A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Of the Impoſed uſe of the Croſs in Baptiſm, and denying Baptiſm to the refuſers.
§. 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our [charge againſt the Church] (though he never found any Arguments as aforeſaid.)
And I. Why doth he ſilently balk the chief things which I had named? will this ſatisfie Conſcience? will excuſing ſome things make others lawful?
II. As to what he ſaith for the Croſs, I have ſo fully anſwered it twice to Mr. Cheney, and once to the Impleader, that I am loth to repeat all again. In ſhort, 1. He ſaith the Church intends it not [for a ſign of Immediate dedication.]
Anſw. 1. What is the Medium? 2. What if it were not Immediate? 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very preſent dedicating act, to uſe the ſign and expreſſing the dedicating ſignification?—4. The words of the Canon are, [To dedicate them by that badge to his ſervice, whoſe benefits beſtowed on them in baptiſm the name of the Croſs doth repreſent.] And after [the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the ſervice of him that dyed on the Croſs.] And the ſervice is named [Chriſtianity in practice,] to fight under his banner, &c.
2. He ſaith, [In baptizing the Miniſter acts by Authority derived from Chriſt, but at Croſſing he ſpeaks in the name of the Church, [We receive this Child, &c.]
Anſw. 1. It's meet it ſhould be ſo, that Chriſt's Sacraments be uſed by Chriſt's Authority, and mens by mens.
2. But I hope this is but a quibble; and that notwithſtanding the word [we,] the Miniſter as Chriſt's Miniſter, and in his name ſaith, [we receive this child,] when even the abſolved are to be received by Chriſt firſt, and then by the Church. I will not elſe aggravate the ill conſequences.
§. 2. He before ſaith, [Was the Croſs a dedicating ſign to God, or a declarative ſign to men?]
Anſw. The Canon ſaith expreſly twice, [To dedicate them by this badge to his ſervice—] And [an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service.] And the Rubrick which we muſt ſubſcribe, refers us to the Canon for the true ſenſe and reaſon of the Croſſing.
2. Is Baptiſm and the Lords Supper a ſign to God, or to man? It is a ſign to man for God: God knoweth not by ſigns, but inſtituteth ſigns for humane uſe. It is to dedicate them to God's ſervice.
§. 3. He ſaith, [It repreſents the duty and not the Grace.]
Anſw. 1. The words are, [to his ſervice, whoſe benefits beſtowed on them in baptiſm, the name of the Croſs doth repreſent.] Are the benefits ſo beſtowed no Graoe? or is Repreſenting no Repreſenting? or ſhall we believe the Doctor againſt the Church? or is this the kind of Conformity that he would teach us, by denying what we ſubſcribe to?
2. Sure the Croſs of Chriſt with his dying on it, expreſt alſo in the words of the Canon, is Grace. To repreſent or ſignifie Chriſt dying on the Croſs (which are the words and uſe) is immediately to repreſent or ſignifie the very Grace of Redemption it ſelf.
3. To be liſted under Chriſt as the Captain of our Salvation, and to be received into the Congregation of Chriſts flock, to fight under his banner, &c. are all great Grace.
4. The moral operation on the ſoul which the preface of the Liturgy aſcribes to the Ceremonies, is Grace to be wrought by them.
5. To make a common ſymbol or badge of Chriſtianity, ſolemnly obliging as a Covenanting ſign, by which they muſt be diſtinguiſhed from Infidels, and this even at our firſt Covenanting with Chriſt, is to make a Sacrament in the old ſence. What was the Souldiers Sacramentum Militare more, from which the Church ſeems to have borrowed the name? The Oath was obliging; The colours or cingulum was obliging and a ſignifying badge: The good received was the honour, relation and hope of future pay or preferment upon performance. And is not all this in ours?
6. If you have wit ſtrong enough to juſtifie all this humane addition to Chriſts great inſtitution, muſt all men be compelled to practiſe as you and ſuch others judge, becauſe you think they do not confute you? Who gave you or ſuch others right to ſilence, reject from Chriſtendom, &c. all ſuch as are not herein of your mind; even when you deny what your Canon expreſly ſaith?
