The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 11 · Section 2
SECT. II. Propoſitions tending to clear the doctrine.
IN order to the diſcovery of ſome further light concerning the operation of Sacraments, and for detection of erroneous opinions about them, I ſhall lay down ſeveral Poſitions.Explicatory Propoſitions. 1. Mans firſt original is in ſin.
Firſt, This muſt be held as an uncontroverted truth between parties in this diſpute, that Mans firſt original is in ſin, his firſt eſtate (not by Creation, but by birth, not as he came out of the hands of God, but as he comes into the world) is in full oppoſition againſt heaven, The imagination of mans heart, is evil from his youth, Gen. 8.21. The word (as Ainſworth, and Rivet on the place, with Mr. Hilderſam on Pſal. 51.5. obſerve) ſignifies infancy, the ſame title which is given to Moſes when he was new-born, Exod. 2.6. Compare with this Pſal. 58.3. The wicked are eſtranged from the womb, they go aſtray as ſoon as they be born, ſpeaking lyes. The ſin of all begins then, the ſin of bad men ſtill remains, no change is wrought in them, nor amendment ſeen, but a progreſſe in evil, Pſal. 51.5. Behold, I was ſhapen in iniquity, and in ſin did my mother conceive me; The cavils of old Anabaptiſts to take off the force of this text are vain, That by iniquity here is not meant ſin, but ſorrow, which for ſin came upon women in child-bearing, and that by ſin in the later part of the verſe is meant the height of luſt in Davids parents. Let any man look into the context, and ſee whether it will bear any ſuch gloſſe. David is there upon a ſerious humiliation of his ſoul for ſin, and aggravating it in the circumſtances of it, and how his mothers ſharpe throwes in travel, or either of his parents height of luſt, can add any thing at all to aggravate his guilt, or increaſe his ſorrow, none can underſtand, he preſently prayes that this may be cleanſed, and taken away, which can be underſtood of neither of thoſe particulars which are in the objection. This pollution by birth ſin abundantly appears in reaſon.
Arguments evincing it.1. By the neceſſity of regeneration, or new-birth in all thoſe that enter into the Kingdom of heaven. As the Apoſtle ſaith of Covenants, If the firſt had been faultleſſe, there had been no need of a ſecond, Heb. 8.7. ſo we may ſay of births; there is a neceſſity of a ſecond, therefore there was a fault in the firſt; take away this birth-ſin, or original pollution, and then you deſtroy regeneration. If all be as it ſhould be in our former birth, then there needs not any other.
2. By the Lord Chriſts Incarnation, in order to the work of Redemption; taking mans nature, he began as man begins in ſin, even with infancy; he dyed in our nature for all, of all ſorts, conditions, and ages: infants partake of the fruit of his death, and were upon that account admitted, as his by Circumciſion, and are in Baptiſme, and are therefore under the defilement of ſin.
3. By the ſtroke or judgement unto which infants are ſubject, being lyable to ſickneſſe, taken away by death, ſubject to miſeries of all kinds; ſin goes before as the cauſe, where theſe follow as effects, Rom. 5.12. As by one man ſin entered into the world, and death by ſin: ſo death paſſed upon all men; for that all have ſinned, or in whom all have ſinned.
