conspicit justitia Redemptoris nostri sed quia ex sua ordinatione omnes credentes, atque in unam personam cum Christo coalescentes, justitiae ejus & obedidientiae veré participes factos.  We think (saith he) that Justification is placed in this imputation; not only because Christ's covers us with his Righteousness; but much rather, because he freely conferrs his righteousness upon us. Neither do we say, that God accounts us as just; only because he sees us Clothed with the Righteousness of our Redeemer; but because he sees by his own ordination, all believers united into Christ as one person; made truly partakers of his obedience. But perhaps, you are most offended with that, which you put in the close of your Charge of this error upon Reformers, That we are hereby (namely, by imputation of this Righteousness) esteemed legaliter, to have fulfilled the Law in Christ: Which in your account, is so high an error, that with you it is one of the pillars of Antinomianisme. And quoting these words from a Reverend Brother, whom sometimes at least you have had in high esteem, That as in Christ's suffering we were looked upon by God, as suffering in him; So by Christ's obeying of the Law, we are beheld as fulfilling the Law in him; You appea●e to you● Reader whether it be true, or tolerable. Yo● seem to think, that the naming it, is enough to work a deep dislike, if not detestation of it. And if Davenant here be not as blame-worthy as he, I am much mistaken. See his third Argument for confirmation of his Thesis before mentioned, Pag. 364. 
(d) Deus ex intuitu obedien 〈◊〉 per Christum praestitae usque ad mortem crucis, nos liberavit à poenâ debitá legis transgressoribus, imputando nobis hanc alterius satisfactionem, perinde ac si nostra fuisset: Ergo ex intuitu obedientiae per Christum praestitae usque ad impletionem legis, nos donabit illis beneficiis quae promittuntur legis observatoribus; imputando nimirum, nobis hanc alterius justitiam, quasi etiam nostra esset.  God in beholding the obedience performed by Christ, even to the death of the Cross, delivers us from the punishment due to the transgressors of the Law; imputing this satisfaction of another to us, even as though it had been ours. Therefore in beholding the obedience of Christ yielded even to the fulfilling of the Law, he confers these benefits upon us which are promised to the observers of the Law, that is, by imputing to us this righteousness of another, as though it were ours. And much more to this purpose; And afterwards, further explaining himself, he saith: 
(e) Quemadmodum iutuitu imputatae satisfactionis, Deus nos liberat ab ira & poena, quasi nos illam satisfactionem in propriis personis exhibuissemus; Sic intuitu legis à Christo pro nobis impletae acceptat nos ad vitam & proemium gloriae, quasi nos nostrâ personali justitiâ legem implevissemus.  As, upon sight of this imputed satisfaction, God doth deliver us from wrath and punishment, as though we had made satisfaction in our own persons; So, upon sight of the Law fulfilled by Christ for us, he accepts us unto life and glory, as though with our own personal Righteousness we had fulfilled the Law. The third error which is charged upon Protestants is, that, from which English Reformers are acquitted.  
The fourth is, About the formal reason of faith's interest in Justification: Which Protestant Reformers say, (as you observe from them) is, as the instrument. This indeed Davenant doth not put to the question, and purposely handle, that I know, as he does the former. Yet we find him fully asserting it. Answering Bellarmine's objection, that 
(f) Instrumentalem semper agnoscit, non autem formalem: nisi quatenus sub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehensum. Quasi diceret, Christi obedientiam fide apprehensam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae.  Luther made faith the formal cause of Justification, he saith, that Luther always acknowledged it the instrumental, but not the formal, unless under the name of faith he include the object apprehended by faith, as though he should say, that the obedience of Christ apprehended by faith is the formal cause of our Justification. Where we plainly see Davenants mind.  
1. That that which apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ for justification, is the instrumental cause in it. 2. That faith apprehends and applies, this righteousness of Christ for justification; and consequently, with him, Faith is the instrument. So also Determinat. 37. pag. 165. 
(g) Huic fiduciae in Christum mediatorem tribuimus instrumentalem vim justificandi, potius quam illi actui hominis peccatoris, Quia constat eo modo justificari homines, quo gloria divina maximè illustretur, & honour salutis nostrae ad solum Deum referatur. Atqui ab aliis virtutibus aut operibus statuunt hominem justifioari, in justificationis negotio gloriam salutis humanae non integram Deo relinquunt, sed merito suo aliquâ ex parte adscribunt.—  We attribute, saith he, this instrumental power of justification to this trust in Christ the Mediator, rather than to any other act of sinning man; because it is manifest, that men are justified that way, by which the glory of God may be most illustrated, and the honour of our salvation given to God alone. But they that affirm that man is justified by other virtues or works, do not leave the whole glory of man's savation, in justification, alone to God, but ascribe some part unto themselves.  
You are highly displeased with all those, that will have no other condition of our justification, at the day of judgement, than affiance in Christ's righteousness. If you allow faith to begin it, yet you will have works, at any hand, to perfect it. Here he is as full as anywhere against you. Quoting two passages out of Hilary, Chap. 29. p. 377. Of which we may make use anon, he thus expresseth himself. 
(h) Solent Jesuitae justificationem fidei ascribere, sed non solo. Hunc errorem taxat Hilarius, quando dicit, Sola fides justificat. Initium etiam justificationis fidei tribuunt, sed non consummationem: Atille longè aliter, justum fides consummate.  Jesuits are wont to ascribe justification to faith, but not to faith alone: Hilary taxes this error, when he saith, Faith alone justifies: They attribute, saith he, the beginning of justification to faith, but not the consummation: But Hilary far otherwise; Faith consummates the just.  
We have heard your sense of the danger of that opinion, That faith in Christ, as giving himself in Satisfaction for us, is alone the justifying act: And we shall hear how confident you are, that all antiquity is against it, as against the instrumentality of faith in justification, and the interest of works as consummate in judgement. If you please to read Davenants 37. Determinat. You shall see him as fully against you, as Chemnitius, Amesius, Prideaux, Bernard, Anselmus, or any other, that you can look upon, as your greatest adversaries. My third argument to assert this position (laid down Sect. 2. of this Postscript) he there makes his first, which I saw not till I was come hither, else I might have made other use of it. And see how he expresses himself, pag. 164. 
(i) Jam quod spectat ad pro prium illud & speciale objectum in quod fides respicit eo ipso articulo quo accipit justificationem à Deo, certum est in historicâ narratione creationis aut gubernationis non posse animam ream invenire hanc peccatorum remissionem. Vnde Aquinas, In ipsâ justificatione peccatoris, non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli, sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens. Deinde in mandatis & comminationibus legis multo minùs invenitur hoc speciale objectum: Nam talis consideratio ex se nihil gignit quam terrores etc. Restant igitur dulces promissiones Evangelicae de favore & gratuitâ peccati remissione per & propter. Mediatorem, in quas dum fides respicit, peccator fiduciam concipit, in hunc oblatum sibi Mediatorem recumbit, divinae misericordiae se justificandum subjicit, atque inde justificationis beneficium protinùs consequitur.  Now, as to that special, & proper object, at which faith looks, in that very instant, in which it receives justification from God, it is certain, that the guilty soul can not find remission of sins in the historical narrative of creation, or providence. Whence Aquinas, In the justification of a sinner, it is not necessary that other articles be thought upon, but that God be thought upon pardoning sin. And in the commands and threats of the Law this special object is much less found; For this consideration begets nothing else, but terrors, etc. Therefore the sweet Evangelicall promises of the favour and free pardon of sin, by, and for the mediator, only remain, upon which whilst faith looks, the sinner conceives hope, relies upon this mediator, offered to him, yields himself to divine mercy for justification, and thereby attains the benefit of justification. And this he backs with three Arguments.  
You tell me, Apol. p. 24. It must needs be known, that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object, and not on his Righteousness which he gives in remission. Giving in your reasons; To which in their due place I have spoke: And you may see Davenant as full against you here, as any where, ca 23. de Justit. habit. p. 317. 
(k) 
Accipere autem dicimur hoc donum manu fidei, quae applicat nobis Christi justitiam, non ut nostra fiat per modum infusionis aut inhaesionis, sed per modum imputationis.  
Atque demiror Papist as non posse intelligere quomodo per fidem Christi justitia nobis applicetur, qui putant se intelligere quo modo per indulgentias Pontificias Christi & sanctorum merita sive vivis sive mortuis assigentur.   We are said to receive this gift by the hand of faith, which applies to us [the righteousness of Christ;] not that it should be made ours way of infusion, or inhesion; but by way of imputation. And I wonder, (saith he) that Papists cannot understand how [the righteousness of Christ] is applied to us by faith, who think that they understand, how by the Pope's indulgencies, the merits of Christ's, and the Saints, are applied to the quick and dead. As also chap. 28. p. 371. 
(l) Nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè & immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides apprehendit & applicat nobis Christi justitiam, id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reipsa Christo debetur.  There is nothing more usual, then to ascribe that to the cause applying, which properly and immediately belongs to the thing applied. Therefore, because faith apprehends and applies [the righteousness of Christ] to us, that is attributed to faith, that indeed is due to Christ. Where we plainly see, that according to him, Faith applies the righteousness of Christ, and that it is an applying cause, and what cause except instrumental, I cannot imagine. Much more might be brought out of this Reverend Author to this purpose. But this is enough to let us see, that there is not any so fair, and full accord between you. And if I should be put to name two writers of note, much differing one from the other in one particular subject, I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant, and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification. Your Reader may well judge, that he is amongst those that you say, (Confess. pag. 459.) you may safely, and boldly advise, all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls, that they take heed of. Where you warn all such, that they take heed of their doctrine, who make the mere receiving of, that is, affiance in, the righteousness of Christ, to be the sole condition of their first justification, excluding Repentance, and the reception of Christ as a Teacher, and King, and Head, and Husband, from being any condition of it, yea, and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement; who call that affiance only by the name of justifying, faith, and all other acts by the name of works. And as to that which you here assert, that he speaks as much as you, for the interest of works in justification, you may conceit it, but those that have perused him, will hardly be induced to assent to it. Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant, than faith only? 
(m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem, justificationem, atque aeternam vitam, non alia requiritur conditio, quàm verae & vivae fidei.  In this Covenant, (saith he, cap. 30. de Justit. act. pag. 396) there is no other condition, then that of true faith, required to obtain Reconciliation, Justification, and life eternal. And having quoted, Rom. 3.16. Rom. 4.5. Gal. 3.8. he adds, Justification therefore, and right to life eternal is suspended upon condition of faith alone: But good works are also required of justified men, not to constitute a state of justification, or demerit life eternal; but to yield obedience, and testify thankfulness towards God, who justified us freely, and hath marked out that way for their walk, whom he hath designed for the kingdom of glory. How is it 
(n) Justificatio igitur, & jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur. Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur, non ad constituendum statum justificationis, aut promerendam vitam aeternam: sed ad exhibendam obedientiam, & testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum, qui nos gratuito justificavit, atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit.  then, 
Haec gratia (sc. inhaerens) ut saepe dictum est, est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis.  that again and again (as he says) himself hath said, that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification, pag. 317? If he thus interest works in Justification, how he will be reconciled to himself, where in the passage before quoted he says, that They that affirm that man is Justified by other virtues, or works, do not leave the whole glory of Man's salvation, in Justification, alone to God; but ascribe some part to themselves? And in all that you quote out of him, Pag. 319, etc. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way? You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first, and second part of Justification; Because, having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant, concerning the imputation of Christ's active obedience (in which they scarce differ in terms) yet afterwards adds, Though holy works do not justify, yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification: So that, did not the Covenant of grace interpose, gross and wicked ways would cut off our Justification, and put us in a state of condemnation. If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant, which I doubt not may be done, this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself. Passages of this kind only, you quote out of Davenant, which are as much opposite to himself, as to the Author now mentioned.   

SECT. VI Unbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace.  
THe next you enter upon is, a Query, How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant: Opposing yourself against that Position of mine, Chap. 33. Pag. 245. [The men in impenitency and unbelief, that lie in sin, and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ, live in a continual breach of Covenant] Hear you confess that I cite no words of yours, and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you. To which I say, that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted; which you seem to do, Aphor. Thes. 34. Pag. 163 Where you say, That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated, or its conditions broken, except they be finally broken. But before I enter upon the thing itself, 
Men in final unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God.  a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth; That men in final unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God; This is clear; They that break Covenant, and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if, are in Covenant. The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise, and b●each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant, Jer. 34.18. The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant, and had not performed the words of Covenant: And those that thus transgressed Covenant, did likewise, as we see there, enter into Covenant: But these as you affirm, break Covenant, and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it: Therefore it follows, that they are in Covenant. And, as the Covenant is, that they transgress; such the Covenant is, that they enter; They do not enter one Covenant, and transgress another; They transgress a real, and not equivocal, halfe-erring Covenant: It is therefore a real, and not an equivocal, halfe-erring Covenant that they enter. And as this clearly follows from hence; so that from you prosition that immediately goes before it, [That Christ's passive obedience and merit was only to satisfy for the violation of the Covenant of works, but not at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace] it clearly follows, 
Universal Redemption overthown.  That there is no universal Redemption by Christ's Death or satisfaction. If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin, that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace, than he died not for the sins of all: This is clear. But, according to you, he died not to make satisfaction for their sin, that thus stand guilty; Therefore he died not for the sins of all. Yea it will follow, that he died for the lesser part only, of those that make profession of his name: Seeing the greater part die in impenitency, and unbelief. Yea, it will follow, that he died for the Elect only; For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect: All others die in impenitency and unbelief. I do not here go about to dispute the thing, but only observe, that all that Amyraldus hath gone about to set up, concerning universal Redemption, with such high applause of yours, is by this position utterly overthrown. For the assertion which in the place mentioned I have laid down, that [impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant] I need say no more, then that which I have spoke, there having been nothing replied to that which I have said. My argument in the place quoted, 
Arguments evincing that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians are violation of Covenant.  in brief was this; [They that engage in Covenant to believe in Christ, and forsake their sin, break Covenant by a life in unbelief, and sin: But all professed Christians engaged by Covenant to believe in Christ, and to forsake their sin: Therefore all professed Christians, by unbelief and sin break Covenant] I only here add, If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of Covenant properly so called, then final unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of Covenant properly so called. This is clear. Final perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more, than a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul God-ward, in which they before stood, in impenitence and unbelief; As Perseverance in Faith and Repentance, is the continuance of Faith and Repentance. 
Explicatory distinctions examined.  If then final unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the Covenant of grace, than all unbelief and impenitence, denominating a man, an unbelieving and impenitent person, is a breach of Covenant likewise. For the clearing of your meaning, which is all that you do in this question, you distinguish, first of the Word [Covenant:] Secondly, of the word, [Violation.] You say, The word [Covenant] is sometimes taken for God's Law made to his creature, containing precepts, promises, and threaten: Sometimes for man's promise to G●d. [Violation,] You say, is taken, either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non-performer of the condition, or laxly, for one that in judgement is found a true performer of the condition, but did neglect, or refuse the performance for a time. You apply both these distinctions: Taking the word Covenant in the latter sense, you say that you have affirmed, that man breaks many a Covenant with God: yea even the Baptismal vow itself, is so broken, till men do truly repent, and believe. To which I reply, That it is no other than the Baptismal vow, or Covenant, that we are to inquire into. Baptism is, as Circumcision was, a seal of the Covenant: In Baptism than we engage to the terms of the Covenant, and till we repent and believe, by your own confession, we break this Covenant. But taking the word [Covenant] say you, in the former sense, i. e. for God's precepts, promises and threaten, and [Violation] in the latter sense, for one that in Judgement (that is at the day of Judgement) is esteemed a non performer of the conditions, so, you say, None violate the Covenant but final unbelievers and impenitent, that is, (as you explain it) No other are the proper subject of its peremptory curse or threatening. But Good Sir, reflect upon this explanation of yours, and in a more serious way, yet consider of it. To help yourself out; you refer man's violation of Covenant, not to his own promise or engagement, in which he stands in duty tied, but to God's engagements, containing his promises and threaten, and to violate God's promise or threatening, (which you here imply to be done by Covenant-breakers) scarce carries sense with it. We may incur his threatening, or miss of his promise; but we do not violate either his promise or threatening. Violation of God's precept is disobedience, of which Pharaoh, a man never in Covenant, was guilty, but no violation or breach of Covenant, where there is no voluntary engagement. Our engagement is necessity to make it up into a Covenant, and our violation of our engagements, to make it a breach of Covenant. Was ever any charged with breach of Covenant, in breaking not his own, but the condition of the other Conanting party? Jsrael was under a Law to let their Hebrew. Servants go free, the seaventh year, Exod. 21.2. In Zedekiah's time, they served themselves of them beyond that term. Here was the transgression of a Law, but no breach of any particular Covenant. But when they entered Covenant with God to do that which Law required, and ratified it by cutting a Calf in twain, passing through the parts of it; and again, served themselves of them; here was a breach of Covenant.  
So that the violation that you speak of (if you may call it a violation) is no Covenant-violation. Every man that breaks a Covenant, breaks his own; and not another's part, in the Covenant.  
And whereas you will have that to be a violation of Covenant, laxly, and not rigidly taken, 
Impenitent persons in the most strict and proper sense are Covenant-breakers.  wh●n one doth neglect or refuse the performance for the time, but in judgement (that is in the day of Judgement) is found a true performer of the conditions; to me it is very strange, upon a several account. First, I suppose you mean his own conditions to which he stands engaged, which for a time he thus neglects, and not Gods; And you so spoil all that before you spoke of Covenant-violations, respective to promises and threaten. Secondly, Such a one, in the strictest sense, is a man guilty of breach of Covenant during such time of his neglect or refusal. Was not that younger Son of his Father, mentioned Luk. 15. properly and in the most rigid sense, a prodigal, when he wasted his substance with ritotous living, notwithstanding that he was after reclaimed to a more frugal course? And was not she also that was a sinner in the City, Luk. 7. truly a sinner, or only in a lax sense, because she afterwards repent? Was not the penitent Thief, as truly, and in as rigid a sense, a Thief, when he stole, as he that stole and repent not? And so he that lives in breach of promise with God, is as truly a breaker of Covenant, notwithstanding following Repentance, as those that live and die impenitent. I know therefore, no other way of explanation of yourself to your Readers satisfaction, but to say, that the Covenant of grace is not finally violated unless the conditions be finally broke. Who ever doubted, but when a sinner reputes, the doom which is passed against him for sin, is reversed? And that Paul a persecutor, not in a lax, but in rigid sense, afterwards building the faith that he destroyed, shall not appear in Judgement as a persecutor. And so he that is, as truly and in no lax sense, a Covenant-breaker, being by grace brought in to keep Covenant in the day of Judgement shall be reputed and esteemed a man faithful in Covenant.   