§. 4. He ſaith, It addeth nothing to Baptiſm which is compleat before.
Anſw. What's this to our queſtion? It adds another Sacrament to Baptiſm: The Lords Supper is another Sacrament of the ſame Covenant added to perfect Baptiſm by Chriſt; and the Croſs by men.
§. 5. But all the difficulty is thus removed (he thinks) and by the foreſaid quibble of [I baptize] and [we receive.]
Anſw. Difficulties are eaſilier removed with ſome men, than with others.
1. He dare not ſay that the Miniſter ſpeaks not as from Chriſt, when-ever he ſaith [we] in the plural number.
2. Doubtleſs it is firſt Chriſts act, and then the Churches to Receive the Baptized into the flock of Chriſt: And the Miniſter herein firſt ſpeaketh Chriſts act and then the Churches.
3. The words [we receive] him, goeth before the Croſſing and is named eſpecially as part of the Miniſtration of Baptiſm, being its immediate effect. And what a dangerous invention is it to ſay that the Miniſter here ſpeaketh not from Chriſt but the Church, in receiving in thoſe dedicated to him?
4. And he will make us a hard task of it, to know when the Prieſt ſpeaks as God's Miniſter, and when as the peoples Miniſter or mouth?
§. 6. He brings us the inſtance of one after Baptiſm, engaging himſelf in the Independent Church Covenant by holding up his hand.
Anſw. 1. It is ſuppoſed that the Covenant which he mentioneth is not the Covenant of Chriſtianity, but (that ſuppoſed) a conſent or promiſe to live in the relation and duty of a Chriſtian member of that particular flock. And this is much like a Covenant between a Chriſtian Man and Wife, Tutor and Pupil: And as men may make particular contracts, they may make particular ſigns of them, (as is the Ring and taking hands in Marriage; the crowning of a Chriſtian King, &c.) But if you ſuppoſe the Independant Covenant to repeat alſo and contain the Covenant of Chriſtianity it ſelf as the firſt part, then that which is required is but ſignified conſent: And as all Chriſtians renew their conſent at each Euchariſt Sacramentally, ſo do they frequently by word and deed, and all due ſignification of conſent. Nature and Cuſtom of humane converſe have made words and geſtures ſignifiers of conſent: But Sacraments and ſolemn badges of this nature ſignifie by Inſtitution of the inventer or impoſer.
The ſin lyeth in arrogating Chriſts prerogative, and accuſing his Laws of inſufficiency. If Chriſt (by his act and ſpirit) had not ſeparated one day in ſeven for the Commemoration of his Reſurrection, he had not told us that this is his own work as Legiſlator. But now he hath ſeparated one day, if man will make a Law that another day alſo of the week ſhall be ſeparated to the ſame uſe, it is as much as to ſay, 1. We have authority to make ſuch Laws as Chriſt made. 2. And to amend his Law by this addition. For if it had been fit to be made, there was the ſame reaſon then for Chriſt to have ſeparated two days.
So is it in this caſe. If Chriſt had made no Sacraments, we might more have doubted whether he took it for his proper work: But where he hath made two, to make more of the ſame nature, to me ſeemeth too bold: He could have made the Sacrament of the dedicating Croſs if he would have had it. If our Biſhops ſhould command us to ſay we believe Chriſts reſurrection, or to ſtand up to ſignifie it, to avoid confuſed noiſe, we refuſe it not: But if they would make a Law that none ſhall be Chriſtened that will not let the Prieſt put him into a Coffin or Grave and take him out again to repreſent the Reſurrection, I think it fafeſt to deny obedience to ſuch arrogant uſurpation.
§. 7. He confeſſeth, It belongs to Chriſt only to appoint the means of conveying his own grace.
Anſw. I have before proved that the Croſs is by this Church appointed as ſuch a means, and named the Grace and conveyance.
