The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace, Part · Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII.
§ 1. YOur seventeenth Section is for the Cross in Baptism. I distinctly proved that the Church imposeth it [As a Symbol of our Christian Profession, and as a consecrating dedicating sign, by which 1. God's part of the Covenant is signified, even the Grace by him given, and the duty by him imposed on us. 2. And the Receiver's part is signified, and by solemn Engagement there professed, even his Faith in Christ crucified, and his resolution and self-obliging Consent or Covenant to be the Lords as dedicated to him, and to perform all the future duties of the Covenant, And that this is the true description of a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace. The word [Sacrament] larglier taken, may signifie no more than man may institute: But a Sacrament strictly taken as thus described, I suppose man may not institute. 1. Because Christ hath instituted two as an act of his Royal Prerogative. And if any Institution be proper to his Kingly and Priestly Power, it must be such: No other can be named excluding this. And if none be proper, what is it for him to be Great and One Law-giver to his Church? If Legislation, the chief part of Supreme Government, be common to him and Bishops, why is not that Royally Common?
2. And if Christ would have had any more Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace, he would have somewhere expressed his Commands and Directions to his Ministers to make them: But he that hath given them full Commands and Directions for Preaching, Prayer, Baptizing, and his Supper; and for their other duties for the Flocks, hath not said a word to them of this; either biding them make new Sacraments, or telling them how many, or directing them what, or how to do it; nor how to use them when made; nor promising to bless them.
3. To make more, seemeth to accuse Christ's Law or Institution of Imperfection: Subordinate actions do not so: But to make Ordinances ejusdem generis, with those which he made, not as a meer man, nor as a meer Minister, but as Mediator, or King of the Church, doth seem to say, That Christ left half his work undone. Did he institute Baptism and his Supper, as a meer Man, or a meer Minister? then à quatenus ad omne any Man, or any Minister may do the like, and make more Sacraments: But if as King of the Church, and as Saviour, then none but our King of the Chuch and Saviour may do the like.
Christ hath instituted one day of each week to commemorate his Resurrection, as God the Creator instituted a weekly Sabbath (as I have proved in a peculiar Treatise.) Men may set apart one day in a year for special Thanksgivings, or Commemorations, and one day in a week, e. g. in a time of Plague and danger, to fast and pray, &c. But if any should make another weekly day of holy observance, to commemorate the same work of Christ's Resurrection, or our Redemption, which Christ did separate that day to commemorate, I think he would be both an unjust accuser of Christ's Law, as insufficient, and an unjust usurper of his Prerogative.
4. And it is considerable to me, that though Christ so extraordinarily Commissioned and Qualified his Apostles to record his Words and Acts in Scripture, and settle Church-Orders and Inferiour Offices, and teach the Nations to observe all that he had Commanded them; yet even them did did he never Commission to make a new Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace; nor did they ever make one; but contrarily rebuked those that would but have kept up some of the old Ceremonies, Divine or Humane: And was not the Cross a stumbling and foolishness to the World in the Apostles Days? and yet they never made such a Sacrament. And who hath equal Power with them?
§ 2. If any say the Church doth not make it a Sacrament, I answer: 1. It is not the Name that we contend about, but the thing. 2. I have before proved it by the Constitutive parts which you answer not. 3. If Christ had Instituted the Cross as the Church doth, [as a Badg of our Christianity, dedicating the Child to God as a solemn Covenanting Figure, by which the Minister in God's Name, and in the Persons, pronounceth him Consecrated and engaged, as signifying both God's part or Grace of the Covenant, and Mans part or Duty.] I ask, Whether you would not have c…led this a Sacrament? And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction, it wanteth indeed a due Efficient, but it is still a Humane Sacrament, though not a Divine; and therefore an unlawful Sacrament. I would but know whether Men may make New Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace, or not? If yea, how many? and Quo jure?