SECT. VII. Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, and not Gods, in the proper conditional Covenant.  
THE next in order in which I am spoken unto, is, that which Sect. 55. Pag. 108. you fall upon, Entituling it, [Whether Faith, and Repentance be God's works?] Where having repeated words of mine out of Chap. 15. Pag. 101. of the Treatise of the Covenant, somewhat largely, but very brokenly, you are pleased to say, Mr. Bls. business here is to refute the answer that I gave to that objection. The objection was thus put by one, that excepted against your Aphorisms. [How make you Faith and Repentance, to be the conditions of the Covenant on our part, seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on God's part? Can they be God's conditions and ours too?] To which I answered (which in part you transcribe) [In case these two cannot stand together, that they should be conditions, both Gods and ours, we may answer by way of retortion: And am I sure we have the better end of the staff, that they are our conditions; they are conditions on our part, therefore they cannot be Gods: That they are ours is made known of God, as by the beam of the Sun in his word. And I shall not stand to distinguish of an absolute and conditional Covenant, and so making the whole in the absolute Covenant to be Gods, and in the conditional, this part to be ours (which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear) but in plain terms, deny them to be the God's conditions, and affirm them to be ours] In all which I can confidently speak that I never had it in my thoughts to oppose you; yea, I assuredly expected, that how many adversaries soever I should find, yet I should have had you here, on my party. 
Grounds on which the Author was confident that Mr. Br. herein was on his party.  My confidence herein was upon these grounds. 1. In that you have showed yourself so well pleased with that which I had spoke in my answer to Mr. Tombs, for explanation of that text of Jeremiah after quoted; as may be seen Pag. 224. of your Treatise of Infant-Baptisme: and I am sure there is nothing here to cross any thing that I had spoken there; Showing yourself then so far my friend, I could not imagine, that persisting in the same, I should have had you to be my Adversary. 2. In that you had plainly enough (to my understanding) declared yourself against any such thing as absolute promises, Aphor. Pag. 8, 9 in these words: Those promises of taking the hard heart out of us, and giving us hearts of flesh, etc. are generally taken to be absolute promises; and after some more words, you infer, Therefore these absolute promises are but mere gracious predictions, what God will do for his Elect, the comfort whereof can be received by no man, till the benefit be received, and they be to him fulfilled: Therefore as all mere predictions, so also these promises, do fall under the will of purpose, and not of precept. And Commenting on those 〈◊〉 words of the Prophet, as applied by the Apostle, Heb. 8. you s●y, Appen. Pag. 42. Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt; and having yielded so far as to say, I think you may call it an absolute promise, you caution this freedom of calling it so, very largely, Pag. 43. And then you make all up in these words, So that I conclude, that it is most properly, but a prophe●ie what God will do, de eventu●; as it hath reference to the parties on whom it shall be fulfilled; and so is the revealing part of Gods purposing will, and belongeth not at all to his preceptive or legislative will, by which he doth govern, and will judge the world. And that God's Covenant and promises properly so called belong to his preceptive and legislative will, whereby he governs the world, and not to his purposing will, (according to you) is manifest. 3. You have appeared at large & with much zeal for the conditionality of the Covenant on man's part, and that it is not made alone with Christ, but Christians; with conditions imposed on them, but not on him. And how this can be, when those are Gods conditions and not m ns, I cannot see. If Faith and Repentance be God's conditions and not man's. Where is there any conditions on man's part remaining? 4. Summing up your answer to your Querists 6. and 7. question, you say, Now I hope you can hence answer to both your own demands. To the seaventh, You see there is a Covenant absolute, and a Covenant conditional; but the last is the proper Gospel-Covenant. To the sixth, You see that in the absolute Covenant or proph●c●e, he promiseth Faith and Repentance (in promimising his Spirit and a new heart) to the Elect, who are, we know not who. And in the conditional proper Covenant, he requireth the same Faith and Repentance of us, if we will be saved: So that they are God's part which he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant, and they are made our conditions in another. And you very well know, that I speak of the conditional, proper Covenant, or else why do I contend for conditions in it? and in this Covenant of which we speak, you say, they are required of us, and are our conditions. And for the other Covenant, where you say that they are God's part, which he hath discovered that he will perform, see how full I come up to you, Chap. 9 Pag. 64. of my Treatise, where I say, [I suppose they may be more fitly called, the declaration or indication of God's work in the conditions to which he engageth, and of the necessary concurrence of the power of his grace, in that which he requireth]. So that, had you had no more mind to have been upon contradiction of me, than I of you, we had here shaken hands together, and not lift up o●r hands one against the other. You say, Section 38. pag. 37. that you are uncertain whether my 33. Chapt. be against you, because I recite no words of yours, though it be indeed full against your opinion. Here, I think, I recite no words of yours, neither did I, as I thought, oppose any opinion of yours; Yet you say, my business is to confute your answer. You say, A brief reply may satisfy this confutation, And I say, [No r ply] would have been more fit for [no confutation.] You acquaint me how you explained yourself, plainly showing that the thing called [God's condition] was not precisely the same with that called [ours.] Ours was, Believing and repenting, God is, The bestowing of these, as the question expressed. Answ. I think you should have made the difference far more wide. O●r conditions in this conditional proper Covenant, are faith and repentance, to these we are called (as you say,) if we will be justified and saved. God's conditions in this conditional proper Covenant, are those to which he engages himself, viz. rewards, in case of Covenant-keeping, and punishments, in case of Covenant-breaking; One he promises, the other he threats: and these we expect, or fear, according as we answer in Covenant-keeping, or fail, through breach of it Herein I explained myself, Chap. 5. pag. 21. and this sure was your mind, when you wrote your Aphorisms, where you say, Faith and Repentance are God's part, that he will perform in one Covenant, and made our conditions in another. The bestowing of them, then, is no condition of God in that Covenant where they are conditions required from us. You say in a Parenthesis (if I understand you) that our action of believing is called God's condition by the Querist, though improperly, yet in a language very common in Mr. Bl's Treatise. I desire instances to make this appear, that it is thus common in my Treatise. You say, Thus much being premised, I reply more particularly, 1. I will yet say, that God hath such an absolute promise as well as a conditional, till you give me be●ter reasons of your denial, or your questioning whether Scripture will bear it. Answ. It seems you perceive that I do not plainly deny it; 
Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant.  I have reasons so far preponderating at least, that I dare not assert it; I shall adventure upon one that makes towards a denial. Mere gracious predictions, or prophecies de eventu, what God will do, are no absolute promises, how generally soever so taken. This I think is plain. There is a difference betwixt a mere prediction and a promise, or a prophecy de eventu, what God will do, and a promise. But these that are generlly taken to be absolute promises, are, (according to you) mere gracious perdictions what God will do, Aphor. pag. 9 Prophecies de eventu, what God will do, Append. pag. 44. Ergo. I shall adventure to second it with another. Promises properly so called, have some determinate object, to whom they are made, and who may receive consolation from them. This appears, Heb. 6.17, 18. But in these absolute promises generally so called, there is no determinate object to whom they are made, or that possibly can receive consolation from them. This is plain. They are made (as you say) to the Elect and being made to them, they are made, (as you further say) to, we know not who, and so none can receive consolation from them. No man can aforehand say, (as you observe,) that he shall have a new and soft heart, because God hath promised it: For he cannot know that it is promised to him; Therefore these are no promises properly so called. You add, I shall yet say, that the giving of our faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise. Answ. That it is the matter of that, which you have called [God prediction, or prophecy de eventu, what shall fall out,] and now do call an [absolute promise,] I do easily grant: And so, according to yourself, it is not the matter of the conditional proper Covenant of which we speak, which is enough for me against you in the thing in question. You further say, my argument to the contrary, hath little in it to compel you to a change. Answ. My argument, it seems found you changed: I cannot see you the same here, as, at least I thought, I saw you in your Aphorisms. Your Major, (say you) is, Whose acts they are, his conditions they are. In your reply, you seem to grant it, understood negatively, but affirmatively, (you say) the proposition holds not universally, but put not in your exception. But afterwards you put in an exception, as understood negatively; Nor negatively does it hold, (say you,) speaking de actione quâ est quid donandum. Answ. I think it holds nothing less than if there be quid agendum, as well is quid dandum, in case the action be matter of duty. You say further, to your Minor, I could better answer, if I could find it. Expecting, (say you,) that it should have been this, But our faith and Repentance are not Gods acts; And observing that I say, That this rises not to make them formally Gods acts, and not ours, leaving out all that, to which the Relative [This] refers, you know best for what reason. Your Reader may suspect, That it is to persuade, that I deny, (which seems your great design here) that God hath any hand in it. I was censured before for giving too m●ch to the Spirit of God, in the work of Sanctification; when I would have the denomination to be given to him, and not to man in that work: And here I am brought in, as ascribing nothing to God's Spirit, because I seem to say, that Faith and Repentance are man's acts and not Gods: Where you further except against me, as over cautelous in speaking the two propositions copulatively. It is enough, you say, to prove them Gods conditions, and ours, if they be God's actions and ours; Which will be, I think, a disproof (if it be once made good) of that which in your answer to your Querists, you have said; where you say, That they are God's part that he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant, and they are made our conditions in another. They are not then God's conditions and ours in the same Covenant: I am well enough content, that you make them God's conditions, and not ours, in the improper unconditionate Covenant, so that you will grant, that they are our conditions and not Gods, in the proper conditionate Covenant, of which we now speak. When I say that this rises not to make them formally Gods acts, and not ours, You say the word [formally] may do much to help me out; And I say it is well that I have some help that way, for I fear your great design here is to hedge me in; or else you had not opposed me, where my business is not to oppose, but to defend you, And here you come in with an objection to purpose. It is hard to know whether your [formally] respect a natural, or moral form; Where we have Logic niceties enough: But to let these pass: I think no man but yourself, would have mentioned nature, or morality here. My meaning is only, that, formali modo loquendi, they have their denomination from man, and not from God. You further observe, that I say, They are our acts, etc. God believes not, etc. Yielding that to believe is our act; you object, that to move us effectually to believe, as a superior cause, is not our work, but Gods. Answ. Sure you do not think, that ever I thought, that the work of a superior cause above man, is the work of man: And you may plainly see, that I speak as much, in words that you leave out, for God's more superior causality in this work, as you do. You say, Let it be so, to believe, is our work, and our condition; It follows not, that it is not Gods. But me thinks this necessarily follows. I never heard, that in any bargain, the condition of the one party, was the condition of the other. And your Reader will think, that you have here much forgot yourself, having in this very page said, The condition is his that performeth it, not his that imposeth it; And I am sure that God imposeth, and we perform the conditions of Faith and Repentance, therefore they are not his conditions but ours. You say, There are sufficient reasons why God is said not to believe, though he cause us to believe. If you please to produce these reasons, I shall he artily thank you. I have said plainly enough, that God causes us to believe, & den●'d that he is properly said to believe. Your reasons then must needs be acceptable. You tell me of Praedeterminants' and their Adversaries, Jesuits, Arminians: All of which acknowledge God to be the cause of u●●acts: And I acknowledge the same, and so far there is a ●aire and friendly accord. B●t you say, I adventure a step farther, and say, that faith and repentance are man's work, and not Gods. To which y●u reply, 1. What mean you then to yield afterward, that God worketh all our works in us? Those which he worketh are sure his work. Answ. What need you to ask that question, when I there explain mine own meaning? Your argument à conjugatis, [What God worketh, is his work] must have its due limits, or else you will run into many absurdities. God works our motion from place to place, and yet he himself does not move. The text itself by me quoted, gives an answer. Having asserted that God works them, the denomination is still given to man: God work● all our works in u●: when he has wrought them they are yet said to be ours. I freely subscribe to that of E●●ius upon the words, Deus omne bonum, ac totum, ab initio bonae voluntatis, usque ad consummationem boni operis, in nobis effic●citer operatur, ordine, sc. causalitatis. You ●dde, I never met with any Orthodox Divine, but would yield that Faith is a work of God's Spirit, and the Spirits work is doubtless Gods work: Farther telling me, If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants', you must acknowledge that God is the Physical Efficient, Praede●ermining, Principal, Immediate cause of every act of every creature, and therefore doubtless, of our Faith; and that both immediatione virtutis & suppositi; So that it is more properly his act then ours. Here you furnish me with an answer. Though in the highest way of Praedeterminants', I should ascribe all in every act to God, yet they are not Gods works or acts in a rigid proper sense, but by a Metonymy of the cause. He works them, because he work us for the acting of them, and so I explained myself, We are his workmanship, fitted and prepared for good works. Christ was the principal efficient when he raised Lazarus; yet it was Lazarus and not Christ that did rise. Concerning acts of this nature, that we are upon, I believe, that Quod voluntas agit, liberè agit, interim ex naturâ non est libera ad bonum, sed per gratiam liberata: libera in radice, non in termino. Homo denuò natus vult & perficit quod est bonum; Deus autem operatur & velle & perficere ordine sc. causalitatis. You profess yourself of Bp. Davenants mind, who saith, As for the predetermination of men's wills, it is a controversy between the Dominicans and Jesuits, with whose Metaphysical speculations, our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains, or at least should not. Declaring yourself, that you take it to be a point beyond the knowledge of any man, which way God works on the will in these respects: I much marvel then that you will so much trouble your Reader about it. You tell us, that if you must incline to any way, it would be rather to Durandus, for stronger reasons than you find in Ludovicus à Dola, who yet (you say) hath more than you have seen well answered. And yet perhaps à Dola, in case he had seen your arguments, would have judged his as strong as yours, Notwithstanding your great abilities to give answer to them, when all others that you have seen, have been wanting. So far as I have looked into the Author, I see him a man of much modesty, and one in whom reason is not wanting, though I will not undertake to declare either with, or against him. When I say [Our dexterity for holy duties is from the frame into which grace puts us, and so still the work is ours, though power for action is vouchsafed of God] You reply, Both velle and perficere are the gift of God, and not only, posse velle, & perficere. To which I say I had thought, that Power for action, had included that wnich you say, and not denied it, namely a powerful inclination of the will to the work. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, Psal. 110.3. The will is still man's, when grace has wrought him up to it. I had thought there had been no such danger in Paul's words, Phil. 4.13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me. You conclude, that I have not confuted your answer, namely to your Quaerists question, when indeed I never intended it, and if I would now go about it, I need not, finding it (as I think) done to my hand. You give in your reason, 1. That I have not disproved the absolute promise of the first special Grace. Answ. You say no more of this, in your reply to your Querist, that I can find, but Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise, is a great doubt, and that you think we may call it an absolute promise; when you had said before, that they are mere gracious predictions. 2. These supposed promises, as you say in your answer, are not within the proper conditional Covenant, and therefore I had nothing to do with it. 2. You further say, that I have not disproved God to be the Author of our faith, so as that it is his work. Answ. I do not find that in all your answer, and you most unfairely make the title of this Section, to be [Whether Faith and Repentance are God's works] My business was against your Querist, affirming them to be God's conditions not ours. 3. You say, If I had; yet Believing, which is our work is not the same with giving faith, or moving us to believe, which is God's work. Answ. This I confess; You did not affirm it before, that, I know, and I yield it now. The former is ours, viz. to believe, the latter, Gods, viz. to give Faith, or move us to believe. A mighty proof sure that your answer is not confuted if it had been intended, because I have gainsayed, what your answer never asserted. For that which I intended not against you, but as I thought, for you, That Faith and Repentance are our conditions, and not Gods, I thus further argue.  

Arguments evincing, that Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods, in the proper conditional Covenant.  Those conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditional Covenant, as from God, but required of God from us, are not Gods conditions, but ours, in that Covenant. This is clear; Being there expressly required of us, and not so much as mentioned, as from God; they cannot be his engagement, but ours to perform. But Faith and Repentance are not mentioned as from God, in the proper conditional Covenant, but required of God from us. This proposition is your own in your answer, as we have heard before, pag. 45, 46. Therefore Faith and Repentance are not God's conditions in the proper conditional Covenant, but ours.  
2. The conditions of a Covenant are his that performeth, and not his that imposeth. This Proposition is your own in this Section, and clear in reason. But we perform, and God imposeth Faith and Repentance. This is of two parts; First, that they are performed by us, This you confess, where you yield that they are our acts. For the second, that they are imposed on us, none can deny, See 1 John 3.23. Act. 17.30. They are therefore our conditions, and not God's, in this Covenant.  
3. Covenant-conditions are theirs, that are charged with falsehood in case of failing in them, and non-performance of them. This is plain in all Covenants: To make conditions, and to fail in them, is to be false to them. But in case of failing in Faith and Repentance, man is charged and not God. God fails not but man deals falsely. Therefore they are man's conditions, and not Gods.  
4. Covenant-conditions are theirs, who upon failing in them, and not performance of them, suffer as Covenant-breakers. This is clear. Israel covenanted to dismiss their Hebrew servants, and dismissed them not: And Israel suffered for it, Jer. 34. But upon failing in Faith and Repentance, God suffers not, so much as in his name. He is not charged with men's unbelief and impenitence: Men themselves suffer. Therefore Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, not God's. So that though I have not refuted your answer, which never was in my eye, yet I have answered your Querist's demand, and made it good, that Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, and not God's, in the Gospel-covenant.   