§. 8. He ſaith, [Though it belong to the King to make the badge or ſymbol of his own ſubjects, yet every Nobleman may give a diſtinct Livery without treaſon.]
Anſw. True: And this opens the Caſe. A badge of the Kings ſubjects is not the ſame thing, with the badge of a ſubjects ſervant: But the Croſs is not the badge of a humane ſubordinate contract or relation (as City Covenants, or Paſtoral particular contracts, &c.) but of Chriſtianity it ſelf, and of the ſubjects of Chriſt as ſuch.
§. 9. p. 353. He ſaith, Is our worſhip directed to it or may we kneel before it, as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix?
Anſw. But if this be not true, or be a deceiving intimation, you ſhould not allow your ſelf to write it. My words are in Chriſt. Direct. q. 113. p. 876. When I had named 21 Caſes in which an Image may not be uſed, (and among the reſt, when it is ſcandalous, or tempting to ſuperſtition, &c.) I named many Caſes in which an Image may be uſed; and ſay [that it is not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image, in a Room where they are placed only for Ornament, &c.] Is this to ſay, (worſhip may be directed to it? or that we may kneel before a Crucifix;) when I had before excepted the Images of God, Chriſt, &c. in worſhip, on ſeveral reaſons? Doth any Proteſtant doubt of what I aſſert? My Parlour hath on all four ſides the pictures of our living friends: muſt I not pray in that room becauſe my face will be ſtill towards ſome of them? Doth he doubt of this? Or is not his citing one half of the words as he doth, to deceive his credulous Reader, if not worſe?
§. 10. He ſaith, Kneeling before a Crucifix is lawful to him ſuppoſing the mind be only excited by it.
Anſw. A Calumny made up by ſetting together two ſcraps of remote ſentences. 1. Becauſe I ſay it's lawful to pray in a room where pictures (not any) are before me, for meet ornament, therefore he feigns me to ſay, It's lawful to kneel before a Crucifix. 2. And elſewhere I ſay, It is lawful to be excited to a good thought by ſeeing a Deaths-head, or any of Gods works, and ſo it is by ſeeing a Crucifix; (which no ſober Chriſtian doubts of) he feigns me to make it an exciting ſign to him that kneels before it.
§. 11. Yea he makes ſo much uſe of his own calumny as p. 354. to prove me ſtrangely partial, Allowing it to be lawful to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitans, as an object that ſtirs up in us worſhipping affections, and ſo excuſe all Papiſts from Idolatry that profeſs they uſe a Crucifix for no other end.
Anſw. Meer repeated forgery, not becoming his profeſſion. I never ſpake for praying before it, much leſs as an object to ſtir up worſhipping affections: But only that I am not bound to fly at prayer from a room that hath only ornamental pictures; and that as in the Geneva Bible there be Hiſtorical pictures, and few but Turks are againſt them, it is lawful (I ſay not kneeling before them at prayer, but out of caſes of ſcandal and danger) to be excited by them to good affections, and indeed good affections are worſhipping affections. Dare any Chriſtian ſay that it is a ſin to think reverently of God when we ſee his works, or ſee but a picture of Scripture Hiſtory (as Abraham offering Iſaac, Chriſt dying and riſing, &c.) Nonconformiſts have ſtill taken them for Lyers that ſaid they were againſt Hiſtorical pictures; and ſhewed it in the Geneva Bible. I have ſeen in many pious country Houſes all the ſtory of Dives and Lazarus painted over their Tables, and never heard the good uſe of it accuſed. But I deſire the Reader to peruſe my words, which he citeth, Queſt. 113. and judge with what honeſty we are accuſed. I there ſay, 1. It is unlawful to make any Image of God. 4. It is unlawful to make, place or uſe an Image as is like to do more hurt than good, or to tempt to ſin:—And all ſuch Images of creatures as others uſe to give unlawful worſhip or honour to, when like to tempt others to the like; as among the Papiſts the Image of the Crucifix, the Virgin Mary and Angels may not be made, placed or uſed ſo as may tempt any to worſhip them ſinfully as they do. 11. It is unlawful to place Images in Churches or in ſecret before our eyes when we are worſhipping God, when it tendeth to corrupt the mind—which is the ordinary effect of Images. 12. It is unlawful to uſe Images ſcandalouſly, as any of the aforeſaid ſinners uſe them, though we do it not with the ſame intent: that is, ſo as in outward appearance is the ſame with their uſe, Becauſe ſo we ſhall diſhonour God as they do, and harden them in ſin: Therefore Images in Churches or in Oratories in thoſe Countries where others uſe them ſinfully, or near ſuch Countries, where the ſame may harden men in their ſin, is evil. 21. I think it unlawful to make an Image or any equal inſtituted ſign to be the publick common ſymbol of the Chriſtian Religion, though but a profeſſing ſign (as they make the Croſs.)