§ 3. And God's Prohibition, Deut. 12. of adding or diminishing, is not washt away so easily as your words would make Men believe. You say, It reacheth to the whole Duty of Man, and Government of the Church, &c. Ans. There be some things in the Duty of Man and Church-Matters, that God hath left to Man: To do those is no addition to God's Laws: But to do the like work that God by his Law hath done, which he never left to Man, seemeth to me the Addition there forbidden: e.g. If Men had made another Tabernacle, another Ark of the Covenant, another holy Vestment for Aaron, another Sacrament like Circumcision, or the Passeover; he that so reproved their worshiping in the High Places, would have reproved these.
§ 4. But the sum of your defence is ad Hominem to my self, for granting the lawfulness of humane private professing Signs, and of the Cross as such: It's strange to me, that you that are so judicious, can discern no more difference between, 1. Private and publick Church-actions. And, 2. Between a bare professing Sign in genere, and a Sacramental Covenanting-dedicating Symbolical Sign in specie.
1. Every Sacramental Symbol is a professing Sign: But every professing Sign is not a Sacramental Symbol (a solemn Sacramental Celebration of a Mutual Covenant, by an investing signification of the parts of both the Covenants.) Doth it follow then, that because Men (yea, any Man) may make a professing Sign of his Mind, that Man (yea, every Man) may make a new Sacrament? An Israelite might have lift up his Hand to signifie consent to a Duty, or to answer a Question: But might he therefore have imitated Circumcision, or the Passeover? When a Man is Baptized, if you ask him whether he consent, he may signifie it by Bowing, lifting up his Hand, by Writing, which are all but to the same use as Speech: But he must Sacramentally signifie it by the reception of Baptism, as the instituted solemn Covenanting Symbol of his Religion. But for any to make to the Church of Christ, a new Sacramental Symbol for such a Covenanting use, is another Matter.
A Man that at the Lord's Supper, is asked whether he consent to Christ's Covenant, may signifie it as aforesaid: But he may not therefore joyn to the Sacrament such another Covenanting Symbol of Christianity, e. g. To make (or consent to, and approve and use) a Law that all Christians shall, solemnly after the Eucharist, have their Heads anointed with Oyl, to signifie that they are Members of Christ, and hereby Covenant with him and the Holy Ghost, as signifying his Grace received, and their Duty performed and promised; and this applied by a Minister Officiating, as by his Commission.
§ 4. I perceive by your mistaking Inferences, that you understood not my distinction of Private and Publick, and thought I had meant Secret, or Open, or before Few or Many: Whereas I speak in the sense that these words are commonly used in Politicks, e. g. When they distinguish Index publicus & privatus, Res publicae & privatae, Actiones publicae & privatae, &c. Publick is that which either belongeth to the Society, or a Publick Officer as such: As a meer Subject is Homo privatus, so his Actions and Affairs, meerly as his, are private: The Aerarium of the Commonwealth though kept secretly is the publick Treasure. The judgment of a publick Judge, when few are present in his Chamber, is Iudicium publicum; and the judgment of a meer Arbitrator before thousands, is Iudicium privatum: A private Man's arbitrary Words or Actions in Westminster-Hall at the Bar, are Actiones privatae.
§ 5. I have more reverence for the Ancient Christians, than to be a bold condemner of all their Actions, which I wish they had not done (and had they foreseen the Consequents, they would not have done). And I must, Fide humanâ, give some credit to those ancient Writers, specially such as Augustine, who tells us of Miracles adjoyned to some use of the Cross: And considering how they used it, I find it was (when those things were done) as a private arbitrary professing Sign, such as it would have been to say by words [I am a Christian,] or [I trust in Christ,] or [I am not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour.] And if when one asked them of their Faith, or derided them for trusting in a Crucified Man, they answered by crossing, I judge them not for so doing: The occasions and Persons might excuse such a private professing Action. But if they would turn this into a publick Church-Ordinance by a Law, and into a Humane Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, requiring all to receive it as the common Badge of Christianity; I reproach not the approvers, but I dare not approve it, or so use it.
§ 6. You say, [We must reduce what is said in the Canon to the words in the 39 Articles, and the Liturgy, for they contradict not themselves.]