4. The readineſſe and proneneſſe of little ones to run upon ſin is an evidence of it. The thornes, bryars, and weeds, that the earth caſts out, when precious flowers, and choiſe plants are more hardly nouriſhed, is an argument that the earth is under a curſe, and is not now, as once it was. The ſins that even in childhood appear, and together with age grow forwards, when graces are difficultly planted, and that which is good very hardly produced, is as great an evidence of a mans innate degeneration. This even Heathens could ſee, though they knew not whence it was.eHomines natura ſua eſſe malos & induci non poſſe ut juſtitiam colant. Plato obſerved that men by nature are wicked, and that they cannot be brought to learne righteouſneſſe; andfHominem à natura noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo, fragili at que infirmo, animo ad moleſtias anxio, ad timores humili, in quo divinus ignis ſit obrutus. Referunt Theol. Lydenſes, Diſp. 15. Theſ. 6. Tully lamented, that man is brought into the world by his ſtepdame nature, with a body naked, frail, and weak, a mind anxious in troubles, low under fears, weak for labour, prone to luſt, in whom every Divine ſpark is overywhelmed. If any man demand how it comes to paſſe that we are thus, we muſt look as far as Adam, to ſee the inlet of it, By one mans diſobedience many were made ſinners, Rom. 5.19. His was peccatum originans, giving the riſe to all evils in us, thence iſſued peccatum originatum our original condition as before decribed. Sin ſeizing upon the Angels, made them unclean, and they have through that defilement the denomination of unclean ſpirits; ſin ſeizing upon man hath rendered him unclane; It defiled not onelyonly the perſon of man, but the nature of man; had man ſtood, all mankind had ſtood; man falling, all mankind became filthy, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Job. 14.4. Adam begat a ſon in his own likeneſſe, Gen. 5.3. like himſelf, when he had loſt the image of God; what ſin made man, that an infant is, ſo far as of capacity to be, not to act ſin; he that can do nothing, cannot do evil, but in them there are thoſe principles, that ſhew themſelves in action ſo far as there is power to act. A young Serpent doth ſting none, poyſons none, but there is in them a poyſonous and deſtroying na ure, which growes, as nature growes.
5. By the duty incumbent upon Chriſtians to put off the old man, Epheſ. 4.22. which is not ſo called in oppoſition to that which is young, (as though man grew up to it by degrees, many years being gone over his head before he had gotten that name) but in oppoſition to that which is new, as we ſee, ver. 23. The old hath the precedency of the new, and is before it as the old garments are worne, and put off before the new put on; why muſt all of neceſſity be new if the old would ſerve the turn?
Secondly, This ſin which is mans hereditary eſtate, This Original ſtate of man is not onelyonly a want of Prim… tive integrity, but is attended with univerſal defilement.hath in it not onelyonly a want of that Priwitive purity, which God ſtamped upon man, according to his own likeneſſe, but alſo an univerſal defilement and pollution: Therefore the Apoſtle ſetting out this eſtate under the name of the old man, gives it this character, corrupt according to deceitfull luſts, Epheſ. 4.22. All the pollution in the world is from luſt, 2 Pet. 1 4. that is the ſink; and ſource, from whence all proceeds, and the old man is wholly made up of theſe corrupt, filthy, and defiling principles. They promiſe better when they draw aſide, but that is their work; and therefore as they are corrupt, ſo they are branded as deceitful likewiſe. Upon this account it is, that man is dead in treſpaſſes and ſins, able to riſe no higher in nature then that which is ſin; and this renders his converſation to be according to the courſe of this world, after the prince of the power of the air; the former is his pattern and the later is his Soveraign; the one is followed, the other ſerved.And conſequently with guilt or ordination to puniſhment. In fulfilling the deſires, or wills, of the fleſh and mind, Epheſ. 2.23. ſerving divers luſts and pleaſures, Tit. 3.3. as wholly enſlaved by this defiling principle. And as this is of the being, ſo guilt or ordination to puniſhment is a neceſſary adjunct, or conſequent of it; Death is in as great a latitude as ſin, Rom. 5.12. the proper wages of that work, Rom. 6.23. Therefore all that have a nature thus defiled, are by nature the children of wrath, Epheſ. 2.3. Men may deſcant as they will upon the word, and tell us of another uſe of it in prophane Authors; but all their wit will not work men from under this guilt, or gain him any thing more in his birth-ſtate, but wrath for his portion.