Doth this doctrine juſtifie the Papiſts? And p. 876. §. 14. I largly prove the uſe of a Crucifix (as they do the Croſs in baptiſm) to be unlawful: which he anſwereth not. Is it not conſiſtent with all this that I ſay, [That it's not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image, in a room where Images are placed only for ornament, and we have no reſpect to them as a medium or object of our worſhip (except as by accident it's made unlawful.) And that (not kneeling to them, nor in prayer, but, in tranſient meditation,) it is lawful ſo to uſe them hiſtorically as to ſtir up in us a worſhipping affection.] If the Papiſts do no more, no Proteſtant would call them Idolaters for it. But if they uſe them Idolatrouſly, it makes our uſe of them unlawful, when even but outwardly it is like theirs: And ſo I ſay of the Croſs. This is the Doctors zeal againſt Idolatry, that it ſeems would have us all uſed as his Books intimate, till we dare uſe the Tranſient Image of the Croſs much worſe than he maketh the Papiſts to uſe Images and Crucifixes in particular. For to uſe them as a dedicating common badge of Chriſtianity, in our great Covenant with Chriſt, is more than to uſe them hiſtorically and in meditation, or more than to pray in rooms adorned with common pictures. But he knoweth that the Papiſts give more to Images.
§. 12. Obj. But what need had you to ſay all this of Images?
Anſw. That men may underſtand it. I'le tell you that you may ſee the Candor of our accuſers. Dr. R. Coxe Biſhop of Ely conſulted with Caſſander to have had Images in our Churches. The Lutherans ſo uſe them. Our new Church of England began to ſet up Crucifixes over Altars, and to plead more for Church-pictures than heretofore. In 1642. the Parliament ordered the defacing all Images of any Perſon of the Trinity in Churches or Church-yards, (before the King went from them) Becauſe I read this Order and the Church-warden attempted to obey it, the rabble of drunken ſwearing Journy-men, who were all for Conformity, roſe in a tumult with clubs, ſeeking to kill me and the Churchwardens, and knockt down two Country-men becauſe they were our friends (who carried the hurt to their death:) And the Conforming Clergy were ſo much for them, that one of them indicted me at the Aſſizes, and I was forced to leave the Country. Such rage for Images tempted ſome religious men that were againſt them, to be more cenſorious againſt the Conformiſts than I would have them, and to run too near the other extream: And after it grew a diſpute whether the Lutherans were not Hereticks (of which ſee Caſpar Streſo.) The remembrance of all this drew me to ſay all the Truth which I thought uſeful to cure mens over-much cenſuring the Lutherans and the new Prelatiſts: And now the thanks they give me is to turn the cenſure on my ſelf for ſaying ſo much to excuſe them.