Ans. There is no shew of contradiction. If the Church in three Books express her sense, must I not set all together, and take them in all? And when the Liturgy purposely referreth the unsatisfied to the Canon for her sense and reason, it's an odd way of expounding it, to forsake the Canons Exposition, and say, I reduce it to the Liturgy. Doubtless all three together express their sense.
§ 7. The second Commandment forbad not all private use of Images, either a Civil, or meer Memorative or Monitory private (yea, or publick) use. As it forbad not Iacob to pitch a stone of remembrance, or the Israelites to make a Memorative and Monitory Altar, and yet forbad such an Altar for Worship to be erected without God's Order. But it was external symbolizing with Idolaters by Images, which the second Commandment forbad; that is, either worshiping them, or God by them; or by setting them up in the place of Worship, seeming so to do. So it is not all use of a Cross that breaketh the second Commandment. When you have proved lifting up the hand, or laying it on the Book, &c. to be Sacraments, I shall further answer you: Or if the second Commandment oblige us not to use Christ's Sacraments (as it is now one of Christ's Commandments) then I shall confess that it forbiddeth not us to devise the like.
§ 8. You say, [If it be a Sacrament, it would be universally unlawful. If Baptism had not been ordained by Christ, it would have been traiterous and sinful to use it as a Sacrament.] Ans. You grant us enough; I durst not have used the word traiterous so boldly, lest I should anger the Conformists. But when did you prove that every professing sign is used to the same use in specie, as the covenanting dedicating Symbol of the Cross is? This was a supposition not so easily to have been begged.
§ 9. As to my Simile, That Baptism is Christ's Badge or Colours; it illustrates in the point of similitude: And so it doth, that the King would take it ill to have a publick badge of the Order of the Garter to be added to his Star by a private Subject, much more for any to make a Law for all his Subjects, to be known by a badge of private invention.
You say, That it's lawful to wear those Colours in the Troop, which he may wear out. Ans. Yes, if he may wear them out in specie to the same use and ends. But if you at a Funeral wear a black Ribbon, and your General's Colours be white; and some Souldiers will make a Law, That the badge of all the Souldiers shall be black Ribbons, joyned to the white, it would not then be lawful for you in or out of the Troop to wear that black as the badge of a Souldier, much less to declare that you approved of, and consented to the imposition. And when you tell me, I allow the use of it, I tell you, I allow not your use prescribed by the Church.
You say, I can never prove that Christ forbad it: And yet you say before that, It's traiterous to have made a Sacrament (without Christ.)
But you affirm, That it's made but for the same use in Baptism, which I allow out. But why did you not give some answer to my express proof of the contrary? Or why put you me so oft to repeat it? It is an outward visible sign, by which in the solemnizing of the Covenant between Christ and us, the person is dedicated to God, by receiving the said sign of the Grace of the Covenant, and the obligation of the Covenant, and of the persons professed consent and engagement to the duties of it.
1. That it is a Badge of Christianity, the thirtieth Canon saith twice.
2. That it is an honourable Badge by which the Infant is dedicated to the service of God; the same Canon saith.
3. That it is a Covenanting sign, both the celebrating words, and these of the Canon shew.
4. That it is a sign of professed Consent to the Covenant-duties there named [Not to be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against the World, Flesh and Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Servant and Souldier to his lives end.] The words shew, and none denyeth.
5. That it is an Obliging sign, both as imposed by God's Minister, and as self-obliging by the said professed Consent, is also exprest in the same words. And this is it which is called The Covenant-Vow. The person is Vowed or Devoted to God by two Sacramental signs, Baptism and the Cross.
6. That it signifieth also God's Grace given by that Covenant, the words of the expository Canon 30 shew: [To dedicate them by that badge to his service, whose benefits bestowed on them in Baptism, the name of the Cross did represent [To the service of him that dyed on the Cross.]
7. Yea, that it is an Investing sign, delivering the Church-priviledges, appeareth in the words: [We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross.]
8. And that it is to operate Grace morally on the Intelligent, is exprest in the foresaid words of instructing and obliging signification, with the preface of the Liturgy [To stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by a notable and special signification whereby he might be edified.]