Thirdly, To reſtore man to his Primitive happineſs, his nature muſt be healed, Nature muſt be healed and guilt removed, for reſtitution of man to his Primitive glory.and his guilt removed; there muſt be a change, wrought in his principles, and a pardon vouchſafed of his ſin. If either the ſtain continue, or the guilt hold, man will be wretched; till he be again like God, and reconciled to God, his caſe is forlorne: This needs no proof, man was without ſtain or guilt when God made him upright, his ſtain muſt be waſhed, and guilt removed, or elſe his happineſſe is not repaired. And this was the converted Corinthians glory; they were under the defilement of Adultery, Idolatry, Fornication, Drunkenneſſe, &c. and upon this account, under the ſad doome of excluſion out of the Kingdom of heaven; but being waſhed, ſanctified, juſtified, the doome is reverſed. However you Interpret theſe ſeveral phraſes, we have their deliverance from the ſtain and guilt of ſin in them.
Fourthly, Either of both of theſe is the work of Chriſt, and the happy priviledge of all of Goſpel-intereſt. Either of both of theſe is the work of Chriſt by his blood and Spirit.He takes off the ſtain in the work of Regeneration, and Sanctification by the power of his Spirit; as by our fall we were dead in ſin, ſo by this new work on our hearts, we are dead to ſin; we were free from righteouſneſſe, now we are alive to righteouſneſſe, Rom. 8.11. If the Spirit of him that raiſed up Jeſus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raiſed up Chriſt from the dead, ſhall alſo quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. When we were dead in ſins, he hath quickened us together with Chriſt, Epheſ. 2.5. Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might Sanctifie, and cleanſe it with the waſhing of water by the Word, that he might preſent it to himſelf a glorious Church, not having ſpot or wrinkle or any ſuch thing, but that it ſhould be holy, & without blemiſh, Ephe. 5.25, 26, 27. As the ſpot is taken off by his Spirit in working new principles in us, and working us up to new obedience: ſo the guilt is removed by his ſufferings; He blots out their tranſgreſſions for his Names ſake, He remembers them no more, He hides his face from them, He caſts them into the bottom of the ſea, removes them as far as the Eaſt is from the Weſt; He doth not one of theſe, to leave the other undone; He vouchſafes purifying, and he vouchſafes pacifying grace. He delivers from the wrath to come, and he makes meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light; He conferres habitual graces, and he honours with relative priviledges.
Fifthly, Theſe may be diſtinguiſhed, Blood and Spirit may be diſtinguiſhed, but muſt not be divided.but they muſt by no means be divided; Chriſt doth not impart his merit, where he doth deny his Spirit. We account it a great preſumption in men of years, to talke of juſtification, and want ſanctification; and we can ſay to ſuch, If any man have not the Spirit of Chriſt, he is none of his. God writes his Law in the heart, and puts it into the inward parts, where he remembers ſin no more, Jer. 31.33. They are quickened together with Chriſt, that have their treſpaſſes forgiven them, Col. 2.13. And it is an unwarrantable conceit to imagine that relative priviledges of adoption, and pardon of ſin, are conferred on infants in Baptiſme, or otherwiſe, when their natures remain ſtill the ſame and unchanged; who can think that God fits all of age for glory, that he takes into glory? and yet takes infants into glory, their impurity and birth-defilement continuing. Seeing that we have inſtances, as of Gods love of infants, Rom. 9.13. of Chriſts bleſſing of them, Matth. 19.16. ſo alſo of the gift of his Spirit, Jer. 1.5. Luk. 1.15. In caſe the former may be avoided, yet certainly the later is above exception. The reaſon given by Chriſt of that ſentence of his, holding forth an abſolute neceſſity of regeneration, Except a man be born again, he cannot ſee the Kingdom of God; is the pollution of the firſt birth, as appears by his own words, ver. 6. inferred immediately upon the repetition of the former, That which is born of the fleſh, is fleſh; and this is of equal concernment to infants, and men of years; uncleanneſſe of birth, as well as uncleanneſſe of life, ſtands as a barre to our entrance into heaven; and no unclean perſon muſt enter there.