Juſt ſo did Mr. Pierce by me: My religious neighbours ſcrupled Communion with their neighbour Prelatiſts, ſaying, All the drunkards and ſwearers and ignorant ungodly people that had no religion, were fierce for Biſhops, Liturgy and Ceremonies, and they durſt not joyn with them while they profaned the Sacrament. I was far from juſtifying them, but to abate their overmuch cenſuring, I told them that in ſome Countries where cuſtome had brought ſome particular ſin from under diſgrace, we could not judge one graceleſs, whoſe whole lives elſe were pious, temperate and juſt, for ſometime committing that particular ſin; and it was hard to ſay how oft this might fall out: As breaking the Lords day in Geneva and Holland, ſome petty Oath in ſome Countries that uſe it, and ſuch like. For this charity to the Prelatiſts, what doth Mr. Pierce but turn the charge of favouring ſuch groſs ſin againſt my ſelf, as if I had been compounding it with godlineſs?
I leave you all therefore hereafter, better to defend your ſelves.
§. 13. About their appointing the Croſs to work Grace morally, and that Sacraments work it not phyſically, he ſaith, I miſrepreſent or miſapply both the Popiſh and Proteſtant doctrine of Sacraments.] And for the firſt he ſaith, It overthrows all that I ſay that they all hold that Sacraments work grace, ex opere operato, where there is no actual impediment, and it's hereſie to ſay, They are bare outward profeſſing ſigns.]
Anſw. Did he think that this is inconſiſtent with the opinion that they work it morally? They diſtinguiſh between the Principal Agent, the inſtrumental Operator, and the Receiver. And they ſay that the Sacrament conveyeth Grace by the will of the Principal Agent (God) ex opere operato, and hath not its effect ex opere operantis; And that opus operantis is that which vim habet ex bonitate & devotione ejus qui operatur, that is, from the Miniſters goodneſs (And doth not the Engliſh Canon ſay the ſame?) But opus operatum is that which is effectual, modo fiat ſicut lex praeſcribit, whether the inſtrument be good or bad: But it muſt be ſicut lex praeſcribit: And when they come to the Receiver they require in him more than the opus operatum to the effect: viz. that he intend (as Aquinas ſpeaketh, 3. q. 68. a. 7.) to receive Baptiſm, which is the beginning of a new life, and that he have faith, a. 8. c. ex parte gratia quam quis per baptiſmum conſequitur, exigitur in ſuſcipiente fides, ex parte vero Characteris non neceſſaria eſt. The Character is received without real Faith, but Grace is not. And what that Character is how little they are agreed ſee at large in Wotton de Reconcil. Peccat. Durandus, and the wiſeſt ſay it is but the Relation of one that hath received the external teſſera or badge of Chriſtianity (which none deny.) And ad 2. he ſaith, [the Church quantum in ſe, non intendit dare baptiſmum niſi habentibus rectam fidem, ſine qua non eſt remiſſio peccatorum. Et propter hoc interrogat accedentes ad baptiſmum an credant? And citeth Auſtin, that without true faith it is not received to ſalvation.
And Art. 9. he concludeth that [ſeeing God doth not compell men to righteouſneſs, it's manifeſt that feigned comers obtain not the benefit of baptiſm. And ad 3. inter ficte accedentes, he numbers them that come in mortal ſin, not willing to leave it and be conformed to Chriſt.
And your own words imply all this, that the Receiver muſt put no hinderance] while they make the want of neceſſary intention, deſire, true faith, repentance, to be the hinderance, leaving the ſubject uncapable of the Grace of the Sacrament of Baptiſm.
§. 14. It irketh me to repeat, but you conſtrain me: Scotus and Okam (and then I need not ſay how many more) confute Aquinas at large for calling Sacraments ſo much as inſtruments giving Grace, as he explaineth it; And ſo doth Pet. Aliaco Camera…. briefly in 4. q. 1. B. C. concluding that Sacraments are no Cauſes of Grace properly, but improperly, becauſe Deus in ſacramentis ordinavit ſic agere, non quod ipſa ſacramenta agant—And that a ſacrament neither by its own virtue, nor by any virtue given it, is any proper efficient cauſe of any diſpoſition in the ſoul previous to grace, or of grace it ſelf, but a condition ſine qua non, diſpoſitiv, improperly called Cauſa diſpoſitiva Moralis, non effectiva ſed receptiva: Yet they grant alſo a Moral objective cauſality, by ſignification.