§ 10. Anno 1660. endeavouring to prevent what followed, I used these same reasons with the great Bishop, who, I think, hath had the first and and chief hand in the matter as it standeth, and he denyed but two things of the Sacramental Cross; 1. That it is of God's institution, which he thought essential to a Church-Sacrament: To which I say, It is a humane unlawful Sacrament; but that it is not Divine we easily grant.
2. That the Cross giveth Grace. I answered, that effectually it doth not, because God will not bless unlawful means: But it is appointed by man to give or work Grace. This I proved, 1. Because as it is a Receiving sign into the Church, it delivereth by Investiture the Relative Grace of Church-priviledges. 2. As the Water of Baptism worketh morally, by signifying the washing of Christ's Blood; so the Cross is to operate morally, by signifying Christ's Crucifixion, the benefits of the Cross, and our duty. But he laid the stress of his Cause on this assertion, That Sacraments, as such, are to give grace otherwise than by such moral operation; and it is no Sacrament that is not instituted to give God's grace otherwise than morally.] I told him how commonly Protestants maintain that they are not instituted to give grace physically; but only morally, and by investiture in relations. And here we broke.
And because I must expect that from others that are driven to it, this will be the last refuge; I will add, that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain only such moral Causality in Sacraments.
§ 11. And here, with respect to the forementioned Article of the certainty of Baptized Infants Salvation; and also the answering of this Objection, I shall cite some of their words, to shew you at how great a loss the most Learned Papists are about things that every poor English Minister may be certain of, or profess to hold, or else be silenced or ruined: Though it be ascribing too much to the opus operatum in Sacraments that we grievously accuse the Papists of.
I. Aquinas of the Efficacy of Sacraments, saith, 1. That they are aliquo modo Causae gratiae. 2. Not meerly Causa sine qua non. 3. Aqua baptismatis habet operationem propriam in Corpus, & ut instrumentum Divinae misericordiae, habet effectum ulteriorem; non ad gratiam quasi eam attingens in virtute principalis agentis, sed ad dispositionem praeviam; quae in quibusdam sacramentis est Character, in aliis aliquis ornatus animae proportionatus Characteri. 4. In sacramentis est aliqua virtus supernaturalis quae est ipsis principium agendi in quantum sunt instrumenta Divinae misericordiae. Et haec virtus est Ens spirituale, incompletum sive intentionale.
Scotus and Ockam confute this at large; and Pet. de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis (a most judicious School-man) briefly after them in 4. q. 1. B. C. contending that Sacraments are properly no Causes of grace, but improperly; because Deus in sacramentis ordinavit sic agere, non quod ipsa sacramenta agant: Et de tali ordinatione & libera promissione ipse certificavit Ecclesiam: Vel ex sola voluntate alterius ut Causa sine qua non, quae non invenitur in naturalibus; sed (sicut meritum) in Moralibus; & proprie non est causa: Et quod sacramentum sive per virtutem propriam, sive per virtutem ei collatam, non est proprie Causa Efficiens alicujus dispositionis in anima ad gratiam praeviae (aut ipsius gratiae.)
So that their judgment is, that it is only Conditio sine qua non, dispositiva, moralis (improperly called dispositiva,) and not of the effecting, but the reception of grace. A man that doth use God's Ordinance, being in the way where God doth give his grace, and performeth the receptive Condition: Yet none of them deny a Moral Objective Causality on the Considering Adult.
And Brianson in 4. q. 1. fol. 6. 1. doc. concludeth Sacramenta non sunt Causa effectiva gratiae, sed selum per modum meriti; per ea datur gratia citing Ricardus, Scotus, Aureolus, Fr. Perusius, &c. against Thomas and Alexand. herein.
And 4. q. 9. Concl. 1. fol. 152. he saith [Baptismus indiget fide, (quae est dispositio & fundamentum omnium sacramentorum) vel in se, ut in adultis; vel in alio, ut in parvulis, pro quibus sunt Fide-jussores Paternus & Materna.] And if so, what undoubted certainty is there of thousands whose God-Fathers themselves have no true Faith.