Sixthly, The Sacraments, eſpecially thoſe of initiation (whether in the old or new Covenant) about which concerning this in queſtion there is moſt diſpute, The Sacraments eſpecially thoſe of initiation have reſpe…t to both of theſe.havo reſpect to this whole work, both of the change of our nature, and the removal of our guilt: As the have reſpect to the one, ſo alſo to the other; and that the whole of their work, and the way how it is wrought may be better underſtood, we are to conſider that; Firſt, Somewhat is hinted, and implyed in thoſe reſpective ſigns of Circumciſion and Baptiſme, and that is our uncleanneſſe in nature, and guilt contracted upon it. Why ſhould either infant, or man of years have the foreskin of his fleſh in that way by Divine appointment cut off; but to let us underſtand the propagation of corruption, and derivation of it from man to poſterity? Why ſhould water be applyed, which is of an abſterſive, cleanſing faculty, but to let us know that there is uncleanneſſe to be removed? Cleanſing for that which is clean is vain, and needleſſe. As Sacrifices for atonement did imply wrath, ſo this cleanſing implyes filth, and conſequently guilt, filth and guilt being inſeparable.
Secondly, Somewhat is ſignified and taught us in them; ſomewhat the bare ſigns themſelves are apt to ſignifie, viz. That the taking off of the ſtaine, and the removal of our guilt, is to be done by anothers power. Why is this applyed by another hand, but to let us know that it is above our ſtrength? Somewhat, not the ſignes of themſelves, but the Word of the Covenant that is annext teaches, and that is, That the blood of Chriſt removes this guilt, and that the Spirit of Chriſt takes away this ſtain. This the ſignes of themſelves could never ſhew, but the words of the Covenant abundantly do demonſtrate, that remiſſion of guilt, is the work of the blood of Chriſt, and Regeneration or Sanctification, the work of the Spirit. That the water in Baptiſme holds out the Spirit unto us for Sanctification, and change of our wayes, is (that I know) denyed by none, and in the Scripture it is plain, I will circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, Deut. 30.6. Circumciſion is that of the heart, Rom. 2.29. which by the Apoſtle, Col. 2.11. is interpreted the putting off the body of the ſins of the fleſh: Baptiſme is the ſame as to the ſignification, as we ſee in the ſame place, from the Apoſtle, Col. 2.11, 12, 13. In whom ye are alſo circumciſed with the circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the body of the ſins of the fleſh, by the circumciſion of Chriſt, buried with him in Baptiſme, wherein ye are alſo riſen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raiſed him from the dead, and you being dead in your ſins, and the uncircumciſion of your fleſh hath he quickned together with him, having forgiven all your treſpaſſes. And this death to ſin, and life in grace are both from the Spirit, Rom. 8.11, 12, 13. and both of theſe Baptiſme holds out to us, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptiſme into his death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed up from the dead, by the glory of the Father: even ſo we alſo ſhould walk in newneſſe of life. But whether the blood of Chriſt be at all ſignified by this element of water ſome have queſtioned. Sticking ſo rigidly to that phraſe of the Apoſtle, Tit. 3.5. that they will not alone have it underſtood of Baptiſme, but they will have nothing elſe looked after in Baptiſme, but the work of regeneration: But this doubtleſſe is a clear miſtake. The blood that was ſhed in circumciſion, gave the circumciſed to underſtand, that the guilt propagated, could not without blood be remitted. And if any think that this is too dark, and obſcure a proof of a Myſtery of this weight, let them compare with it the text under hand, and the Apoſtles ſcope and aime in it, which (as we have heard) is to ſhew, that Abrahams circumciſion was not his juſtification; ſeeing he was juſtified by faith in his ſtate of uncircumciſion, and that he received circumciſion as a ſign and ſeal of it; juſtification is by blood, Rom. 3.25. Circumciſion is a ſign, and ſeal of juſtification. Righteouſneſſe of faith is not Sanctification, Sanctification is inherent, the righteouſneſſe of faith is imputed; but circumciſion is a ſign, and ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith. And that Baptiſme ſignifies, and ſeals the ſame thing we find expreſſely in Peters words, Ast. 2.38. Be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſins. Remiſſion of ſins is by blood, Heb. 9.22. Without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſſion. Baptiſme is for remiſſion of ſins; and therefore the water in Baptiſme holds out the blood of Chriſt. And I doubt not, but Ananias had reſpect to this in his ſpeech to Paul, Act. 22.16. Riſe, and be baptized, and waſh away thy ſins. Somewhat it is, to which theſe ſigns engage, and that is all, unto which a Chriſtian in duty, as duty, ſtands engaged, whether for his change in heart or life, or in order to the pardon of his ſin. Baptiſme engages to the firſt work of regeneration, and to the firſt work of making all new within: To this circumciſion did tye; as it ſignified it, ſo it engaged to it, Deut. 10.16. Circumciſe the foreskin of your hearts, and be no more ſtiffenecked. If by vertue of their circumciſion in the fleſh, God did not require it, why is the want of it charged on Judah as their ſin? or how could it lay them open with other Nations to puniſhment? Jer. 9.25, 26. Behold, the dayes come, ſaith the Lord, that I will puniſh all them that are circumciſed, with the uncircumciſed, Egypt, and Judah and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the uttermoſt corners, that dwell in the wilderneſſe: for all theſe Nations are uncircumciſed, and all the houſe of Iſrael are uncicumciſed in the heart. And that the firſt work is required, as well as a further degree and progreſſe, both in circumciſion and baptiſme is clear: In baptiſme we are explicitly dedicated (as the Jewes were implicitly in circumciſion) to Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt; and therefore engaged to be ſincerely his in Covenant. But this cannot be, till a change be wrought, and we be born again from above. To this therefore we are engaged. We are engaged, to love the Lord with all our heart, with all our ſtrength; but this cannot be, while our hearts are in an unchanged condition, and therefore the circumciſion of the heart, Deut. 30.6. is mentioned in order to this of the love of the Lord: The Lord thy God will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy ſoul; what is it but the firſt work that is called for in that of the Prophet? Make ye a new heart, and a new ſpirit, Ezek. 10.31. And in thoſe texts of the Apoſtle, Awake thou that ſleepeſt and ſtand up from the dead, Epheſ. 5.14. Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds, Rom. 12.2. That ye put off concerning the former converſation, the old man—And be renewed in the ſpirit of your minds, Epheſ. 4.22, 23. Howſoever ſome of theſe Scriptures may be conceived to be directed to men in a ſtate of Regeneration, and therefore that they call not for the firſt work, but for a further progreſſe in grace, yet all of them cannot be ſo Interpreted. And there is not any of them but implyes, that where the firſt work is not done, it muſt be done; where the old man is not put off, it muſt be put off; and where the new man is not put on, it muſt be put on; where the ſpirit is not renewed, it muſt be renewed. Neither is it of force againſt this, to ſay, that the firſt work is out of our power, and that in it we are wholly paſſive, and therefore we do not in baptiſme engage to it, but God rather engages for it. To which I anſwer, Though it be out of our power, yet it is within the command of God, and is matter of our duty. Gods command is no rule of our ſtrength, neither is it brought down to anſwer our weakneſſe; ſo a carnall man ſhould be under no ſpiritual command, but it is a rule of our duty; what we once were, and ſtill ought to be, it commands us for to be. And though we be paſſive in the firſt work, yet we are alwaies concerned to be active, and aſſoon as we do receive power, we are to act. Dead Lazarus was commanded to riſe, and having power communicated from God, he did actually riſe and come out of the grave. There is not any promiſe of God for inherent Grace, nor any work of Grace, but it comes within our duty, and a command lies on us; as inſtance might be given, and conſequently there is an obligation and engagement to it. Gods command and his promiſes ſtand not in oppoſition, but