Brianſon in 4. q. 1. fol. 6. concludeth (1. doc.) ſacramenta non ſunt graliae cauſa effectiva, ſed ſolum per modum meriti per ea datur gratia, citing Ricardus, Scotus, Aureolus, Franc. Peruſius, &c. againſt Thom. & Alexand. herein. Yet ſaith [Baptiſmus indiget fide, quae eſt diſpoſitio & fundamentum omnium ſacramentorum, vel in ſe ut in adultis, vel in alio ut in parvulis. Suarez de Legib. l. 9. c. 6. p. 748. Col. 2. de Circumciſ. [Nam etiam ipſa fides parentum er at conditio neceſſaria & ſine qua non; Et tamen de illa dici non poteſt, Quod Gratiam daret Infanti ex opere operato, nec quod gratiam contineret; etiam nec cauſa juſtificans parvulos dici poteſt; niſi late & improprio modo, ſicut dicitur de quolibet remedio vel conditione ſine qua non.
And Brianſon alſo ſaith in 4. q. 4. doc. 1. fol. 34 Quod ficte recipientes baptiſmum non habent gratiam baptiſmi, dicunt Scholaſtici.
Yea even Hildebrand in one of his Roman Councils concludeth, that the Sacraments of Baptiſm and Penance give not pardon to the impenitent and uncapable.
Petrus à S. Joſeph Theſ. univerſ. de ſacram. p. 93. ſaith, [Sacramentum eſt ſignum ſenſibile divinitus inſtitutum, longo tempore durans, ſanctitatem aliquam, ſaltem externam (that is, Relative ſeparation to God, which is the true Character with them) conferens, & veram ſignificans.
And p. 101. [Sacramenta novae legis conferunt gratiam, idque ex opere operato & immediate: Duplicem ſcilicet, aliam reſpondentem diſpoſitioni, aliam ipſi ſacramento: cum antiquae adultis nullam conferrent niſi ratione diſpoſitionis—Sacramenta novae legis non producunt gratiam phyſice, ſed tantum moraliter.]
But I muſt ſpare the Reader: By this he may underſtand, 1. That they hold not to the opus operatum as efficient of Grace in the Sacraments of the old Law, and ſo not to Sacraments as Sacraments: 2. That they put opus operatum againſt opus operantis, and not againſt the neceſſary diſpoſition of the Receiver, which conſiſteth in Faith, Repentance, intention, &c.
3. That many of them deny all proper Sacramental cauſality of Grace. 4. Specially Phyſical. (And Proteſtants make them not meer ſigns, but inveſting ſigns.) 5. And ponere obicem is to want neceſſary moral qualification, and action as aforeſaid.
And now the Dr. had done well to tell me wherein I was very much miſtaken.
§. 15. He next ſaith, [The Croſs is in no ſence held to be an inſtrument appointed for conveying Grace.]
Anſw. 1. Not by God, for it is none of God's Ordinances. 2. But that by men it is I have manifeſted; if a moral objective moving and teaching means may be called an Inſtrument: If not, the word Inſtrument is noting to our caſe. 1. To work on the ſoul of the adult by repreſentation, ſignification, excitation (as the word doth) is to be an operative moral cauſe or means: And this the Church aſcribeth to it (Pref. to Liturg. &c.) 2. The death of Chriſt, and the benefits of it, and reception into the Church and State of Chriſtianity, and the ſenſe of our Engagement to fight under Chriſt's banner, &c. are Grace; ſome of which is given by excitation and ſome (the Relation) by inveſtiture.
§. 16. And now whether I have only invented theſe objections to amuſe and perplex mens conſciences, and this Dr. hath made all ſo plain that all may venture on it, and he and all Miniſters may deny them Chriſtendom that dare not venture, and caſt out all from the Miniſtry that be not as bold as he, I leave to conſideration.
He next turneth to Mr. A. about bowing, and ſo goeth to their Excommunication