SECT. VIII. The Covenant of Grace requires and accepts sincerity.  
I Have passed through those debates, in which our judgements stand at difference; for in the last you will differ, though I had thought there had been a full accord between us. Now I must come to that in which we do agree, which pag. 144. Sect. 82. you entitle, [Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection, and accept sincerity?] In which I take to the negative, conceiving that it requires the same that it accepts. And in your Aphorisms, if I understand any thing, you have clearly delivered yourself with me, pag. 157, 158. in these words: As when the old Covenant said, Thou shalt obey perfectly, the Moral Law did partly (I think you mean perfectly) tell them wherein they should obey: So when the new Covenant saith, Thou shalt obey sincerely, the Moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein, or what we must endeavour to do, etc. Whereupon Mr. Crandon is, herein against you, with as great vehemence as in any other of your doctrines. Neither do I perceive, by any thing that you have said, that your mind is changed: And I had much rather answer Mr. Crandon in defence of truth, which he, in you, here opposeth, then to spend time in my own quarrel. Though my Tenent give you not distaste, yet it seems, my arguments do not please. But if truth stand, it matters less though I fall. You answer all my arguments in order, as though you judged me to be in the foulest error; when I am yet persuaded, that if not only some, but all of my arguments fail, which you make your business to impugn, the Position itself, (which with you is truth, as well as with me) will fall with it. After a short Apology, and conjecture made, who that Divine may be, whom with much reverence I mention, supposing him the first that manifested himself in the contrary way, that the Gospel requires perfection, and accepts sincerity, You tell me, that you conceive this difference is occasioned by the ambiguity of the word [Covenant of Grace:] and tell me, that in your judgement, I ought to have removed it, by distinguishing, before I had argued against their opinion. And so you fall upon my work for me, and give in abundance of acceptations of the word [Covenant of Grace.] And if I may take the boldness to be as free with you, as you with me, I think you might have done well to have made it appear, where, and by whom, this word is taken in all of these different senses, and significations. If your Reader knew all this, before your Book fell into his hand, you have nothing benefited him, you have only told him what he knew before: If he he knew it not, he hath now alone your word for it. And I know not where else, any Reader may find a great part of it, but from your hand. I profess myself to be much more amazed then edified in Reading all that you have spoke of it. When you have reckoned up very many senses of the word, you say, Now if the question be, whether in any of these senses, the Covenant doth command perfect obedience? you answer, 
An explication of the Author's meaning.  All the doubt is of the three latter, one of which is, Promises, Prophecies, and Types, before Christ's coming. And to speak mine own meaning, (and I had thought, no man had doubted of it) I take Covenant of grace in this dispute, for the whole transaction that passes, in a Covenant-way betwixt God and his people, in order to Salvation, as comprising all that God requires, promises, or threats, and all that to which man engages himself, and which he expects. But when I speak of that which the Covenant, thus taken, promiseth; I mean that which it promiseth in the promissory part of it: when I speak of what it threatneth, I mean in the Minatory part of it: and when I speak of what it requires, I mean in the preceptive part of it. Now this preceptive part must needs have some rule, at which men in Covenant must look, as distinguished from threats or promises, and containing Agenda, things to be done, and not Credenda, Speranda, or Timenda, things to be Believed, Hoped, or Feared. The rule, or Standard here, in these things, which man in Covenant is called to do, is the Moral Law: God quits not man of his Subjection: He is a subject in this, as he was in the former Covenant. The Covenant of works called to the keeping of it in the highest, fullest, and most complete perfection. The Covenant of G●ace calls us to eye it, and with sincere endeavour to conform to it. When God spoke to Abraham (the leading man in Covenant respective to all after-Covenanters, whether Jew's, or Gentiles,) he saith, I am the Almighty God, or God all-sufficient, walk before me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17.1. In which words, we have first the parties in Covenant, and the engagement of either party. God's engagement is to be to Abraham, Almighty, and all-sufficient for protection, for provision, so that, he need not look elsewhere to compass good, or keep off evil. Abraham's Engagement is, to walk before God, and to be perfect, or, as it is in the Margin reading, upright, sincere: which walking saith Ainsworth, comprehendeth both true faith, Heb. 11.5, 6. and careful obedience to God's Commandments. That faith is called for in this perfection, see 2 Chron. 16.8, 9 To rely alone upon God in one verse, is to be perfect in the other. That this perfection of service, of obedience, is no other than sincerity, all interpreters that I have seen, acknowledge. See Peter Martyr, Vaetablus, Paraeus, Calvin on the place. God Covenants for obedience, (saith Calvin) from his servant; and the integrity, which is here mentioned, is opposed to hypocrisy. Rivet closeth with Calvin, and in many words expresseth himself, that this perfection means nothing else, but integrity, or sincerity, otherwise (saith he) they that walk, and are yet in the way, do not attain to a perfection properly so called. So that according to him, the Covenant requires the same, that through grace the Saints here attain, and that is a perfection not property so called. Dr. Preston on the words is very large to this purpose. As for that which you produce as an opinion of an acquaintance, & friend of mine of extraordinary learning and judgement (leaving me to guests whom you mean, as indeed I do, but with possibility of mistake) That the Moral Law is the matter of the new Covenant; I cannot well understand, at least as you express it. How far the word [matter] may reach, I know not. I believe, that it is their Rule in the New Covenant, but otherwise held out, than it was in the Covenant of works, as I have before expressed myself. As a Law, it loses nothing of its ancient strictness, for it is ever unchangeably the same; the rule of our duty, and not of our strength; only the terms of the Covenant of Grace, are not for exact observation, but sincere endeavour. So that the least failing is a sin against the Law, but not a breach of Covenant; which for aught I discern is the sense that you give. As for that which in the second place you urge from him, whom you style, Learned, Judicious, and much Honoured Brother, and my friend and acquaintance; making these two, but one Law quo ad formam, I command thee fallen man, perfect obedience; and oblige thee to punishment for every sin: yet not remedilessly, but so, as that if thou Believe and Repent, this obligation shall be dissolved, & thou saved, else not. I should rather take them disjunctim then conjunctim, but I know not whether there be any considerable difference. I so far subscribe, that all that perish by the sentence of the Law, to whom the Covenant was ever tendered, are by neglect of Covenant, left in a remediless condition. The Law damns the unbeliever and impenitent: unbelief holds him, that he is not by the Covenant of Grace delivered from the Law's sentence. When you come to bring all home, by application to me, with your censure for laying an heavy charge upon them that I oppose, and apologizing on their part; I do not well know how to understand your words, that so I might see my own error. You say, It is most likely, that those Divines that affirm, that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfect obedience, and accepts sincere, do take that Covenant in this last and largest sense, and as containing the Moral Law, as part of the matter. Before you spoke of the Moral Law, as the matter of the Covenant, and now you speak of it, as part of the matter, And so understood, (you say) No doubt it is true, if I understand it of perfection for the future. And then doubtless it is an error, for I understand perfection for the present; And what the Law of God, or Covenant does require, it doth in present, as I think, require: And what gave you occasion to suspect otherwise, I cannot imagine. When you have taken upon you their defence, or at least their excuse, that hold against you, you come to answer my arguments, that hold with you.  
I said, [This opinion, 
Arguments that the Covenant of grace requires only sincerity vindicated.  That the Covenant requires perfection, establishes the former opinion opposed by Protestants, and but now refuted, as to the obedience, and the degree of it called for incovenant.] You answer, If you interpret the Papists as meaning that the Law requires true perfection, but accepts of sincere, then if it be spoken of the Law of works, or nature, it is false, and not the same with theirs whom you oppose. Answ. I marvel that you will put the case [if I do] when I tell you expressly that I do not. I limit the parallel to the obedience, and degree called for in Covenant, which these Reverend Divines make to be the same, as those that I had spoken to, but differ respective to acceptation: and so their mistake, if it be one, is infinitely below the Popish error in the Council of Trent held forth, which I did oppose. You further say, If you take them, as no doubt you do, as meaning it of the Law of Christ, as the Trent Council express themselves; then no doubt but they take the Law of Christ, in the same extended sense, as was before expressed: and then they differ from us but in the  notion. Answ. I do not understand your distinction between the Law of nature, and the Law of Christ, as I have before largely told you, and given in my reasons. You speak somewhat in that which follows, that the Papists do not indeed take the Covenant or Law itself to command true perfection, but that which they call perfection, which is no other than the grace of Sanctification, as I expressed out of some of the chief of the writers: But it is true perfection that those mean whom I now write against. And so you conclude, that you see not the least ground for my first charge. But you might observe what I further say in words more at large, then is here fit to he repeated, purposely to prevent this objection, that they look upon this, which we say is no more than Sanctification, as full Perfection; and such that answers to the Law in the sense in which it was given. Our character of grace inherent is their interpretation of the Law: and so they raise up men in a conceit that they answer the Law, when they live in a continual breach of it.  
2. I said, [If this opinion stand, than God accepts of Covenant-breakers, of those that deal falsely in it, whereas Scripture chargeth it upon the wicked, upon those of whom God complains, as rebellious, Deut. 29.25. Jos. 7.15. Jer. 11.10. and 22.8, 9] etc. You answer, This charge proceedeth merely from the confounding of the duty as such, and the condition as such; And you proceed ex non concessis, to charge me with this confusion; taking it for granted in the words that follow, that a Covenant, which is also a Law, as well as a Covenant, may by the preceptive part, constitute much more duty than shall be made the condition of the promises. In which I conceive there is a double mistake. 1. That a Covenant properly so called (of which we speak can be a Law in the proper acceptation. For a covenant is of 2. parties, either of both concurring to the constitution of it, & if it be a Law, both parties are as well Lawgivers, as Covenant-makers. A Superior may impose a condition as by a Law, but that is but one part of a Covenant. 2. That there is any duty in a Covenant, that is not also of the Condition of it. I am sure in the Covenant of Grace there is nothing duty, which is not a condition. Faith and Repentance are conditions, and if you can tell me of any thing else which is matter of duty, taking Repentance in its due latitude, viz. to cease to do evil, and learn to do well, it will be a piece of a new Catechism with me; These you grant are conditions, and this the [all] of a Christians duty. Whereas you say, If you will speak so largely as to say, All who break the preceptive part of the Covenant, are Covenant-breakers, than no doubt God accepteth of many such, and none but such— for Whether we say, (say you) that the New Law commandeth perfect obedience, or not, yet except you take it exceeding restrainedly, it must be acknowledged, that the precept is of larger extent than the condition, having appointed some duties which it hath not made sine qua non to salvation. Answ. I think God accepts of none that break the preceptive part of the Covenant, in the sense, as the preceptive part of it qua Covenant, is to b● understood; & as interpreters usually give as the meaning of it. God accepts (that I know) none (to speak de adultis) but those that walk before him, and are sincere. He neither accepts of profaneness, nor men of hypocritical dissimulation. I know sincerity hath its latitude, as perfection strictly taken hath not: An upright heart in temptations hath many a great shock; but if you can say, that the duty of the Covenant is so laid aside, that the heart is not right in the sight of God, as Peter of Simon Magus, (which must be said if the precept of sincerity and uprighthnesse be broke) than I do not know that there is any acceptance. Simon Magus must be in another frame, before the thoughts of his heart be forgiven him. And this I am confident is the thoughts of my learned friend whom you mention, if I do not (as I think I do not) mistake the man: And I have my reason for this confident opinion. And as I wonder at your distinction betwixt the duty and condition of a Covenant, so I no less marvel at your Simile. You tell me, If I send my Child a mile of an errand, and say, I charge you, play not by the way, but make haste, and do not go in the dirt, etc. and if you come back by such an hour, I will give you such a reward; if not, you shall be whipped; He that plays by the way & dirties himself; & yet comes back by the hour appointed, doth break the preceptive part, but not the condition. Your distinction is between the preceptive part, and the condition in a Covenant, and here you talk of a precept that is no part of the Covenant; but if I put all within the Covenant, and say, Come again within an hour, not playing, or dirtying yourself; if he either out stay his hour, or play, or run in the dirt, he forfeits his reward, and is at mercy for a whipping, according to Covenant. You speak afterward of a man's breach of some particular Covenant, which a man may do in a temptation; and yet as to the Covenant of grace, be sincere.  
3. I said, [Than it will follow, that as none can say, They have so answered the command of the Law that they have never failed; So neither can they with the Church make appeal to God that they have not dealt falsely in the Covenant, Psal. 44 17. Every sin (according to this opinion) being a breach of it, and a dealing falsely in it.] You reply, This charge is as unjust as the former. I confess it, and you giving no further reason, I shall sit down with the former answer.  
4. I said, [Than the great promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's Children to such as keep his Covenant, and to those that remember his Commands to do them, Psal. 103.17, 18. only appertains to those that keep the Law, that they sin not at all against it.] You answer, It follows not: If they sincerely keep the Law, they fulfil the conditions of the Covenant, though not the precept. And I say, the precept of the Covenant goes no higher than sincerity: And I had thought you had fully concurred with me. That Christ (say you) as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but perfect obedience to the moral law; & so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel, not only as a directory and instruction, but also as a command, I am not yet convinced: Adding, My reason is, because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform. Aphor. 157, 158. How these can be reconciled, I know not. I think none is enabled through grace to be more than sincere: and then the precept of the Covenant according to you requires no more. You further say, They keep the precept in an improper, but usual sense, as keeping is taken for such a less degree of breaking as on Gospel grounds is accepted. Answ. They keep it, if they be sincere, in the sense as Christ the Mediator of the Covenant gave it, & in as proper a sense as they keep the conditions.  
5. I said, [Than our Baptism-vow is never to sin against God, and as often as we renew our Covenant, we do not only humble ourselves that we have sinned, but we afresh bind ourselves never more to commit the least infirmity.] To this you answer, We do not promise in Baptism to do all that the precept of the Covenant requireth, but all that is made the condition of life, and to endeavour the rest. I desire to know where you find this distinction as applied to our Baptism-vow. You say pag. 79. of this Apology, that Baptised ones are to renounce the Flesh, the World, and the Devil, and that this abrenunciation hath been in the Church ever since the Apostles days, quoting Tertullian, Cyprian, and all antiquity for it. I would know whether Tertullian, Cyprian, or any other eminent in ancient times, helped it out with your distinction, that we engage to renounce them, not as duty, but as a condition to obtain Salvation. This privative part of duty holding out the terminus à quo, in our Christian motion, implies a positive work, which also was expressed in our English Liturgy, constantly to believe Gods holy word, and obediently keep his commands; and confirmed by the Apostle to be our duty, Ro. 6.4. Buried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of li●e. This we vow, and I desire to know what more in any Gospel-precept is required?  
6. I said, [than the distinction between those that enter Covenant, and break it, as Jer. 31.32, 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts, and put into their inward parts to observe it, fall●: all standing equally guilty of the breach of it; no help of grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant.] To this you answer: When sincere obedience, 
The precept, and the condition, in the Covenant of Grace, are one.  and perfect obedience, are all one, and when the precept, and the condition of the Covenant are proved to be of equal extent, than there will be ground for the charging of this consequence. I marvel how the first part of the answer came into your thoughts. That Text of Jeremiah speaks to sincerity, and not to perfection. For the second, sincerity is the precept, and sincerity is the condition: sincerity is one and the same, and therefore precept and condision are one and the same. That which we are to renounce, and that to which we engage, is our condition. But that which we renounce, and that to which we engage is th● Gospel, or Covenant-precept: The precept and condition are therefore the same. Faith and new obedience are the precept, Faith and new obedience are the condition; The precept and condition are therefore one and the same. So that your distinction falling, as I doubt not but it does, all my arguments after the first to the last, eo nomine stand. You go about to evade them all with this one distinction, which I leave to the judicious Reader to determine, whether it be not without a difference.  
But before I undertake your next, I have to thank you for that which you have transcribed out of Robert Baronius, pag. 401. of your Confession. Treating in an Appendix of the possibility of fulfilling the Law of God, considered according to Gospel lenity, you tell us what his second assertion is, pag. 122. which I desire the Reader to peruse, either in your book, or in the Author himself: Where he may see, 1. That the Gospel is below the Law, as to the degree that it requireth. As to the one there is a possibility of fulfilling, (according to him) and not so to the other. 2. That the obligation of the Law yet remains, so that all failings are transgressions. 3. That it stands as a Rule for us to affect, and with our best strength to endeavour after. 4. That the Gospel requires a certain measure of obedience, on pain of eternal damnation. This doubtless is that which is the condition of it. 5. That this obedience thus required, is necessarily to be, as high as grace enables to reach. In which we see in the first place, their distinction opposed, that say, That the Gospel requires perfection, and accepts sincerity. The Gospel according to him requires no more than it accepts, and for which grace enables. And in the next place, your distinction of duty and condition, is by him utterly overthrown, according to him, all comes within the condition, which is matter of duty.  
My last argument was, [Than it follows, that sincerity is never called for as a duty, or required as a grace, but only dispensed with, as a failing, and indulged, as a want. It is not so much a Christian's honour, or Character, as his blemish; rather his defect, than praise. But we find the contrary in Noah, Job, etc.] To this you reply, I will not say, it is passed the wit of man to find the ground of this charge, i. e. to see how this should follow; but I dare say, it is passed my wit. If it had been said, The Covenant commandeth perfection, and not sincerity, or the Covenant accepteth sincerity, but not commandeth it, there would have been some reason for this charge. But do you think that sincerity is no part of perfection, & c? Answ. My wit is so low, that I know not where the cloud lies. I do not take sincerity to be properly a part of perfection, but a degree towards it; as Calor ad unum, is a degree towards, rather than a part of Calor ad octo, So the lower degree of heat would remain, when a higher is introduced, and not be swallowed up in it. And if the command looks no lower than perfection in degree, the imperfect degree is not directly commanded, though (according to these) it is in dulged. It is said Matth. 12.20. that Christ will not break the bruised Reed, nor quench the smoking Flax. Is that feeble strength, and remiss heat, there looked upon as a duty; or rather is it not looked upon as a defect, or want? Is it not Christ's indulgence, rather than the obedience of his command, that is there noted or pointed out?  
My answer to the single argument, (so far as I have read, or heard, against that which I here delivered) follows. But, seeing that your reply, so far as I can judge, is rather with me, then against me, as to the Position itself; and your endeavour, rather to excuse, then defend those of the contrary opinion, (which very well pleaseth me, for I wish that more were said for their honour, so that the truth do not suffer) I am well content to pass it by, having a greater desire to defend you, where you speak for truth, than myself, where not truth, but my reputation is impugned: And shall make it my business to look into that, which Mr. Crandon hath against you in it. Concerning the second, that the Gospel doth require but sincere, 
Mr. Crandons' arguments answered.  not perfect obedience, which is both your assertion and mine, he saith, What shall we think of those Texts in the new Testament, which require us to be perfect? 2 Cor. 13.11 Jam. 1.4. Yea perfect as God is perfect, Matt. 5.48. reproving weakness and infirmity, and commanding a going on to perfection. Answ. We are to think of them as Protestant Divines ordinarily do in their commenting upon them; We deny, saith Rivet, that the perfection of which Scripture speaks, either when it commands us to be perfect, or gives testimony of perfection, or integrity to some, consists in a freedom from sin, Exercit. 52. in Genes. pag. 267. The Text quoted out of James, serves well to explain the rest, Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting, nothing, whence we may argue, 1. That perfection which Christians may attain, is the perfection that the Apostle calls unto, This is plain in the Text, he calls for perfection, that we may perfect: But Christians can reach no further a degree in perfection then sincerity; Therefore the Apostle calls only to sincerity. 2. That is the Apostles meaning, where he speaks of perfection, that himself gives in as his meaning; This is clear, he is the best interpreter of himself. But he expresses himself by perfect there to mean entire, or lacking nothing. A perfection of entireness, or integrality than he means, a perfection of parts, and not of degrees. For that Text of Paul, 2 Cor. 13.11. Finally brethren, farewell, be perfect, etc. let us compare with it, that which he testifies of some in Corinth. 1 Cor. 2.6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect, that is, those that have a right and more full understanding of Gospel mysteries, put in opposition to the weakness of novices, which perfection is, (according to the Apostle) the way to unity of judgement. As for the Text, Matth. 5.48. Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect, If it be strained to the highest, it calls for a divine, increated perfection, Mr. Crandon then must yield, that there is a sicut similitudinis, non aequalitatis, in that place. And if the context be consulted, we shall find, that it is opposed to that half-hypocriticall righteousness, which was found in Scribes and Pharisees; which all must exceed that enter into the Kingdom of heaven. In Heb. 6.1. a novice-like imperfection in knowledge, is reproved; and a further growth towards perfection is called for.  
Mr. Crandon goes on, If perfection were not the duty of a Christian, and unperfectness, and infirmity his sin, why doth the Apostle groan, and grieve under the remainder of his natural infirmities, and press on to perfection, Rom. 7.14. to the 24. Phil. 3.12, 14? The conclusion here is granted; the one is a duty, the other is a sin, and because of failing in the one, and the burden of the other, the Apostle groans. Foreseeing that this would be yielded him, he adds by way of objection, Or is such unperfectness a sin only in reference to the rule of the Law, and not the Rule of the Gospel, or that the Law doth, but the Gospel doth not call for perfection? Answ. There is not one rule of the Law, as I have demonstrated at large, and another of the Gospel, seeing the Gospel establishes the Law; only the Gospel-Covenant calls for those sincere desires, which grace works to conform in its measure to the Rule of the Law. He adds. This is both contrary to the Scriptures alleged, and doth withal make the Gospel to allow imperfections. But both of these have been already answered. What he further adds, answers itself, save only his great pains to pump out your meaning. But I shall leave you to be your own interpreter, and forbear in this to interpose between you.  
Thus I have passed through (Grace assisting) those things, wherein our judgements differ, as also those in which we agree in one. Some other things there are, which both of us problematically inquire into; which Sect. 56, 57, 58. You treat of, under this title [Of the life promised, and death threatened to Adam, in the first Law.] In which neither you, nor I, (as I think) see any important difference; and in them I must confess, that you deal with much candour; though there be some things in them, to which I might speak my differing thoughts, yet I shall forbear further to be the Readers trouble, and leave all to enjoy their own judgement.   