And, Quod ficte recipientes Baptismum non habent gratiam Baptismi, dicunt Scholastici. vide Brianson, in 4. q. 4. Doct. 1. Fol. 34.
And even Pope Gregory 7. (Hildebrand) in Roman Council saith, [That neither feigned Faith in Baptism, nor feigned Repentance in Penance, do save any.] I know what some say for the saving of all Heathens, Infidels, or Atheists Infants, snatcht perhaps by military force to Baptism, viz. Ex fide Ecclesiae, of which I have spoken elsewhere (in Christ. Directory.) But their proofs I take for Error and worse.
And as to this and their Causality Ex opere operato, Suarez saith, (de Legib. li. 9. c. 6. pag. 748. Col. 2. de Circumcis.) Nam etiam ipsa fides parentum erat conditio necessaria, & sine qua'non; & tamen de illa non dici potest quod gratiam daret Infanti ex opere operato, nec quod gratiam contineret; imò nec causa justificans parvulos dici potest, nisi latè aut improprio modo, sicut dicitur de quolibet remedio seu conditione sine qua non.] Whence he inferreth, that Circumcision did not justifie Infants.
And even Petr. à Sancto Ioseph. saith (Thes. Univers. de Sacrament. pag. 93.) Sacramentum est signum sensibile Divinitùs institutum longo tempore durans, Sanctitatem aliquam, saltem EXTERNAM, conferens, & veram significans: Et pag. 101. Though with the highest he hold, that [Sacramenta novae legis conferunt gratiam, id que ex opere operato & immediate; duplicem scilicet; aliam respondentem dispositioni, aliam ipsi Sacramento, cum antiqua adultis nullam conferrent nisi ratione dispositionis: Yet he saith, [Sacramenta novae Legis non producunt gratiam Physice sed Moraliter.]
And when the Papists that must exceed in ascribing to Sacraments, have no more to say, and are at such a loss, we leave it to the judgment of the Impartial, whether no Protestant should be suffered to Preach the Gospel without Ruine, who cannot declare that [It is certain by the Word of God, that Infants Baptized and dying before actual Sin, are undoubtedly saved,] none excepted: And whether Physical, or any but Relative and Moral Efficacy be essential to a Sacrament; or any save Aptitudinal, or fitness, to convey. to fit Receivers.
And whether as to the new Article of Faith, it had not been enough for us to have said as the Synod of Dort. Art. 1. c. 17. [Quandoquidem de voluntate Dei ex verbis ipsius nobis est judicandum, quod testatur liberos fidelium esse Sanctos, non quidem Natura sed beneficio faederis gratuiti, in quo illicum Parentibus comprehenduntur; pii Parentes de electione & salute suorum, quos Deus in Infantia ex hâc Vita evocat, dubitare non debent.]
And I dissent not from the old Rubrick, [That no Man shall think if any Detriment shall come to Children by deferring of their Confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's Word, that Children being Baptized, have all things necessary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.] That is, without any other Sacrament, supposing them to be the Children of the Faithful: And I am sorry any Dispute of mine occasioned any one to endeavour the altering of these words so much for the worse. But I have long digressed.
§ 12. If God's Word were not the sufficient Law by which your Cause and ours are to be tryed, I would vie with you against your Plea from Humane Opinion, or Authority: And shew you, 1. That the Apostles not using it, will weigh down the Ancients and others using it. 2. That the Ancients used it not so ill as we must do, as a Sacrament of the Covenant; but as a meer professing Sign of their not being ashamed of Christ; till it did degenerate by degrees. 3. That the Learning and Piety of them that have refused it, hath been equal to theirs that so used it. 4. That he that readeth Bernard, Gerson, Kempis, Thauluus, Gerhardus, Zutphaniensis, Sales, and abundance such (yea, Persons of Resolution) will think there have been very holy Papists; and for number they exceed the Protestants: And yet that proveth not Popery to be lawful. 5. That the Baptized's White Garment, Milk and Hony, not kneeling on Lord's Days, &c. were more generally used of old, and yet are not now so well thought of: Nor the giving the Eucharist to Infants, nor the Millenary Doctrine, much the Ancients Language, like the Arrians, which P…tavius citeth.