SECT. IX. The conclusion of the whole, with an enquiry into the judgement of Antiquity about several things in reference to justification.  
AS you have saluted me in a Prologue, so you are pleased in your close, in a particular address, to take your leave, In which, among other things, you wish me not to suppose, that you judge of all the rest of my book, as you do of this that you have replied to. Telling me, than you value the Wheat, while you help to weed out the tares. I am glad that I have your approbation in any thing, and I hope you will not be offended that I mind you, that in this work of weeding out Tares, you stand in danger to weed out the Wheat also. It is said by some, that the tares in those parts, carried so near resemblance with the Wheat, that they could hardly be distinguished. I am sure, that if I had judged the least nature of a Tare to have been in any of that which you have gone about to weed out, it never had been sown there; and I did believe, that I was rather weeding, then sowing Tares, when I was upon the work you examine. I dare not brand all that seed with the name of Tare●, which is not pure Wheat. In a Corn field, there are seeds of a middle nature, Not pure Corn, nor yet such, that like Tares are dangerously prejudicial to overtop, and destroy the Corn; whether they be Tares, or Wheat, or other seed of a middle nraure, we must both leave to the judgement of the Master of the harvest. You speak of a Pardon in the next place for your onfident concluding me in an error, and yourself in the truth; In which I have all reason (if that must pass as a fault, needing Pardon) to be facile; seeing I need it from you, as well, as you from me; Though I am not in expectation of like credence as you (your name with some, being enough to put in balance against all the Arguments that another hand can produce) yet I believe, that I am as far above scruples. As I have not heard, that your elaborate replies, to those learned friends, that in private have given in their animadversions, have given them such satisfaction, as to change their judgements; so I confess it fares with me; And when either of us stand this way opinionated, no other course can be taken, then that which you mention, either to leave the other, and both of us, all others, to judge by the evidence of arguments on both sides, with what part the truth rests. I have made it my business in most points of difference, to enlarge myself further with arguments then before I judged to be needful. I doubt not but they will undergo different censures. I shall not much matter what on the sudden will be voiced, but shall rather weigh (if God prolong life) what after a few years will be more generally thought. Neither shall I in the mean time assume the boldness to charge you with any error, you have herein forestalled me, in the preface of your Confession, in your enumeration of those qualifications, which you expect in any that shall attempt it. 1. That he be a man of a stronger judgement, and of a more discerning head; and not one of those that Nazianz. describes, Orat. 1. and (after Pag. 453.) think themselves wise enough to be teachers, or contradict others, when they have got two or three words of Scripture: Nor such as have not wit for an ordinary business, and yet think thy can master the deepest controversies. He that thinks to do this without a piercing wit (as well as grace) ordinarily thinks to see without eyes. 2. That he be one that hath longer, and more diligently and seriously exercised himself in these studies, than I have done. 3. That he be one more free from prejudice and partiality than I am. 4. That he have more of the illumination of God's Spirit, which is the chief. 5. That he have a more sanctified heart, that he may not be led away by wrong ends, or blinded by his vices. It is not for me here to enter comparison; There being but one piece, of one of them, in which I can speak any such priority, I have been longer (I think) exercised in these studies, which is all that I have to plead, and I wish it had been with more serious diligence; It is my way then to keep silence; Though many may think that you are scarce serious, in judging all of these to be necessary requisites, in any that shall take upon them such boldness; seeing you seem not to tie yourself up to this Rule, in your deal with others. You are pleased sometimes to say, that you should have little modesty, or humility, if you should not think more highly of the understanding of many Reverend and Learned Brethren, who descent from you (in several points debated between you and me) then of your own: Yet who is it, of all these, that you do not charge with error? Yea where is there the man, almost in the world, that hears not that charge from your pen? More than once you charge error, on Reverend Dr. Twisse, Prolocutor (while he lived) of the late Assembly; in speaking for justification of of Infidels (as you call it,) and making it an immanent act in God, warning younger Students to be wary in their Reading of him. In whose behalf Mr. Jessop hath stood up as an advocate, not pleading justification in his name, but not guilty; In which I shall not interpose. My judgement in the thing is sufficiently known. You charge the Assembly that set him up in that honour, in like sort; entering your dissent from their larger Catechism in four passages, from their confession in six, desiring only indeed, a liberty of expounding, but in several of them you well know that your exposition was none of their meaning, which you do not obscurely signify, in the different expression of yourself, in your dissent from them, and from the Synod of Dort. You charge the pious Ministry of this Nation in general (out of whom that Assembly was gathered) in the Preface of your Confession, with error in their thoughts about Church Discipline, and if information do not deceive me, as full an Assembly of Learned, and pious Ministers, as Conveniently live for such a meeting together, in any part of the Nation, after a full debate of that which you charge as an error, determined it against you. Lastly, you charge the whole reforming party of Divines, with four great errors, as we have seen in your Apology, pag. 16. Now for a man to think, that you judge yourself above all these, in this gradation mentioned, in every one of those enumerated qualifications, were indeed to challenge, both your humility and modesty. Your Readers then must conclude, that either you were not serious in your List given in; or else you take liberty to transgress your own Rules, and set upon that work yourself, which you will not allow in others. After quotation of several passages of the Fathers (with which all must vote) you seem to prefer one of Austin above all, contra rationem nemo sobrius, contra Scripturas nemo Christianus, contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus; Making that application of this, as you have done of none of the other, That in the point of faith's instrumentality, and the nature of the justifying act, taking in afterwards the interest of man's obedience in justication, as it is consummate in judgement, you are constrained upon all these three grounds to give in your dissent. I can persuade none to abjure Christianity, renounce reason, and make a schism in the Church (as it seems you think you must do) to come over to me; and yielding (as clearly enough you do) that I have this little corner of the world, wheresoever Protestants dwell, for an hundred and fifty years passed on my side, sure you stand amazed, that none of all these men, in so long a space of time, can either be brought to the sight of reason, or to a right understanding of Scriptures, or yet to return to that unity, from which they have in so foul a Schism departed. These points, on the two first grounds, have been brought already (as well as I can do it) to the test; In which you see, my reason against yours; and my sense of Scriptures, against that which you have given; The third only doth remain to be enquired into, and I cannot yet believe that the Church is my adversary. And here you seem to put me fairly to it. If you will bring (say you) one sound reason, one word of Scripture, or one approved writer of the Church, (yea or one Heretic, or any man whatsoever) for many hundred years after Christ (I think I may say 1300. at least) to prove that Christ, as Lord, or King, is not the object of the justifying act of faith, or that faith justifieth properly as instrument, I am contented so far to lose the reputation of my reason, understanding, reading, and memory. You speak this, you say, because I tell you, there was scarce a dissenting voice among our Divines against me about the instrumentality of faith, and if (say you) there cannot be brought one man that consenteth with them for 1200. or 1400. years after Christ, I pray you tell me, whom an humble and modest peaceable man should follow? Answ. For reason, or Scripture, I shall bring no more than I have done, I think you may see both, in that which I have already written. The Church's testimony only now remains to be looked after, whether you, or I can lay the fairer claim; and here you distinguish of it. 1. As it was for the first 1200, 1300, 1400 years after Christ, for you name all of these Periods. 2. As it hath been for 150. years now past. The Church for one full hundred years at least, it seems by you, stood Neuter, viz. from 1400. to 1500. The Church for this little scantling of time, viz. for 150. years is not denied by you to vote with me, if the Protestant party to which you join in communion, may deserve that name. But for all that space as before, it was (as you pretend) unanimously yours; at well the Orthodox, as the Heretical party in it. Here, for further discovering of truth, two things should be enquired into. 1. Whether he, more worthily deserves the name of an enemy of the Church's peace, that dissents in judgement from the Church in some particulars, as in ages past it was; or he that confessedly dissents from the Church whereof he is, and where he lives, and as that present, it stands? I think, here the determination is easy; Let us inquire whether of these dissents will work more heart-broyles, quarrels, contentions, envyings, mutual oppositions, and needless disputes, and let that be agreed upon (as well it may) to bear the blame. If all must be tied up to keep peace, and be at one with the Church, as to all particular tenants, in the revolution of all these ages, they are then tied to know, and their Pastors are bound to teach, what in all successive ages hath been the Church's opinion. But this were a great burden for Pastors, and far more intolerable to be put upon the people. If a man may be secure in this, that he goeth not against truth, I think he need not trouble himself as to ages past, in the matter of peace. Had you produced the vote of Antiquity, as a probable inducement to persuade, that you had truth according to Scripture, and reason, on your part, it had been somewhat, such appeals to humane Authority, after Divine Testimony produced, is ordinary; but to descent from the Church, in which a man lives, and of which he is, to avoid the danger of a breach of peace, with the Church that sometimes was, is such a way of peace, that I never yet knew trodden, or taken: 2. Whether Antiquity be as clear for you, as the Church in present is for me? The latter you freely grant, but the former will, I think, hardly be yielded, notwithstanding what you say, Because a word, or an opinion, that is unsound, hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 years; therefore I am suspected as a novelist, for forsaking it. Whereas it is to avoid singularity, and notorious novelty, that I assent not to your way. The same I say about the interest of man's obedience, in his justification, as continued, and consummate in judgement. If either Clemens Roman. Polycarp. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Clem. Alexand. Minutius Faelix, Arnobius, Lactantius, Cyprian, Athanasius, Eusebius, Greg. Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Cyrill Hierosol. Synesius, Cyrill Alaxandr. Macarius, Hierome, Salvian, Vincentius Lirin. Vigilius, or any council were of your mind in any one of these points, and against mine, than I will confess, at least my supine negligence in Reading, and my very faulty Memory, in retaining their words. How fully you have proved the unfoundness, either of the word, or opinion in question, others must judge, But whether the novelty be so notorious, as you speak, is to be enquired into, and in order to that, I shall request you,  

Some things propounded to the Readers consideration  To take into consideration who they be that make the loudest noise, and send out the greatest Cracks about the Fathers; If the Church of Rome may be believed, all Antiquity is theirs. Hoping to put that cheat upon us, as the Gibeonites sometimes did upon Israel, 
Ad patres si quando licebit accedere, confectum est praelium; Tam sunt omnes nostri quam Gregorius 13. Papa, filiorum ecclesiae amantissimus Pater. Testes fenestrae & omnes res & reculae.  It is still their pretence that all former ages were on their side. If we might but appeal to the Fathers (saith Campian) the controversy were ended, They are all as fully ours, (saith he) as Pope Gregory the 13. that most Loving father of the Sons of the Church. As the windows in the Church & all other things and thinglings (to take the liberty to coin English as he doth Latin) are their witnesses, So all the Fathers also, that the truth is with them. I will say no more, but that these naked names will appear to Judicious Readers, but as an empty sound; a voice and nothing more.  
2. That some of untainted integrity, and of no less ability to give account of the Judgement of Antiquity, in these controversies, have asserted the full contrary to that, which you here with so much confidence deliver. Chemnitius was a man differing from you, in every piece of this doctrine, in which you descent from me, and particularly your adversary in all these three points in which you make this appeal to former ages. He is a man zealous for the instrumentality of Faith in Justification, he is large in asserting the promise of mercy in Christ, to be the special object of Justifying Faith; and against your distinction of Justification, begun by Faith alone, and consummate by works; yea, there is not a man that ever wrote, that appears more your adversary in this point than he, being judged the most learned, grave, and moderate of that party in the Reformed Churches, wherewith you are most displeased, in this Controversy, yet he is full in quotation of Antiquity as of his side, both in his Common places and in his Examination of the Council of Trent, 144. After a List of authorities brought by him, his close is worth observation, 
(a) Haec pauca ideo annotavi, ut ostenderem doctrinam nostram de Justificatione, habere testimonia omnium piorum qui omnibus temporibus fuerunt: idque non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus, nec in otiosis disputationibus, sed in seriis exercitiis poenitentiae & fidei, quando conscientia in tentationibus cum suâ indignitate, vel coram ipso judicio Dei, vel in ago mortis luctatur. Hoc enim solo modo, rectissimè intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione sicut in Scripturâ traditur. Quaeres put concerning this Appeal.  These few (saith he) I have noted, that it may appear that our doctrine of Justification, is attested by all the Godly of all ages, that have lived in all times, and that not in their Rhetorical declamations, or vain disputes, but in their serious exercises of Repentance and Faith, in their Conflicts of conscience in temptation, or with their own unworthiness, or before the Tribunal of God, or in the Agony of death: For this way (saith he) the doctrine of Justification as it is delivered in Scripture, can alone rightly be understood. What can be now more contrary than his Testimony and yours? how high are both your confidences in full contradiction one against another. That which you say is a notorious novelty, he saith, hath the attestation of all antiquity; who shall he now believe, that hath not, nor cannot search the Authors themselves, that have lived in your 1300. or 1400. years?  
3. I would have you to take into serious consideration these following Quaeres.  
1. Whether the doctrine of those that bore the name, and outward face of the Church, was uniform, through out that whole series of time that you take in, in you● challenge? Whether in the time of Thomas Aquinas, and the following ages, the doctrine concerning Justification, in the Latin Church, was the same as in the days of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Austin? If so, than the doctrine of merit, in the highest way, as it is now taught in the Ch●●●● of Rome, was delivered by the Fathers; & the oppositious 〈◊〉 is, as notorious a novelty, as this of the instrument 〈◊〉 ●f Faith, or justifying act, by you is pretended. How high Aquinas is for merit, as also his followers, all that cast their eyes upon him may soon see: And in case in this time, a change intervened, and a new way be introduced, you were not so advised to jumble together so many ages of so different a complexion, even Lombard himself was not the same man, as Schoolmen that in some ages followed him.  
2. Whether there be any important change in the doctrine of Justification in the Church of Rome, since that time that closeth up your account, viz. ann. 1400. to this day? As I take it, their doctrine is substantially the same now, as it was in Aquinas his age, and some time before him. The Council of Trent laid down the same doctrine in this thing, that their Doctors had of several ages held. And though they put upon it their sanction, yet they made no sensible variation, as they expressly declare themselves, Sess. 6. Cap. 8. And the present Church of Rome, rigidly adheres to it. It being therefore the same for 1400. years' time, as the most Ancient Fathers taught, yea as Christ and his Apostles delivered (as afterwards you take the boldness to assert) and the same now as it was then, The doctrine of Rome in the doctrine of Justification is now the same, as Christ and his Apostles left it, Being faithfully kept by Fathers, Schoolmen, determined by the Council of Trent, & now maintained by Jesuits & their adherents. This is too clearly by you implied; If it be indeed your thoughts that there is none or very little difference betwixt us and them in this point, see how much you descent from your learned friend, Mr. Gataker, where he tells you in his second letter, of that great difference that is between us, and the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification: As I hear you bring in the name of reverend Mr. Ball to give honour to this, that the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the Reformed Churches is one and the same, or inconsiderably differing, in this of Justification; which you speak (as you say) being so informed, and I believe you have heard as much. For many years before his death, I heard it from an eminent hand, and acquainted Mr. Ball with it, who with much expression of trouble of Spirit, that it should be so voiced, disclaimed if, and afterwards in his Treatise of Faith (not then published) and his posthumus work of the 〈◊〉 ●nt, hath given to the world sufficient testimony against 〈◊〉 ●his bruit perhaps, gave occasion to that which Mr. Cran●● ●nconsid●rately vented, and you have so praise-worthily vindicated, and I judge it necessary that this of mine own knowledge (as being an ear witness) should be added.  
3. Whether the Fathers that you mention, and others their contemporaries that you do not name, were so distinct, as might be desired, in and about the word Justification, and other words of concernment touching this controversy? Though as to the thing itself they speak according to the Scriptures; when th●y speak of Justification, Reconciliation, Remission, yet so far as I have read, & find in the observation of others, they too usually confound the word Justification and Sanctification together (which you declare yourself at least to dislike in others) making it not verbum forense, as you yield it is, but rather relating to our inhaerent habitual Righteousness, whereby we are not pronounced, and acquitted as just, upon the merit of Christ, (which otherwise they orthodoxly own) but habitually so, and therefore so denominated; Being said to be Justified, because of unjust we are made just, which is the work of Sanctification, and implies a real, and not a relative change, such as is found in Justification; And if some terms of theirs need amendment, upon further inquiry into this doctrine, then why not others?  
4. Whether it be the word only when you speak of the instrumentality of Faith, or Faith in Christ quà Lord, not to be the justifying act, or the thing itself that you intent, in that so large challenge of yours? If it be the want of the words only [instrument, or quà Lord] that you mention, your charge is very low, upon several accounts. 1. Words of art of this nature are seldom found in the Fathers. There are few discourses in them about causes, whether Efficient, Final, Material, Formal, Instrumental, neither are there any, so exact logical distinctions, under what notion they take that, which they are upon in their writings; Words of this kind were brought in by Schoolmen, and little use made of them, as I think, before Lombard's days. Protestant writers finding them in the Church, are necessitated to make use of them, as well that their adversaries may understand them, as with their own weapons to deal with them, And the Schoolmen having found another instrument in Justification, viz. Baptism (as appears ●y the determination of the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. Cap. 7.) it is no marvel that when the Fathers use not the word at all, that these do not so use it, as it ought according to Scriptures. 2. You would be (I doubt not) as much wanting in making proof of the use of your own terms among the Fathers, as your adversaries of theirs; we may find the word [instrument] and the restrictive particle [quà] in your twenty six Fathers, ascribed to Faith in Justification, as oft as you can find your causa sine quâ non, or, as I think, your conditio cum quâ. We may likewise find that distinction of fides qua, and fides quà, which you make the general cheat, as often as you can find your distinctions already examined, which Pag. 3. Sect. 1. you heap together; When you challenge the words of others, as novel; it lies upon you, to assert the antiquity of your own. If it be the thing itself, that you challenge, as not found in any Authors in this Compass of time, I believe you will not be found so happy in your defence of this provocation, as B. Jewel was in the defence of his, that he published at Paul's Cross. I do not doubt but many Authors in this time ascribe that office to Faith, and the whole of it, that the Protestant Churches make the instrumental work, and that they assign the same specifical object of Faith, in the work of Justification, as is by the Reformed Churches now asserted.  
5. To acquaint us how many of the Fathers, by you mentioned, have purposely treated upon, & particulary spoken to, this doctrine of Justification, and in what part of their works this subject is by them thus handled, that they that do not know it may turn and read it; I have a considerable part of those that you mention, though some of them, I confess, I have not seen, as Polycarp, Tatianus, Macarius, Athenagoras, Vigilius, as I have several others that you mention not; and I would fain see what they have, either for or against the Protestant belief. Those that have not treated at all on this subject (as in some of them that you name, I am told by Dr. Prideaux that Christ is scarce mentioned) or have spoken upon it, only be the [by] are as much as nothing, their names might as well have been spared as mentioned. Mr. T. hath done as much for his Antipadobaptism, in naming some of the Ancients that never appeared for Infant-Baptism, when they have not at all spoken to it, and their contemporaries have asserted it.  
6. Whether the present Church of this age, in which we live (taking in our Fathers that lived within this happy 150. years, since the Romish yoke hath been cast off) be not as considerable, and as much to be heeded in this controversy, as all of those in your list mentioned, if you should put in, yet more to increase (so far as names could do it) both weight and number? They were subject to error, and humane frailty, as well as the Church that is, and of late was. They were not able to decide their own Controversies, but laboured, as well as we, under contentions, and divisions; they were seldom unanimous, but often at difference, not only with others, but themselves; Nay have not our Writers the far greater advantage? 1. Being far above yours in number; go through Protestant Learned Writers within this Compass of time, and we shall find your List of names far exceeded. 2. They have fully debated the cause, and in public Assemblies determined it, in Confessions openly professed it, Considered of, and answered arguments against it, turning over every stone to find out the truth in it, so it cannot be said of the Fathers in your List mentioned, and Nil tam certum, quam quod ex dubio certum. The Fathers that wrote before Pelagius have not been thought of that account, nor so meet Judges, in the point of Grace and Freewill, (having no adversary, and therefore spoke more loosely) as Austin, Prosper, Fulgentius, and those that followed, who were by the adversary put upon the study of it; 
Quid opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula, qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur, non haebuerunt necessitatem in hâc aifficili ad solvendum quaestione versari, quod proculdubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur?  The greatest Doctors at some times, (saith Dr. Fr. White Treat: of the Sabb. p. 89.) before Errors and Heresies are openly defended, are not, neither can be so circumspect in their writing, as to avoid all forms and expressions, all sentences and propositions, all and every tenet, which in after times, may yield advantage to the adversaries of truth. Quoting Austin de Praed. Sanct. cap. 14. To what purpose should we search into their works, which before this heresy arose, had not need to busy themselves in the answer of this difficult question? which doubtless they had done, if they had been put to deal with such adversaries? This we may fitly apply to this point of justification, we are beholding the opposites of it, for a more industrious fifting of it, and more clear light in it. Paul had never spoke so much to assert a resurrection, had there been none in that age that had denied it. H●d not Popish Schoolmen perverted the doctrine of justification, Protestant Divines had never appeared with that zeal, and fervour of Spirit in it. And the Fathers doubtless had been more exact in their Treatises of this point, had they seen it, (as we have done,) perverted and abused.  
7. If Fathers, and all Antiquity were so abhorrent from the instrumentality of faith in justification, How is it probable that any singularly versed in Antiquity, so, as to have few parallels, and no way affected to the Protestant doctrine in the point of justification, but averse from it, and siding with the adversary, should own the instrumentality of faith, and argue for it? if Antiquity were so averse from it, he that takes it up, is sure either ignorant in Antiquity, or much engaged in his affections to the Protestant party: But such there have been, that can neither be challenged as ignorant, nor suspected for partial engagement, that yet assert the instrumentality of faith, witness Bp. Montague. In whatsoever he hath otherwise been thought defective, and detected by Bp. Carleton, Dr. Featley, and others, yet he hath ever been of eminent name for an Antiquary. For his averseness to the Protestant Doctrine of justication, let not only his adversaries speak, that have appeared against him, but Sanct. Clara our adversary, who Problem. 26. quotes Montagues Appeal, Chap. 6. to prove, the justification of a sinner consists in the inward work of grace inherent, agreeable, as he says, with the holy definition of the Council of Trent. Now that this great Antiquary, and friend of our adversaries, appears for the instrumentality of faith in the work of justification, see his Appeal, cap. 9 part. 2. putting it into his title, that God doth justify originally, and faith instrumental, and reasoneth for it in the Chapter itself.  
These things being pr●mised, as to the first, concerning the Instrumentality of Faith, 
Proofs from antiquity for the instrumentality of faith.  I thus argue. They that are for justification alone by faith, without limit, or distinction, as excluding all whatsoever else in man, they are for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification; But Antiquity is very large for justification alone by faith, without limit, or distinction, as excluding all in man, except faith, in this work; Therefore Antiquity is for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification. Here the Proposition is first to be proved, and then the Assumption. The Proposition I ●hus prove. To be justified by faith alone plainly holds forth somewhat peculiar to faith, which is not found in any other grace; this none can deny, and you confess, pag. 96. of your Confession, Conclus. 29. But nothing else can be faiths peculiar work, distinct from other graces, but to be an instrument in this work; This is clear. This peculiar work, or office of faith must be, either to be an instrument in this work, or else a Conditio cum quâ, or, causa sine quâ non, or else somewhat more noble than all of these, as the formal meritorious cause, etc. But it's peculiar office cannot be merely to be Conditio cum quâ, or, causa sine quâ non, both these equally belong to the works of Sanctification; Though they be all present together (saith our Book of homilies) yet they do not justify together, pag. 15. At the same instant that God justifies, saith Davenant, he infuses inhaerent grace, which yet he denies to be any cause, but an Appendix to our justification, de Justit. habit. cap. 23. pag. 315. Bellarmine says, That Protestants agree in this, that good work are not necessary to Salvation, but only by a necessity of presence, lib. 4. de justit. cap. 7. That necessity by his confession Protestants than acknowledge, and he intends justification, as is plain by the Subject he hath in hand. Here then is nothing peculiar to faith, to be merely conditio cum quâ, or causa sine quâ non, Neither can we ascribe any more noble causality, as to be a formal, or meritorious cause, as needs not to be proved. The asserting of justification by faith therefore, denotes that which we make an instrument in justification. Now that the Ancients assert, that we are justified alone by faith, putting in that exclusive particle, that Papists are wont to say, is not in Scriptures, nor Fathers, may be made good, 1. By manifold authorities asserting it. 2. By multitude of quotations. Our Book of Homilies, having quoted several Scripture-Texts for justification by faith alone, adds, And after this-wise to be justified only by this true and lively faith in Christ, speaketh all the old, and Ancient Authors, both Greek and Latin, Ser. of Salvation, par. 2. pag. 16. And the Rhemists charging Protestants to foist the word [only] into the Text, in Rom. 3.28. Fulk replies. You were best to charge all the Ancient Fathers which use this term, of whom we have received it, to be Foysters, and excluders of the Sacraments, and good works. The particle [alone by faith] in the article of justification, was not first devised by us, saith Chemnitius, but was always used with great consent in all Antiquity, as examples out of the writings of the Fathers do demonstrate, which sentences of the Fathers, saith he, are gathered by Robert Barnes, Aepinus, Bullinger, Otho Corberus, etc. Loc. de justif. pag. 772. Octavo. And Chamier Panstrat. Cathol. Tom. 3. lib. 22. c. 5. having quoted Scripture, that faith alone justifieth, concludes, so the Scripture is clear with us; The Fathers in order are to be reckoned up by me, before I examine the exceptions of adversaries. The induction of quotations yet remains, and I had it in my thoughts, to have set down the words themselves (which for the most part are very express) but I find that that would be tedious to myself, and wearisome to the Reader, and divers of the Authors quoted to my hands I have not, I shall content myself therefore to point out the Authors, quoting them, and the places quoted. Ambrose in Roman 1. Rom. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 20. 1 Cor. 1. Galat. 1. Galat. 3. and Sermon. 45. (if it be Ambroses) is quoted by Chemnitius in the place mentioned, who says, that Ambrose repeats that exlusive particle [only] fifteen times. By Eckhardus Compend. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 391. By Chamier loco citato, Hilary lib 6. de Trinit. Can. 8. in Matth. 21. is quoted by Chemnitius ibid. Fulk in Rom. 3.28. Chamier, ibid. Davenant, and Prideaux lect. 5. Hieron. in Rom. 4. Rom. 10. in Galat. 2. Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier, and Eckhardus, ibid. Origen lib. 3. in Rom. cap. 3. and lib. 4. is quoted by Fulk, Eckhardus, and Chamier ibid. chrysostom in 1. Cor. 1 Rom. 3. Hom. 7. in Tit. 2. Hom. 3. Rom. 4. Hom. 8. Galat. 3. Serm. de side & lege naturae, is quoted by Chamier, Eckhardus, Fulk, Davenant de Justit. habit. cap. 29. pag. 378. and Prideaux Lect. 5. pag. 164. Athanasius Orat. contra Arrianos is quoted by Eckhardus ibid. Basil Hom. de humil. 51. is quoted by Fulk, Eckhardus, Chamier, Davenant ibid. Nazianzen. Orat. 22.26. is quoted by Fulk, Eckhardus, Chamier ibid. Theodoret in Rom. 3. Ephes. 2. is quoted by Eckhardus, as also Therapeuticon Sept. by Chamier. Bernard Serm. 22. in Cant. Epist. 27. is quoted by Chamier, Eckhardut, Isychius in Levit. 14. lib. 4. is quoted by Chamier, and Eckhardus. Theophilact in Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier, and Chemnitius. Sedulius in Rom. 3. Rom. 4. is quoted by Chamier, and Chemnitius. Primasius in Rom. 4. Rom. 8. is quoted by Chamier, and Eckhardus. Victor. Mar. lib. 3. in Gens. is quoted by Eckhard. Fulk in Rom. 4. Petrus Chrysologus Ser. 34. Prosper. Aquitan. Epigram. 9 are quoted by Chamier. Ruffinus is quoted by Fulk. Beda in Psal. 77. pag. 71. by Davenant, and Bp Usher de statu & success. Eccles. cap. 2. pag. 46. Gennadius in Rom. 3. Haymo in Rom. 1. Lyra in Galat. 3. Gloss. Ordinaria in Epist. Jac. is quoted by Chemnitius. Theodolius in Rom. 3. Fortunatus in Expos. Symboli, Epiphanius in Anchor. Phylast. in Catal. Irenaeus adversus Haeres. lib. 4. Haeres. 5. Maxentius de fide, are quoted by Eckhardus. And because Papists say, that Austin uses not this exclusive particle [only] therefore Chemnitius tells us, that it is used by him, in Serm. Quadrages. as also in his exposition of these words, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, which is in his 68 Serm. de tempore lin. 1. also Tractat. 8. Tractat. 42. in Johan. Contra duas Epistol. Petil. lib. 3. Serm. 40. de verbis domini, Chamier adds, In octoginta tribus quaestionibus Quaest. 76. Exposit. in Galat. 3. Chemnitius having quoted these testimony (that I have mentioned under his name) adds, we may then truly say with Erasmus, that this word [sole] which is followed with so great clamours in this age in Luther, is reverently read, and heard, in the Fathers. So that we see a peculiar interest, that faith hath in justification, which belongs to no other grace; And therefore it is no wonder, that you who forsake all the reformed Churches, that unanimously make it an instrument in justification, are at such a stand as you are in Conclus. 29. and 30. of your Confession, what office in justification, to assign to it; you confess you cannot hit upon the true and full difference in the point of Conditionality, in this work between saith and obedience; which is no marvel, seeing you oppose that which is indeed the difference, and Faiths peculiar office; which is, the instrumental interesting us in Christ; by way of acceptation, or apprehension, as Isychius in the place quoted saith, 
Sola fide apprehenditur, non ex operibus.  The grace (viz. of justification) is apprehended by faith, and not by works, which is as plain a testimony as may be, for the instrumentality of this grace. Chemnitius yet further notes the way that Papists take to evade these testimonies. Objecting that the Ancients used that particle [sole] otherwise than we do, and returns his answer.  
1. That they use the word sole, or alone, to exclude all other sects; intending no more, but that it is alone the Christian Faith, and not the Jewish, or Turkish, that leads to Justification and Salvation. And this rule Franc. à Sancta Clara produces from Vega, Pag. 191. with no other approbation, but that it is sometimes true, and Chemnitius quite overthrows it, making it appear, that when the Fathers speak of the application, apprehension, or acceptation of remission of sins by Faith, they still oppose it to works, and not to other sects, giving clear instances.  
2. They object. That in the use of this particle [sole] the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith, and Regeneration, and denying only, that the works of Infidels, and unregenerate, do justify. This Rule Franc. à Sanctae ● Clara doth produce out of Casalius, but plainly enough signifies, that it will not satisfy. This Chemnitius also overthrows, by several clear testimonies out Origen, and Ambrose.  
3. They object. That by the particle [sole] the Fathers do exclude ceremonial works, and not all works, which indeed is unworthy of answer, the Law of Ceremonies, being antiquated before their days.  
4. Seeing none of these will hold, Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas, 
Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur specialiter alicui, illud provenit, aut quia in illo excellentissimè reperitur, aut quia primò reperitur.  in Quaest. de veritate, Quaest. 14. artic. 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many, is attributed specially to one, that comes to pass, either because it is most eminent, or because it is first in it, which Rule might serve with some reason as applied to this purpose, for answer both to Scripture-texts, and testimonies of Fathers, in case they only said, that we are Justified by Faith. But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith, but denies it to works; and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies, but that Faith only Justifies, and particularly exclude works, this Rule therefore can do nothing here. So that I conclude, that Faith hath its office in Justification, which other graces have not, which is not by you denied; And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality, as in Scriptures, so in the Fathers, an no other office peculiar can be found for it, according to your Confession, therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers, it Justifies as an instrument. Before I go off this head, let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux, which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific. Pag. 146. 
* Arminio minimè placuit, (ait ejus inter pres Corvinus) quod fides dicitur instrumentalis Justificationis nostrae causa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini, pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Justificat.  It did not, saith he, please Arminius, (as his interpreter Corvinus says) that Faith should be called the instrumental cause of our Justification; Whereupon he addresses himself to him: Tell us in good earnest, O Arminius! how it Justifies? May not I put the same question to you? He speaks for Arminius, o●t of an Epistle of his to Hippolytus à Collibus, the Palsgrave's Ambassador. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, ho est, actum fidei (dicit) imputari in justitiam, idque proprio sensu, non Metonymicè, quatenus objectum apprehendit, in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum.  i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousness, and that in a proper, not a metonymical sense, as it apprehends the object, which he there refutes. But it will not serve you to answer thus, For with you, works justify, and yet you confess that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative, which agrees not to works in Justification. We must either then yield that it Justifies as an instrument, or shut it quite out from the office of Justification; or plainly confess, we know not what office it hath in this work, notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it, and still in those words which in men's common Language denote an instrument.  
The second, That Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the Justifying act, is, with you (as the former) a notorious novelty, and comes within the same Challenge; And if the Contention be alone about the terms, in case it be yielded, what would you be advantaged? Seeing I doubt not but we may say, that it was never in Terminis, by the Ancients put to the question, and so you in affirming that Faith in Christ quâ Lord is the Justifying act, are in as notorious a novelty; as we, on the other hand in denying it; you can no more find the one, in the Ancients, than your adversaries can find the other. But if the question be about the thing itself, I doubt not but many testimonies may be easily produced. In order to which, the state of the question as it is laid down between Protestants and their adversaries is to be looked into, which is, Whether the whole word of God be the object of Justifying Faith, or the special promises of mercy in Christ? Thus Bellarmine states it, Lib. 1. de Justificatione cap. 4. and saith, that the Heretics restrain it to the promise of special mercy, but Catholics will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God. Here Protestants yield somewhat to Bellarmine, & somewhat they deny. They yield, that the Faith which Justifies, looks upon the whole word of God as its object, that it believes the History of the Creation, the narrative of the years of Mathusaleh, the flood of Noah, that it acknowledges the equity of all God's Commands, and a necessity of obedience, but not as Justifying. We willingly grant that Justifying Faith is an obediential affiance, yet it is the affiance, and no● the obedience, nor yet the assent to truths formerly mentioned, or the like, that acts in Justification. Yourself say, that obedience is only the modification of Faith, in the first act of Justification, and the reforming party of Protestant Divines say the same in the consummation of it. Now that these promises of special mercy, or the blood of Christ held out in the free promises, is the special object of Faith, in this act of Justification, and that it justifies as it applies such promises, and doth interest the Soul in this blood, may I suppose be made good by divers testimonies. Let that of Ambrose be consulted, Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo & vitâ beatâ. Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis possum, non habeo unde me jactem, & ideo gloriabor in Christro. Non gloriabor quia justus sum, sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum, Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum, sed quia remissa sunt peccata. Non gloriabor quia profui, neque quia profuit mihi quisquam, sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est, sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est. Facta est mihi culpa mea, merces redemptionis, per quam mihi Christus advenit. Propter me Christus mortem gustavit, fructuosior culpa quam innocentia. Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat, culpa subjectum reddidit. And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Justus igitur advocatus noster, justos nos defendet in judicio, quia & nos ispos cognoscimus & accusamus injustos. Non ergo infletibus, non in actibus nostris, sed in advocati nostri allegatione confidamus. And this I am sure, is within Christ's Priestly and not his Kingly office. That of Bernard also super Cantic. S●ct. 23. Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium cui soli peccavi, & Sect. 23. Ego fidenter quod ex me mihi deest, usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini, quoniam Misericordiâ affluunt, nec desunt foramina per quae affluant; Memor abor justitiae tuae solius, ipsa enim est mea, nempe factus es mihi tu Justitia à Deo. Nunquid mihi verendum est, ne non una ambobus sufficiat? Non est pallium breve quod secundum prophetam non potest operire duos; Justitia tua justitia in aeternum, & te pariter, & me apperiet larga & aeterna justitia. That of Austin, lib. 3. de Trinit. Cap. 20. Fides ad beatitudinem necessaria in Christo definita est, q●i in carne resurrexit à mortuis, non enim nisi per illum liberabitur quisquam à Diaboli dominatu per remissionem peccatorum; And Nyssenus lib. de vita Mosis. Caput eorum quae in professione Christiana credimus est firmâ rectaque fide in passionem illius respicere qui pro nobis passus est. That passage which Chemnitius quotes out of the life of Bernard is observable, Being at the point of death, and in an ecstasy of Spirit, judging himself to be before God's tribunal, and Satan over against him present charging him with wicked accusations, and the Man of God was to speak for himself, not at all afraid or troubled, he said, Fateor, non sum dignus ego, nec propriis possum meritis regnum obtinere coelorum. Caeterum duplici jure illud obtinens dominus meus, haereditate scilicet patris, & merito passionis, altero ipse contentus, alterum mihi donat: Ex cujus dono, jure illud mihi vendicans non confundor. Ita hoc verbo confusus est inimicus, etc. The same Author tells us of an exhortation of Anselme to a dying Brother, set out as a directory for the visit of the sick, ready to give up the Ghost, which is almost wholly spent in leading the dying person to the death of Christ, He concludes, Age ergo, dum in te est anima tua, ei semper gratias, & in hac sola morte totam fiduciam tuam constitue, Huic morti te totum commits, hac morte te totum cont●ge, eique te totum evolve. Et si dominus te voluerit judicare, dic, Domine, Domini mortem nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me & te, & judicium tuum, aliter tecum non contendo; si dixerit quod merueris damnationem, dic, Mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, objicio inter me, & mala merita mea, ipsiusque dignissimae passionis meritum affero pro merito, quod ego habere debuissem, & heu non habeo. Many more passages may be found in Chemnitius out of Anselme, Gerson, Bernard, and others, purposely brought to make this good, that the special promises of mercy in Christ through his blood, is the special object of Faith in Justification, largely disclaiming any act of Faith, as terminated on any other object in the word, to Justify. I shall conclude with that which was quoted before by Davenant, out of Thomas Aquinas, In ipsa Justificatione peccatoris, non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli; Sed solum cogitetur Deus, peccata remittens.  
In this work itself of the justification of a sinner, it is not necessary, that other articles be thought up, but that God be thought on pardoning sin.  
As for your last, of the interest in man's obedience, in Justification, as continued, and consummate in judgement; In case you could bring forth the distinction out of the Fathers, and make it appear that thy exclude all in man except Faith, in Justification begun; but take in works in Justification complete, and consummate, you had done somewhat. But to put your adversaries upon it, to prove that the Father's overthrow this distinction, when you do not show that they any where assert it, is scarce equal dealing, yet you cannot here go away clear. What judge you of the passages but now quoted? If Bernard had been of your judgement, when he took himself, to be before God's tribunal, he would not have contented himself alone with the sufferings of Christ; but must have put himself upon it, to have brought out a list (as large as the Pharisees) of his works of obedience. Neither would Anselme in his Directory have taught Prelates, and other Ministers, to have led persons, at the point of death, alone to the death of Christ, and nothing else. What say you to that of Clemens Alexand. Stromat. 7 quoted by Eckhardus, pag. 391. Per fidem solummodo efficitur fidelis perfectus? And that of Hilary, quoted by Davenant de Justitia habit. cap. 29 pag. 377? having urged these words out of Canon 8. in Matth. pag. 164. A christo remissum est quod lex laxure non poterat; fides enim sola justificat, he adds another quotation out of lib. 20. de Trinitate. Justum fides consummate, secundum quod dictum est, credidit Abraham deo, & reputatum est ei ad justitiam, and then Comments himself upon both these quotations. Jesuits are wont to ascribe justification to faith, but not to faith alone, Hilary taxes this error, when he saith, faith alone justifies: for they attribute the beginning of justification to faith, but not the consummation, but Hilary far otherwise. Faith consummates the just. So that your Reader may see that Hilary in Davenants judgement, is full against you. And doubtless he will still judge it, matter of wonder, that in the close of your Century of witnesses, you say that Davenant most fully of all speaks your thoughts; If he agree with you, no man (no not Mr. Crandon himself) I think dissents from you.  
I confess that I come nearer to you, than he, as in words he expresses himself, as you may see at large, de Justit. habit. cap. 30. pag. 397, 398. and yet I cannot be brought to agree with you; And seeing I am brought in by you, in your confession, pag. 456. as the first man after you Century of witnesses is ended, as voting with you in these words, [Mr. Bl. in his late Treatise of the Covenant is so full in asserting the conditionality of repentance and obedience, that he spends whole Chapters upon it, and answers the objections of the Antinomians against it, cap. 14. and 15 and 6, 7, 8.] I am put to it, to let the Reader know how I explain myself, seeing you do it not, By which it will appear, that nothing that I have said, in any of those Chapters by you quoted (notwithstanding I assert such conditionality as you mention) will serve at all to strengthen your opinion for the interest of works in justification, yet for aught I know they may be as much for you, as the most of those that are by you produced. You may see that I distinguish of conditions serviceable to man in his return to God. 1. For recovery of his lost estate of happiness. 2. For the repair, or new frame of his qualifications depraved and spoiled, cap. 11. pag. 74. The condition immediately serviceable for man's return to God reconciled in Christ, I say is Faith, in the page quoted. The condition respecting man's reparation in his qualifications to hold up communion with God, I say is Repentance, cap. 14. pag. 93. This then, with me enters not the act of justification, but is, the justified man's way to bliss and glory. And when Repentance is at the highest, and obedience at the best, it is not repentance, nor obedience; but the blood of Christ, in which faith alone interests us, that must be our discharge. So that, if I may take the boldness to interpose my thoughts, as to that multitude of quotations which you have produced, for the interest of works in justification; I think for the greatest part, they labour of that Fallacy, called Ignoratio Elenchi. Put them into Syllogistical form, and the Reader shall find, that they do not conclude the thing in question. They very fully speak a necessity of good works to Salvation (which is the unanimous judgement of all Orthodox writers) and the question is about their interest in Justification: Which two in the judgement of Protestant writers very much differ, as you may see in Mr. Ball, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 18. Whose testimony I have produced at large, p. 434. etc. and thither I here refer you, Where you may see the sole interest of faith, the instrumental efficiency, or causality of it, with an utter denial of any interest of works in this of justification. So that he alone may speak for all; that the acknowledgement of the interest of works, according to the tenor of the Covenant, as a way appointed of God for attainment of glory, doth not argue any interest at all of works in the work of justification.  
But to return to that from which these quotations have caused this short digression. I think you might have spared those words, If I were on one side, and all the Divines in England on the other, there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches before all them, as there is to prefer all them before me. In a word, I shall ever think him more culpably singular, who differeth from Christ, and his Apostles, and all his Church for 1200. or 1400. years, than he that differeth from any party now living, and differeth not from them forementioned, Unless you could make it better appear, that Christ, and his Apostles, and the Church for this space of time, were more clearly for you. It is the Church's Testimony, that is now our business; and if the Reader have no more than Chemnitius bore word, affirming with so much confidence, as we have heard, that all ages have been against you, it is enough against your bare word, that all former ages have been for you.  
You now see my thoughts, how they stand upon the Reading of that part of your Apology, in which I am concerned. Though it be above my hopes to give you satisfaction, yet others I doubt not will be more flexible in their opinion. What you will please to do further, I know not, it is enough that I understand my own mind; which is (so far as I can beforehand resolve) not to intermeddle further, and whatsoever I shall hear from you, to impose silence on myself. You have drawn me out to speak what is here said, in my own just defence. If this will not do it, I shall think it will not be done. Let me request that Christian Candour, that the Common cause may not suffer; and that you will not dwell on literal mistakes, or unaptness, (as you may conceive, sometimes) of the phrase, but take that which you shall judge to be my full meaning, which I have made my business, as fully as I can, to make known. I have no more to make yours, or the Readers trouble, but shall leave all to your candid interpretation, and his impartial censure, and not only subscribe, but with unfeigned resolution (by the help of grace) remain in acknowledgement of your manifold eminent graces,  
Your true affectionated Friend, Brother, and fellow labourer, THOMAS BLAKE.    