§ 13. Your main Argument you say, is, that [Ye obey that Command, Mat. 28. 19. And Christ doth not forbid you to use the Cross.] Ans. As if you should say, When I Celebrate Christ's two Sacraments, I obey his Commands; and he hath not forbidden me to use two (or ten) more. As when you are commanded to believe in Christ as your Saviour, it is implied that you must take no other for your Saviour; so when you are commanded to Hear and Obey him as the great Prophet and King of the Church, it is implied that you Hear and Obey no other as such: And therefore give to no other any of the Prerogatives of Christ, and ascribe nothing to Man's Law which is proper to his, which you confess to make a Sacrament is: Lest your hear, In vain do they Worship me, teaching for Doctrine the Traditions of Men: If it be Sin, it is worse than Suffering. Do you think Worshiping in the high Places, was worse than this?
§ 14. You plead the Law of Nature, even Mercy to the Magistrate's Soul, to keep him from Silencing and Persecuting; and to the Peoples Souls, that they may have good Ministers.] Ans. What then? If the Cross be lawful to be used as prescribed, then no doubt I should use it. If it be not, must I sin when the Magistrate bids me to save him from Persecuting me? The Martyrs might so have saved Bonner and Gardiner, by a Lye: But this is no saving them: For if they First draw me to Sin, endanger my Soul, and would Silence me, or destroy my Body if I did not; this doth increase their Guilt, and not diminish it. 2. And you may exercise Mercy to the People, as Ministers did the first 300 Years, in a Suffering way, and by good Example, better than by Sin, and consent to corrupt the Ministry and Church.
§ 15. You call the Crossing, and such things [Trifles and Bawbles, on which weak and childish Minds dote, yet wise Parents may please their Children with Bawbles.] Ans. The Bishops will be more offended at this, than the Non-conformists: They that cannot allow us the pity due to weak Children, will not take it well to be told that we are Fathers, and they the Children whom we must please with Bawbles.
And you say, [The external part of Baptism, is not so excellent as Prayer or Preaching.] Water and Words, be not matters worth our comparing; but remember, Words are part of Baptism too; and the Solemnizing the great Vow and Covenant between God and believing Sinners, on the terms and to the great ends of Baptism, is a high transaction of unspeakable Concern: And it's shame to many that cry out against Anabaptists, that they reverence it far less than they.
§ 16. But you say, [We assent not, and consent not to the Imposing of it.] Ans. Nor I, and therefore I will not say that I do. Is not the Imposing of the Cross expresly in the Book? And do you not plead for it openly, declaring that you Assent and Consent to all things contained in it, and prescribed by it? What can be plainer?
§ 17. You say, [It's better to do a doubtful small Evil, than forbear a certain and great Good.] Ans. Negatives bind ad semper, but Affirmatives do not. And that which is Evil and not Good, is ill called Better: No evil must be done that can be avoided: None that good may come of it. The Apostles and Pastors of the three first Ages did good against the will of Governors. What if a Man doubt whether a Lye or Perjury be Sin in such a case? must he therefore do it that he may Preach without Persecution? It is no Duty to you, much less a greater which you cannot do, but on condition you will Sin.
§ 18. You say that [Though he that doubteth is damned if he eat, the case is not like the using of the Cross, because there is liberty.]
Ans. I have said so much of Rom. 14. in my Treatise of the Church Called, that I need not add much more. The advantage seemeth to me more on the other side: They that did eat, or forbear, did it in Conscience to the Will of God, as they that kept a Day or not. But that Text expresly commanding even Church-Governors, to do nothing contrary to mutual forbearance in such things; here Conscience towards God is set against our obeying the supposed unlawful command of Man, and our escaping Persecution. The Iews then Persecuted those Christians that would not conform to their Law in Meats and Days, even to the Death, and more sharply than the Romans did: And they seemed to be Scandalized by them, to the hindrance of their Conversion. Why then, was that Case free, and ours of the Cross not free?