An Alphabetical Table relating to the chief heads handled in this Treatise.  

A.  

Abraham. WHether any Sacraments from Adam to him Page. 24 

The question discussed in several propositions. Ibid. etc.    
Acts Of God are entitled to man, and the acts of man to God in Scripture Page. 451  
Actions. Are denominated good or evil from the Law only— Page. 613  
Adam Was not Created an infant in understanding, Page. 15  
Admission Of men of years to Baptism examined Page. 101 

The way of the Primitives in it laid open ibid.  
Admission by a Church-Covenant examined Page. 102  
Admission to the Lords Supper, is no act of jurisdiction— Page. 253  
Admission to the Lords Supper not to be exempted from cognizance of Church power Page. 273. etc.  
Rules for admission to Sacraments more explicit in the Old Testament— Page. 92    
Antiquity. Who they be that make the highest claims to it, as being on their party Page. 652 

Chemnitius his thoughts of the judgement of Antiquity, concerning the Protestants doctrine of justification Page. 65●, 653  
Quere's put concerning Mr. Brs appeal to Antiquity, in point of Controversy Page. 653, etc.  
Proofs from Antiquity, for the instrumentality faith Page. 628, etc.  
Evasions of these testimonies examined— Page. 661  
Proofs from Antiquity that faith in Christ as pardoning sin is the justifying act.— Page. 633  
Proofs from Antiquity against the interest of man's obedience in justification as consummate. Page. 665    
Apostates. Application of the Seals of the Covenant to them, is a putting a Seal to a blank Page. 20  
Assent. Essential in Faith Page. 502 

It must be firm Page. 503  
Unlimited ibid.    
Assurance. Of faith is possible Page. 496 

What sins cloud it Page. 394     

Astrology. Judicial Astrology censured Page. 39, etc.  
Arminianism. The Author vindicated from it Page. 158, etc.    

B.  

Mr. Ball. HIs testimony of the instrumentality of faith in justification Page. 434 

That works do not justify ibid.  
That the New Covenant hath its conditions ib.  
That repentance is a condition of the Covenant Page. 435  
No condition of justification Page. 436    
Baptism. John's Baptism, in the whole of it of divine institution Page. 436 

Contempt and neglect of Baptism censured Page. 68  
An improvement is to be made of it Page. 72  
The sin of Covenant Parents destroys not the Childs right to Baptism Page. 97  
Visibility of interest the Churches guide in admission to Baptism Page. 104. 110  
How far Faith and Repentance anciently were required in Baptism Page. 109  
Their grounds, or reasons, who delayed Baptism in the Primitive times Page. 110  
Their way of admission of the Catechumeni to Baptism Page. 111  
Over much rigour in admission to Baptism, hinders the progress of the Gospel's Page. 112  
The admission of some to Baptism in prudence may be delayed Page. 113  
Papists expect not grace for, but a convenient disposition to grace, in the person to be Baptised Page. 111  
The restraint of right to Baptism— a breach in the Church of Christ Page. 181  
Baptism, a leading Church-privilege Page. 161  
In what sense Baptism works what it figures Page. 383  
Baptism engages to the first work of regeneration Page. 369  
The Blood and Spirit of Christ, are not always applied in it Page. 381  
Dangers attending the restraint of Baptism to the regenerate Page. 551    
Baptised. A man unbaptised, is bound to believe in Jesus Christ for justification Page. 144 

The Author vindicated from a supposed assertion of the contrary ibid.  
Titles given by the Apostle to Baptised persons do not argue they were always answered with inherent grace Page. 149  
Upon what grounds Simon Magus was Baptised Page. 160, etc.    
Believers. A title in Scripture not proper to the justified  
Believing. What ordinarily meant by believing, in the History of the Acts. Page. 177 

The distinction of believing Christ, and believing in Christ groundless ibid.    
Blood. Faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Page. 766 

This assertion quit from danger Page. 582  
Blood and Spirit may be distinguished, but must not be divided Page. 367      

C.  

Call. AN outward call asserted Page. 169  
Calvin. Vindicated Page. 118. 550  
Catholic And universal, in Author's use of them, distinguished Page. 155  
Chemnitins. His testimony for the instrumentality of the word and faith in justification Page. 490 

See Antiquity.    
Christ. The Covenant of works was without reference to Christ as Mediator Page 10 

Whether the Covenant of works be made null, or repealed by Christ Page. 19  
Faith in his blood only justifies Page. 566  
Faith hath respect to whole Christ, to every part and piece of his Mediatorship Page. 562  
Interest in him, interests us in all other privileges Page. 458  
Scripture speaks of receiving Christ, and not of the Species of Christ only Page. 459  
The healing of our nature, and the removal of our guilt is his work Page. 366  
Faith's instrumentality in receiviug Christ being granted, it's instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page. 441  
Communication of titles between Christ and his Church Page. 448. 449    
Christians. Vnregenerates are real and not equivocal members of visible Church's Page. 153 

Humane authority vouched for it ibid. etc.  
Christian, a title in Scripture not proper to the justified Page. 149    
Church-Membership. What gives right to it Page. 201, 102  
Circumcision. How Infants were saved before Circumcision Page. 26, 27, 28 

Several propositions for clearing of the truth Page. 24  
Circumcision and Baptism engaged to the first work of regeneration Page. 369  
The right of Circumcision employed the propagation of corruption Page. 368  
Circumcision was no earnall badge Page. 425    
Cloud. Whether two or only one Cloud with Israel in the wilderness Page 521 

No ordinary one, but supernatural Page. 522  
The motion of it guided by an Angel ibid.  
The form of it in appearance as a pillar ib.  
The use of it twofold. 

As Israel's guide Page. 522  
As Israel's guard ibid.    
It was of the nature of a Sacrament Page. 525  
No standing Sacrament Page. 526    
Communicants. The Lord's Supper must be administered for their edification Page. 199  
Communication Of titles between Christ and his Church Page. 448  
Conclusions. Desperate conclusions often inferred from right principles Page. 579  
Condition. The great condition to which Baptism engages is not a prerequisite to the essence, and being of Baptism Page. 143, 44 

The Authors meaning cleared Page. 145  
In what sense faith is the condition of the promise of remission of sin Page. 171  
Actual existence not necessary to the being of conditions in a Covenant Page. 462  
One and the same thing, is not the condition of both parties in a Covenant Page. 632    
Confirmation Preferred by the Church of Rome before Baptism Page. 528 

Perfects what Baptism gins ibid.  
The matter of it— Page. 529 

The form Page. 529  
The fruit 

Minister  
Ceremonies 

at consecration  
at administration. Page. 529        
Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament Page. 530  
The Apostles imposition of hands, no proof of it Page. 530  
The ancient use of it degenerated Page. 531    
Consecration Respects not elements, but participants Page. 58 

Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be Consecratorium, or Concionatorium ibid.    
Contradiction. The Author acquit from any Page. 447  
Conversion. The Lord's Supper with the word, as an Appendent to it, may be serviceable towards Conversion Page. 200 

Arguments evincing it Page. 200, 201, etc.  
Whether the Lords Supper may be styled a Converting Ordinance Page 211  
Explicatory propositions ibid. etc.  
The Lord's Supper doth not necessarily suppose a through conversion Page. 217    
Covenant. Law and Covenant are not to be confounded Page. 598 

Keeping Covenant, failing in Covenant, and forfeiture of it, to be distinguished Page. 392  
The Covenant falling, Sacraments annexed fall with it Page. 18, etc.  
Where God denies his Covenant, there the seal must not be granted Page. 20  
The Covenant people of God, the adequate subject of Sacraments Page. 74  
All relation to God in tendency to salvation is founded in the Covenant ibid.  
Interest in Sacraments, is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75, etc.  
God enters a Covenant with his people exactly and properly so called Page. 79  
The word Covenant asserted ibid.  
The thing itself asserted Page. 80 

in the essentials of it Page. 80, 81  
in the solemnities Page. 81    
Arguments evincing a Covenant between God and man in its proper nature Page. 82  
Covenant and seal are commensurate Page. 120    
Covenant outward and inward. This distinction examined Page. 83 

The Author vindicated in it Page. 124  
The outward Covenant is most properly a Covenant Page. 83, etc.  
To it belongs the definition of a Covenant, ibid.  
It usually bears the name in Scripture Page. 84  
Men enjoy privileges of Ordinances, and interest in Sacraments, upon account of the outward Covenant Page. 86  
Scripture characters of men in Covenant Page. 115    
Covenant God. God's Covenant with his people not equivocal Page. 80 

Men of a visible profession timely and really not equivocally in Covenant with God Page. 128    
Covenant of works Pass between God and man in an immediate way, without any reference to Christ as Mediator Page. 10, 11 

Whether this Covenant be made null, or repealed by Christ. Page. 19    
Covenant of Grace. Righteousness of faith the great promise of it Page. 414 

Duty and condition in it are one and the same Page. 641, 643  
It requires and accepts sincerity Page. 637  
Arguments evincing it vindicated Page. 639  
Mr. Cramdons' Arguments against Mr. Br. herein answered Page. 645    
Covenant absolute Conditional. Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant Page. 626 

Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, not Gods in the proper conditional Covenant Page. 626    
Covenant Old and New. Sacraments under the old and new Covenant one and the same Page. 25    

Disciple. D.  

A Title in Scripture, not always proper to the justified Page. 149  
Discipline. Church-discipline asserted Page. 266, etc. 

Objections answered Page. 268    
Dogmatic Faith Is a true Faith Page. 176 

Entitles to Baptism Page. 103  
The Authors Arguments proving That a Dogmatic Faith, or a Faith short of justifying, entitles to Baptism, vindicated. Page. 120, 121, &c  
17. Arguments added for the proof of it Page. 161  
Arguments from humane authorities against a Dogmatic Faith examined Page. 147    
Dogs. Dogs and Swine what they mean Page. 260    

E.  

Eldership. ALlegations for the power of an Eldership in admission to the Sacrament Page. 252 

These taken into consideration Page. 253  
Ruling Elders vindicated Page. 270, etc.  
Grotius his testimony concerning them Page 171    
Election And the Covenant of grace not commensurate Page. 124  
Elect. Restriction of the Covenant to the the Elect regenerate confounds the Covenant, the and conditions of it Page. 134 

Exceptions against it answsred Page. 135, 136  
Restraint of Covenant to the regenerate, denies any breach of Covenaut Page. 138  
Exception against it examined. ibid., etc.    
Elements. No continual holiness in Sacramental Elements. Page. 324 

Their touch or abode makes not holy Page 325    
Engagement. Answer to Sacramental engagements necessary to Salvation Page. 387 

Arguments evincing it Page. 389  
Sacraments without spiritual profit to those that lived in breach of Covenant Page. 18  
Sacraments are mere shadows, and empty signs where conscience answers not to the engagements Page. 389, etc.  
Sacraments are aggravations of sin, and hightnings of judgements, when conscience answers not to Sacramental engagements Page. 390  
When conscience answers not to Sacramental engagements, men subscribe to the equity of their own condemnation Page. 391  
When it is that conscience answers to Sacramental engagements Page. 392    
Equivocal. Men of a visible profession, really and not equivocally in Covenant with God Page. 128 

Gods Covenant with his people, no equivocal Covenant. Page. 80  
Scripture language not equivocal Page. 140. 150    
Equivocation. What it is Page. 139  
Errors. Reformers vindicated from a charge of four supposed great errors Page. 438 

Protestants vindicated from four supposed great errors. Page. 452    
Erroneous. Persons in an incapacity to receive any benefit from the Lords Supper Page. 236, etc.  
Evidence. Men in grace often want assuring evidence of grace Page. 190 

Grounds laid down Page. 190, 191, &c,    
Eunuch His Baptism enquired into Page. 176    

F.  

Faith THe alone grace that interests us in the righteousness of the Covenant Page. 432 

All foreign reformers make not faith a full persuasion Page. 439, etc.  
Whether the act, or habit of faith, doth justify?— Page. 442  
These phrases to be justified by faith, and faith justifies, are one and the same— Page. 444  
Faith's instrumentality in justification asserted by Scriptures ibid.  
The unanimous consent of Protestant writers in it— Page. 445, etc.  
There is somewhat of efficiency in man's faith for justification— Page. 447  
How Christ dwells in our hearts by faith Page. 450  
Faith doth more than qualify the subject to be a fit patiented to be justified Page. 460  
More than a bare presence of faith is required to justification Page. 468  
In what sense the Gospel through faith is efficacious for justification Page. 481  
Christians must bring their faith to trial Page. 492  
The absolute necessity of faith ibid.  
Manifold benefits of it Page. 494. etc.  
The humbled soul the proper seat of faith Page. 498, etc.  
Faith hath its seat in the will, as well as in the understanding Page. 504  
It is hold out in words in Scripture implying affiance, trust, etc. ibid.    
Faith defined Page. 505 

Faith far undervalues all earthly things respective to Christ Page. 510  
Faith is against all whatsoever is against Christ Page. 512  
It suffers no lust to divide from Christ ibid.  
Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the justifying act— Page. 554  
The distinction of fides quae, and fides quâ asserted Page. 565, 566  
Protestant writers guilty of no cheat in it ibid.  
Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Page. 566. etc.    
Faith dogmatic, See dogmatic.  
Faith justifying, See justification.  
Faith's instrumentality, See instrument.  
Fathers And Councils often too rigorous in their Rules respective to Church discipline Page. 112 

Queres put touching the authority of the Fathers in Controversies— Page. 653, etc.    
Mr. Firmin His Appendix as to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme examined Page. 94, etc. 

The Authhor vindicated Page. 95, 96  
His Appendix as to admission of men of years examined Page. 104, etc.  
Advertisments given to Mr. Br. touching his undertake for him Page. 180  
Their disagreement Page. 180, etc.    
Food. Ordinary and quickening food differenced Page. 218 

The word as well as the Sacrament is food.— ibid.    
Forum Dei Mr. Brs. distinction of Forum Dei, and Forum Ecclesiae examined Page. 141  
Form A precise form of words not of the essence of Sacraments Page. 59    

G.  

Gesture NO one Gesture of necessary observation in receiving of the Sacrament Page. 310  
God His great goodness in condescension to man's weakness in institution of Sacraments Page. 52, etc. 

He is the Author of all Sacraments, and Sacramental rites Page. 63  
He is to prescribe in his own worship Page. 65  
He alone must distinguish his servants in relation from others Page. 65, 66  
He only gives efficacy to Sacraments Page. 66  
He only can seal his promise Page 66, 67  
His great goodness, and the tender care of Christ in condescension to our weakness Page. 349  
His compassion to us should move us to compassionate ourselves Page 551    
Gospel. Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his Priestly Office. Page. 567  
Grace. Papists speak doubtfully of any work of inherent grace infused in Baptism Page. 377 

Protestants deny any such infusion of grace in Baptism Page. 378  
The Fathers acknowledge no such infusion of grace in Baptism ibid.  
Common grace is real Page. 132      

H.  

Heresy IN the Parent divests not the Child from Church-privileges Page. 99  
Holiness. Covenant-holiness must not be confounded with inward holiness Page. 148, 149 

The doctrine of Covenant-holiness more ancient than Zuinglius Page. 117  
Calvin and Beza not the inventors though the promoters of it Page. 118    
Mr. Humphreys. His Treatise of a free admission to the Lords Supper Page. 247    

I.  

NAtural Idiots uncapable of benefit by the Lord's Supper Page. 229  
Ignorance, Ignorant. In Covenant Parents divests not the Child of Church-privileges Page. 99 

Grossly ignorant ones in an incapacity of benefit by the Lord's Supper Page. 230  
Ignorance distinguished ibid.    
Image. An Image less like the Pattern, is an Image. Page. 612  
Impenitence And unbelief in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of grace Page. 622 

Arguments evincing it Page. 624, etc.    
Infants Of confederate Parents put no bar to their Baptism Page. 95 

They are uncapable of benefit by the Lord's Supper. Page. 226  
The different practice of Antiquity ibid.  
Schoolmen divided about it ibid.  
The present practice of the Church of Rome in it Page. 227  
Whether Infants were saved by their Parent's faith, and how before circumcision Page. 26, 27, 28  
Several propositions laid down Page. 29, etc.    
Infant-Baptisme. Several benefits of it Page. 185, etc. 

See Baptism.    
Infirmities. Men Covenant not with God to be above all infirmities Page. 392 

Mere infirmities no Covenant-breaches ibid.  
Their happiness whose sins are not above infirmities Page. 393  
Sins above infirmities and towards presumption ibid.  
See Sin.    
Institution. A word of institution necessary to the being of Sacraments Page. 58 

Repetition and explanation of this word of institution singularly useful Page. 59  
All Sacramental rites must be of divine institution    
Instrument. Faith. The instrumentality of Faith in justification asserted Page. 437 

Scripture Texts holding out the instrumentality of Faith, as in other actions, so in justification Page. 444  
Whether the action of the principal cause, and of the instrument in Moral operations is always one Page. 445  
The unanimous consent of Protestant writers, that Faith is an instrument ibid. etc.  
Faith's instrumentality makes not man the efficient cause of his justification Page. 438. 464  
Faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ being granted, its instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page. 441  
Faith is the instrument of the soul, and not of itself in receiving Christ Page. 443  
Instruments of mere reception, and further operation distinguished Page. 448  
Faith an instrument of the proper reception of Christ Page. 460  
It is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification Page. 448. 487  
The grant of the New Covenant, is not an instrument of justification solely sufficient Page. 466  
Concauses instrumental have efficacy one from another Page. 470  
Instruments Cooperative, or Passive Page. 474  
Whether the word be a passive instrument, or Cooperative with the Spirit ibid.  
An instrumental efficiency ascribed to Faith respective to Salvation Page. 486  
Arguments for the instrumentality of faith in justification Page. 485  
Proofs from Antiquity for its instrumentality in justification Page. 628, etc.  
See Faith.    
Justification. The relative change in it necessarily presupposes a real Page. 447 

God and man not  causes in it Page. 449  
In justification of man, God acts not without man Page. 446  
Quaeres put, in what sense the grant of the New Covenant is said to be solely instrumental in the work of justification Page. 478  
Arguments against the sole sufficiency of the grant of the New Covenant for justification Page. 489  
Justification by Gospel grant, and by the sentence of the Judge, how they differ Page. 556, 557  
Justification at the day of judgement not specifically distinct from that which precedse. Page. 558  
The Father appoints the terms of justification and salvation Page. 559  
Paul treats directly and industriously of justification by faith Page. 576    
Justifying Faith which is short of justifying gives title to 

Baptism Page. 163, etc.  
Several arguments vindicated Page. 120, etc.  
Exceptions examined Page. 143  
Additionall arguments to prove it Page. 161  
Covenanting and justifying not Synonima's Page. 135, 136  
None able to Baptise, if justifying faith only give admission Page. 160    
Jurisdiction Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page. 253 

Arguments evincing it ibid. etc.  
Objections answered Page. 262      

K.  

Knowledge A necessary prerequisite in faith Page. 500 

Knowledge distinguished Page. 501  
See Ignorance.      

L.  

Law ANd Covenant are not to be confounded Page. 598  
Law Moral. Arminians, Socinians, and Papists oppose the perfection of the Moral Law Page. 601 

Authorities of Protestant writers, for the perfection of the Moral Law Page. 602  
Arguments evincing the perfection of the Moral Law Page. 603  
Objections answered Page. 605  
There is no sin that is not condemned in the Moral Law Page. 603  
In what sense the preceptive part of the Moral Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Page. 605, etc.  
Actions are denominated good or bad, from the Law only Page. 613  
Men are denominated really, and not equivocally righteous, that imperfectly obey the Moral Law Page. 614  
The Law commanding duty, and the end of the duty are not opposite, but subordinate Page. 614    
Law nature. What meant by the time of the Law of nature Page. 24 

No Sacraments appointed of God, during the time called the Law of nature Page. 24, etc.  
Scripture silence a probable argument Page. 26  
Jesuits arguments herein examined. ibid.  
The preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses, and as used by Christ, whether they differ Page. 600    
Leiturgy. Divine ordinances must not stand or fall upon the want, or fruition of any set leiturgy whatsoever Page. 308 

Leiturgy of the Church of England taken into consideration ibid. etc.  
1. As to the work itself Page. 308  
2. As to the sanction put upon it Page. 309    
Life. What meant by it in the Covenant of works Page. 11 

Not barely an animal life, ibid. etc.  
The tree of life had not any natural power to answer its name Page. 12    
Lord. Faith in Christ qua Lord, is not the justifying act Page. 554 

The position at large discussed Page. 555, etc.    
Lord's Supper. 

See Sacraments.  
Supper.    
Lunatic Persons uncapable of any benefit by the Lord's Supper Page. 229    

M.  

Man His first original is in sin Page. 363 

Arguments evincing it Page. 364  
In man's restitution, his nature must be healed, and his guilt removed Page. 366  
The healing of his nature, and the removal of guilt is the work of Christ Page. 366    
Manna. Whence it hath its name Page. 523 

The time it continued with Israel Page. 524  
Miraculously provided ibid.  
A fable concerning it ibid.  
Of a Sacramental nature Page. 525  
No standing Sacrament Page. 526    
Means. Their necessity for our help in the way of faith and obedience Page. 17 

Objections answered Page. 17, 18    
Mediator. See Christ.  
Metonymies Frequent in Scripture Page. 572  
Marriage. The Matter Page. 540 

Form Page. 540  
Minister. Page. 540  
Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament Page. 541    
Minister. Allegations for a Ministers sole power in admission to the Sacrament Page. 251 

Inconveniences objected against it answered. Page. 262  
A Ministers prudence in this work, to see with more eyes than his own Page. 272  
Where an Eldership is erected to make use of them ibid.  
To make scrutiny into men's knowledge with all tenderness Page. 273  
Not to refuse, but upon known crimes ibid.  
When he cannot in this do what he would, he is to do what he is able Page. 274    
Ministerial Dispensation of Sacraments a part of the Ministerial function Page. 277 

Whether Ministerial dispensation be of the essence of Sacraments Page. 277, etc.  
Gospel's order transgressed, when Sacraments are not dispensed by a Ministerial hand Page. 278  
Doctor Abbots, and Mr. hooker's judgement in it ibid.    
Mixt. Lawful to communicate in mixed congregations Page. 314 

Arguments evincing it ibid. etc.    
Moral. Perfection, or imperfection is in reference to a rule Page. 592 

Duties naturally Moral bind all Page. 195  
Where a positive command is given, there is a Moral tye to obedience. ibid.  
See Law.    
Moses. Baptism into him what Page. 526    

N.  

Names GIven by God not empty titles Page. 12  
Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature? Page. 24  
Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page. 285, etc. 

Argumeats evincing it Page. 288, etc.  
The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page. 289  
Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page. 289  
Objections answered Page. 290  
Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page. 294, etc.  
A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page. 298  
Arguments evincing it ibid. etc.      

O.  

Obedience Man's sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page. 195, 196, 197  
Obligation. Man's Obligation of himself unto God implies God's mutual obligation Page. 130  
Oblige Man's inability for duty, doth not disoblige from duty Page. 197  
Orders Their number in the Church of Rome, and their divisions Page. 538 

Most of this number doubted by themselves, whether they be Sacraments ibid.  
The Matter Page. 539  
Form Page. 539  
Effect Page. 539  
Minister Page. 539  
Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib.    
Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not only in facto Page. 189 

Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page. 68    
Original sin Asserted Page. 363 

Distinguished into peccatum originans & orinatum Page. 365  
Original sin not a mere want of primitive integrity, but attended with unversall defilement ibid. etc.    
Oil Anointing with Oil, Jam. 14, 15. 

What it means Page. 536, 537  
Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page. 537      

P.  

Parables. CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page. ●4  
Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a man's self Page. 452  
Passive Neither believing, nor receiving are to be judged merely passive Page. 442 

In what sense faith passive in justification Page. 476, etc.    
Pemble Not sole, and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page. 476 

He is large in reasons of it Page. 475    
Penance The parts of it 

Contrition Page. 531, 532  
Confession Page. 531, 532  
Satisfaction. Page. 531, 532  
Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page. 533  
Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib.    
People. Allegations for their power examined Page. 252, 264  
Perfection Of the subject, and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page. 586  
Pighius A learned Papist, with divers others, joins with us in the doctrine of justification Page. 440  
Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page. 464  
Prayer A necessary means of faith's nourishment Page. 509  
Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest, King, Prophet, are to be distinguished, but not divided Page. 562  
Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page. 566  
Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges. Page. 161  
Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page. 128 

Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page. 172, etc.    
Promise. That which is the condition of the thing promised, is not the condition of the Seal. Page. 173 

Exceptions against it examined. ibid.  
Gospel's promises are a savour of death unto many Page. 469    
Protestants. Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page. 452 

The author is confessed to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid.      

R.  

Rainbow. DEfined— Page. 516 

It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page. 517  
It was an instituted sign ibid.  
Correspondencies between it and the promise Page. 518  
How far it was Sacramental ibid.  
How far it falls short ibid. 519    
Real Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page. 138 

Common grace is real— Page. 132  
Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God— Page. 128    
Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not only bind the regenerate Page. 195  
Repentance. How prerequired in Baptism Page. 108  
Repentance and Faith Are man's conditions not Gods in the proper conditional Covenant Page. 626  
Right Fundamental, and actual distinguished Page. 88 

The distinction cleared 

In civil immunities Page. 88  
Ecclesiastical privileges Page. 89    
They must be both written Page. 90  
Right unto, a bar to detain from Sacraments not always express Page. 91    
Righteous Men are so denominated, really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page. 614  
Righteousness Non rea●us is not righteousness Page. 588 

Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page. 589  
Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted— ib.  
Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page. 592  
Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page. 595  
There is a partial reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page. 611  
That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendent to it seal— Page. 413    
Righteousness. Christ. The natural righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page. 439 

Whether the righteousness whereby Christ's person was righteous be given to us Page. 453  
Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page. 454  
Faith being terminated on Christ, is terminated on his righteousness Page. 455  
To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page. 456    
Righteousness. Faith. The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page. 414 

This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace— Page. 415  
Proved by Scriptures— Page. 417  
Confirmed by reasons— Page. 418  
Explained by rules— Page. 419, 420  
Bellarmine's five objections answered Page. 421, etc.  
Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page. 415  
So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant. ibid.  
It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. etc.  
All blessings and privileges flowing from, and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprised under the righteousness of faith Page. 416  
Christ the Mediator of the Covenant, is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid.  
Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib.  
All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page. 429  
Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib.  
Papists mistake in this point Page. 429, etc.  
Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness. Page. 432    
Rock. How it was said to follow Israel Page. 524 

The Rock itself was not intended as a sign, but the water flowing out of it Page. 525  
Of the nature of a Sacrament ib.  
No standing Sacrament Page. 526    
Rule. See Law.    

S.  

Sacrament. THe word vindicated— Page. 2, 3 

The reason of the word enquired after Page. 4, 5  
The various acceptations of it Page. 6, 7, 8  
Whether man enjoyed, or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity— Page. 9  
No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page. 24, etc.  
A Sacrament may be defined— Page. 32, etc.  
The definition of a Sacrament in general Page. 8  
The Apostles definition, Rom. 4, 11  
Vindicated— Page. 33, 34  
A full definition thence laid down Page. 36  
The sign and thing signified in every Sacrament are Analogically one Page. 49, 50  
No Sacrament without a promise preceding Page. 56    
Sacraments. The distribution of them Page. 9 

God not tied to Sacraments Page. 30, 31  
They are standing Ordinances Page. 294  
Reasons evincing it Page. 295, 296  
When they are dispensed they may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page. 306  
The being of them consists in their us●. Page. 317, etc.  
Arguments evincing it ib.  
The Sacrament of the Supper not exempted Page. 119  
Reasons given ibid. etc.  
Sacraments have respect both to the change of of our nature, and the removal of our guilt Page. 368  
We are to look for no more from Sacraments than God hath put into them Page. 405  
As the word teacheth by the ear, so Sacraments by the help of the word teach by the eye Page. 413  
Men professing relation to God, may see in Sacraments further engagements, and provocations to holiness ibid.  
Sacraments are necessary means of faith's nourishment Page. 508  
Sacraments are seals entrusted in the hand of men— Page. 192, etc.  
Sacraments seal the promise of the Gospel condionally Page. 194  
Gospel Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his priestly office Page. 567  
All Sacraments from the fall substantially one Page. 424, 426    
Sacramental Gods condescension in sacramental signs Page. 52, 53 

Sacramental signs must be explained Page. 56  
men's aptness to delude themselves in Sacramental privileges Page. 405  
All ages have over-highly advanced Sacramental privileges Page. 406    
Sacraments. Covenant. All interested in Sacraments must come up to the terms of the Covenant Page. 280 

Sacraments annexed te the Covenant of works were without relation to Christ Page. 10, 11  
That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendent to it seal— Page. 413  
Sacraments are ever suitable to Covenants Page. 413  
All Sacraments must answer to the Covenant to which they are annexed Page. 6  
Sacraments without spiritual profit to them that live in breach of Covenant Page. 18  
A Covenant falling, Sacraments that are annexed fall with it Page. 18, etc.  
Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant one and the same Page. 25  
The Covenant people of God, the adequat subject of Sacraments Page. 74  
All interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page. 75, etc.    
Sacraments. Number. The way to find out the number of Sacraments. Page. 514 

No express Scripture to determine their number Page. 515  
Two only standing ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments— ibid.  
Five suppositious Sacrments of Rome examined— Page. 528    
Sacrifices. Whether of the dictates of nature Page. 21 

Not Sacraments— Page. 529  
How far Sacramental— ibid.  
How they differ from Sacraments ibid.    
Saint. A title in Scripture not proper in the justified, Page. 149  
Sanctification. The Spirit of God, and not man, is to have the denomination in it Page. 452  
Satisfaction How Christ's satisfaction to God for us is received by us— Page. 457  
Satan His imitation of God in the ways of his worship Page. 20  
Sea. Israel's passage through it of the nature of a Sacrament Page. 525 

No standing Sacrament Page. 526    
Seals. Various acceptation of the word Page. 326 

Several use of a Seal Page. 327 

For secrecy ibid.  
For warranty ibid.  
For distinction ibid.  
For security ibid.  
For ratification ib. etc.    
Seal of the Covenant, and the Seal of the Spirit not of equal latitude— Page. 141    
Seals. Sacraments. Sacraments are Seals Page. 326 

Serving for ratification of promises Page. 328  
Objections answered ibid. etc.  
The whole use and office of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal Page. 352  
Reasons confirming it Page. 354, 355  
Humane authorities produced Page. 356  
Variety of opinions about the working of Sacraments Page. 359, etc.  
Propositions tending to clear the truth— Page. 363  
Texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments higher, of two sorts Page. 372  
1. Such where no Sacrament is mentioned ib.  
2. Such where faith is required to the attainment of the effect Page. 376  
Objections answered— Page. 380    
Sermon Formally so called not essential to a Sacrament.— Page. 61 

Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be concionatorium, or consecratorium Page. 57 etc.    
Scripture Must not be left to hunt after humane authorities Page. 111 

Scripture order of words no foundation for arguments Page. 170  
Scripture characters of men in grace, are laid down for men to try themselves by Page. 189    
Sign What it is— Page. 38, etc. 

Several kinds of Signs Page. 39  
Natural ibid.  
Prodigious— Page. 41, etc.  
By institution— Page. 42  
Rules for the right understanding of natural signs Page. 39  
Remote causes are no signs ibid.  
Partial causes are no signs Page. 40  
Natural signs when causes work unavoidably— Page. 41    
Sacramental signs. Sacraments are signs Page. 38 

Sacraments are to be defined as signs— Page. 321  
Objections answered ibid. etc.    
Sacramental signs. Their properties— Page. 43 

Externall and sensible ibid.  
Visible— Page. 43, 44  
Analogical— Page. 45  
Ritual— Page. 46  
Distinguishing Page. 46, 47, 65, etc.  
Congregating Page. 47, 48  
Engaging— ibid.  
Remembrancing ibid. 49  
Ratifying— Page. 49  
Gods condescension in Sacramental signs Page. 52, 53  
Sacramental signs must be explained— Page. 56    
Sin. All sins are not Spirit-grieving sins Page. 392 

Notable sins in regenerate persons followed with many danger's Page. 394  
They cloud assurance of glory ibid.  
They bring an inaptitude on the soul to enter into glory Page. 395  
They bring under wrath and displeasure, though they work not into a state of wrath Page. 396  
They are such an obstruction in the way of bliss, that they bring a necessity on the soul to come in by repentance Page. 397  
Rules to discern the nature and quality of sins. Page. 399  
The more of light, the less of weakness, and the crime more heinous— ibid.  
The less of temptation, the more of sin, and the less of weakness ibid. etc.  
The more of deliberation and conviction, the more of sin Page. 400  
The more opportunity for duty, the greater the neglect. Page. 401  
Several sorts of sins that are Covenant forfeitures Page. 402, etc.    
Sincerity Of heart in covenanting not of the essence and being of a Covenant Page. 131  
Spirit. The seal of the Covenant, and the seal of the Spirit not of equal latitude— Page. 141 

Blood and Spirit way be distinguished, but must not be divided Page. 367  
The acts of the Spirit in a believing soul, are ascribed to faith Page. 463  
The Spirit works not in us respective to Salvation, after faith is implanted, without us. ibid.  
The Spirit hath a further hand in justification, or pardon of sin then alone by enditing the Gospel's Page. 483  
Scriptures and humane authorities produced for it ibid.  
The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in Sanctification— Page. 452    
Lords Supper A privilege of the Church visible Page. 187 

It is not limited to the actually regenerate. Page. 189, 192  
Arguments evincing it ibid. etc.  
It must be administered for the communicants edification— Page. 199  
With the word as an appendent to it, it may be serviceable towards conversion Page. 200  
Arguments evincing it Page. 200, etc.  
Objections answered— Page. 209, etc.  
General charges Page. 209. to 216  
Particular arguments. Page. 216  
Whether the Lords Supper may be styled a converting ordinance Page. 211  
Explicatory propositions ibid. etc.  
The Lord's Supper supposeth not through conversion, and faith justifying Page. 217  
Not instituted only for justified persons Page. 218  
All of present incapacity to receive benefit by the Lord's Supper, are to be denied access to it. Page. 225  
Scandalous persons of a vicious and profligate course of life, are in an incapacity of profit by the Lord's Supper— Page. 238  
Arguments evincing it Page. 239  
Objections answered Page. 240  
Who are to judge of men's present aptitude for the Lords Supper. Page. 249  
The judgement of the Church of England formerly concerning it ib.  
The judgement of the Schoolmen ibid.  
The judgement of the ancient Fathes' Page. 250  
The judgement of a great party of the reformed Churches. ibid.  
The Lord's supper may be occasionally delayed Page. 299  
The argument borrowed from delay of the  vindicated ibid.  
Just occasions of delay instanced in Page. 302  
No prescript for the time, frequency of observation of the Lords Supper Page. 303  
Directions for our guidance about it Page. 304  
When dispensed it may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page. 306  
Excuses for absence from it removed ib.  
The excuse of unfitness examined Page. 307  
The excuse of the want of a wont Leiturgy examined Page. 308  
The excuse from the variation of a gesture, or posture examined Page. 310  
The excuse from a call to give an account of knowledge examined Page. 311  
The excuse from mixture of such that are supposed unworthy examined— ibid.  
See Sacraments.      

T.  

Tree OF life in Paradise a Sacrament Page. 9 14 

Tree of knowledge a Sacrament ibid.  
These Trees had somewhat that answered their name— Page. 12  
Not by any natural power ib.  
Reasons and experience making it good Page. 13  
Why the Tree of knowledge bears that name Page. 15, 16    
Transubstantiation There is no such thing— Page. 51  
Titles. A communication of them between Christ, and his Church Page. 448, 449 

Titles given by the Apostle to Baptised ones, do not always argue that in their thoughts they were answered by inherent grace Page. 149    
Type Variously used— Page. 428 

levitical types lead unto Christ in his Priestly office Page. 566      

U.  

Visible Baptism and the Lords Supper, privileges of the Church visible Page. 187  
Visibility Of interest the Church's rule in administering Sacraments Page. 118.187  
Extreme Unction. 

The Matter. Page. 534  
Form. Page. 534  
Minister. Page. 534  
Effects. Page. 534  
Qualifications of the subject ib.  
Arguments evincing it so be no Sacrament Page. 585    
Unfitness For the Lords Supper, no excuse for a continued neglect of it Page. 307  
Unregenerate Man may assent to the whole truth— Page. 178    

W.  

Doctor Ward. VIndicated— Page. 116, 117  
Water In Baptism implies uncleaness, with a possibility of cleansing not by our own, but by another's power— Page. 368 

It holds out the Spirit for sanctification ib.  
With the blood for pardon Page. 369    
Word. One and the same word often repeated in the same verse or near to it, in a different sense Page. 573  
Word of God A necessary means of faith's nourishment Page. 509  
Works Paul excludes not only works of merit, but all works from justification— Page. 574 

He excludes all works that we have done ib.  
He excludes all those works, or righteousness which is inherent ib.  
He excludes all those works which the Law commands. Page. 575  
He excludes all those works which any in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto. ibid.      
FINIS.   

A Table of those Scriptures which are occasionally cleared, briefly illustrated, or largely vindicated in this Treatise.  

Genesis.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 2 9 10 3 22, 33 13, 14 5 9 598 8 21 363 9 8, etc. 516 
Exodus.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 12 25 301  43, 44, 45. 75. 78  48, 49 75 13 4, 5 399  21, 22 521  45 301 14 19, 20 521  21, 22 523 16 14, 15 ibid. 17 6 524 
Numbers.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 9 1. 300  15 521 11 7 523 14 14 521 20 9 524 21 17, 18 525 
Deuteronomie.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 8 3 523 10 16 380 12 5, 6, 7 300  10, 11 301 16 usque ad 8 299, 300 30 6 376. 379 4 25 523  2 Chronicles.  16 8, 9— 638 34 3 301  3, 4 ibid. 35 19— ibid. 
Ezra.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 6 19 301 
Nehemiah.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 9 19 521  20 523  25 524 
Psalms.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 32 7, 8 352 37 25, 26 30 51 5 363  7 373 54 3 363 78 13 523  15 524  23 ib.  24 523 98 14 521 105 41 524 112 2, 3 30 114 7, 8 524 
Jeremiah.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 9 25 379 10 25 299 11 3, 4 281 23 6 449 31 32, 33 84, 85 33 16 449 
Ezekiel.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 12 10 204 
Matthew.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 5 48 645 6 30 590 7 6 230 9 22 486 11 28 460 13 11, 12 54  39, 40, 49 269 15 26 260 20 29 166 24 32 269. 295 
Mark.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 4 33 54 5 34 486 6 13 534 10 14 227 16 16 170 
Luke.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 1 6 598  75 596 7 59 486 14 15 219 15 33 188 15 22 225 17 6 590 
John.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 1 4 645 2 23 220 3 5 290  5, 8, 10, 12. 53, 54 6 53 227  53, 54 373  31, 49, 58 523 8 31 188 12 42 177 
Acts.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 2 38 367  37, 38 108  39 174  41 217  47 299 8 13 160  17 530  37 176 10 47 165, 217 15 9 449, 450 22 16 376. 380 
Romans.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 2 28 128 3 25 432. 567  28 587  30 451 4 1. usque aed 12 352  3 177  11 33, 35  17 218 5 9 587  8, 9 567  19 365 9 4 151 7 22 594 
1 Corinthians.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 4 4 431. 575 5 11 261 6 12 372 7 14 150. 176 10 1, 2, 3 424  1, 2 525  4 524  5, 6, 7, 11 428  16, 17, etc. 48  17 358 11 28 227 12 12 4●9  13 358 14 14, 15, 16, etc. 199 15 34 100  56 604 
2 Corinthians.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 1 12 431  21 67 7 1 452 13 5 492  11 645 
Galatians.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 2 19 599 3 14 444  18 451 
Ephesians.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 2— 12— 299 3 17 444, 448 4 24 592 5 26 372  32. 2. 541, etc. 
1 Thessalonians.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 5 23 586 
2 Thessalonians.  Chap. Verse. Pag. 3 14 261 
Titus.  chap. verse. pag. 3 5 374. 380 
Hebrews.  chap. verse. pag. 4 2 471. 481 8 7 364 9 26 269 11 29 523 11 throughout. 569 
James.  chap. verse. pag. 2 25 572. 577 5 14, 15 535, 536 
1 Peter.  chap. verse. pag. 1 4 17  22 452 3 20, 21 353. 387  21 170 
1 John.  chap. verse. pag. 4 7 596 
Revelation.  chap. verse. pag. 22 2 10  11 592 2 7 10  
FINIS.