in ſubordination; and to ſay that God is engaged, and not man, is dangerous; then all that are baptized muſt be regenerate, or elſe God fails in his engagement. Somewhat it is, that theſe ſigns ſeal, and in ſealing ratify, and confirm, and that is (as the text ſhewes) the righteouſneſſe of Faith, and conſequently all other priviledges whatſoever of like nature, that are annexed to it; Remiſſion, Juſtification, Adoption, Glorification. Sacraments, as ſeals, have not (as I conceive) at leaſt immediately, and directly reference to graces, or inherent habits; but priviledges. They are (as Mr. Baxter hath well obſerved) ſeales of the conditional Covenant, and ſo they muſt ſeal, whatſoever they do ſeal, on Gods terms and conditions: they ratifie mercies promiſed, on thoſe termes that the Covenant doth promiſe; now graces are the conditions, and termes of the Covenant, and mercies are promiſed upon thoſe termes: and therefore the Covenant requires them, but the Sacraments do not ratifie and ſeal them. The Sacraments as ſigns ſhew us our wants of, or wants in grace by the help of the Word, and light received from it: they point us out where ſupply may be found, they engage us to this change, to the whole of duty required from the people of God: and upon anſwer of our conſcience in this work, they ſeal, and confirm all promiſed priviledges to us. The nature, efficacy, and operation of Sacraments would be better underſtood, if that which is proper to each part, or the particular office in each relation, were better known. The ſeal in a Leaſe, as from the Leſſor, doth not ratifie the homage, that is to be done by the Leſſee, or the ſervice from him due; but the inheritance, or benefit whatſoever, which upon condition of ſuch homage, or ſervice is conveyed. Graces are the homage, and priviledges are the benefit, or the inheritance; the priviledges then, and not the graces, are directly in Sacraments ſealed to us. It is not ſealed up to us; either in Baptiſme or the Lords Supper, that we do believe or repent; but that believing, and repenting, we have forgiveneſſe of ſin, and ſalvation. But ſome ſay, that the Sacraments ſeal all that the Covenant promiſes; but the Covenant promiſes Grace, and therefore the Sacraments ſeal, and confirm in this, that we have grace. Anſw. Not to diſpute the abſolute Covenant in this place, as many call it; The Covenant to which Sacraments are annext as ſeales, properly promiſes priviledges upon condition of graces, and requires the graces though God in his elect ever graciouſly works; what it is reſpective to grace that Sacraments do, we have now heard, that is, to ſhew us our want of it, and point us out the fountain of it, engaging us to it, and upon our making good our engagements through Grace, they ratify theſe promiſed priviledges to us.
7. Scriptures of two ſorts are brought by thoſe that would advance Sacraments above that which they work as ſigns and ſeales.Seventhly, The texts of Scripture brought by thoſe that would raiſe the work of Sacraments above all that they do, as ſignes, and ſeales; and to evince that they have an abſolute work on the ſoul, without reſpect had, either to the underſtanding, or faith of the receivers, are of two ſorts. The firſt are ſuch, where no Sacrament at all is mentioned, neither can it by any good argument be proved, that Sacraments in thoſe texts, are directly intended. Others are ſuch wherein Baptiſme indeed is mentioned; but faith is evidently required to the attainment of the effect there ſpecified; when theſe two are proved, a full anſwer is given to all the Scriptures which by the Adverſaries in this behalf are objected. Scriptures of the firſt rank are,1. Such wherein no Sacrament is mentioned, nor can be proved that any is intended. Titus 3.5. According to his mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhing of Regeneration, Epheſ. 5.25, 26. Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might ſanctifie and cleanſe it, with the waſhing of water by the word, 1. Cor. 6.12. Such were ſome of you; but ye are waſhed, but ye are ſanctified, but ye are juſtified in the Name of the Lord Jeſus. Though the thing ſignified in Baptiſme is here evidently ſpoken to, and ſome alluſion may be conceived to be here made to Baptiſme; yet I ſuppoſe that it can by no good argument be proved, that the Sacrament of Baptiſme in any of theſe Scriptures is intended. Firſt,Arguments evincing that Baptiſme is not intended in the Sacramental work of it. The Lords Supper may be as fairely evidenced out of Chriſt words, John 6.53, 54, 55. Except ye eat the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; whoſo eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raiſe him up at the laſt day; for my fleſh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, as Baptiſme may be evinced out of any of thoſe texts alleadged: when yet Proteſtant Writers unanimouſly conclude, and ſeverall learned Papiſts yield, that no Sacramentall eating is there intended. To clear this they ſay, there is a meer Sacramentall eating, and drinking the fleſh and blood of Chriſt, when the outward ſigns are received, and no more; a meer ſpirituall eating and drinking, when Chriſt is applyed by faith without any Sacramentall ſign; and an eating, and drinking both Sacramental and Spirituall, when the Sacrament is received by ſincere believers; and the text in John is underſtood (as they conclude) of bare ſpiritual eating, and drinking. The ſame we may apply to waſhing, and conclude, that it is meerly ſpiritual waſhing, that in theſe texts alleadged is underſtood. Secondly, There are the ſame phraſes, or thoſe that are parallell with them, in Old Teſtament-Scriptures, when no Sacrament of this kind was inſtituted, and therefore could not be intended, Pſal. 51.7. Purge me with Hyſſope, and I ſhall be clean: waſh me, and I ſhall be whiter then Snow, Ezek. 36.25 Then will I ſprinckle cleane water upon you, and you ſhall be clean from all your filthineſſe. And it muſt needs be that meer Spiritual, and not Sacramentall waſhing, for the reaſon alleadged, muſt in theſe texts be underſtood. Thirdly, If outward Baptiſme were there intended, why ſhould not the word Baptiſme be there, as in other places uſed? when we ſee it is yet omitted, when other words are in the ſtead of it induſtriouſly choſen; when common waſhing is intended, we know that the word Baptiſme is frequently uſed, as Mar. 7.8. Luk. 11.38. and ſo alſo, when legall cleanſing is ſpoken to; as, Heb. 9.20. And in caſe Baptiſme it ſelf were here purpoſely intended, it is marvel that other words ſhould by the Spirit of God be choſe, and this laid aſide. Fourthly, This Interpreters of eminent note have ſeen. Mr. Gataker, diſceptatio de Baptiſ. Infant. vi & efficacia, pag 51. ſaith, It gDubitari poteſt non immerito, baptiſmine Sacramentum, an interna ablutio, hoc nomine eo loci deſignetur.may juſtly be doubted, whether the Sacrament of Baptiſme, or inward waſhing in that place of Titus 3.5. be underſtood; & then adds,hAtque ego certe, etiamſi ad baptiſmi ritum externum reſpectum aliquem haberi nullus negaverim, de interna tamen ab lutione, diſerte dictum exiſtimo, quae externa illa lotione corporis deſignatur, ut ex clauſula mox ſequente verba illa exponantur, per lavacrum regenerationis non videtur apoſtolus ſignificare baptiſmum, ſed ipſam regenerationem quam lavacro comparat. Though, I am not he that will deny that ſome reſpect is had in thoſe words to the outward rite of Baptiſme, yet I believe that they are expreſſely ſpoken of the inward waſhing, and that the words may be interpreted by the clauſe immediately following, the renewing by the Holy Ghoſt; quoting Piſcator for his opinion, Theſ. theol. vol. 1. loc. 25. Sect. 20. who ſaith, By the laver of regeneration the Apoſtle ſeems not to intend baptiſme, but regeneration it ſelf, which he compares to a laver: and alſo Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25. affirming, That it is doubtful, whether in Titus 3.5. there be any ſpeech of the Sacrament, or onelyonly of the blood of Chriſt, and of the Spirit; and in his words (as the Reader that pleaſes to conſult him may ſee) he takes in Epheſ. 5.26. likewiſe Vorſtius ſpeaks moſt fully of all to theſe Texts, mentioning the Argument drawn from Epheſ. 5. Titus 3. for the opus operatum in Sacraments, he ſayes, Our Divines anſwer,iAliena teſtimonia citari, viz. quae res quidem in Sacramentis ſignificatas metaphorice declarant, attamen de Sacramentis proprie dictis non agunt. That impertinent teſtimonies are urged, which hold forth the thing ſignified in Sacraments, by way of metaphor, but do not ſpeak of Sacraments properly ſo called, Antibel. Tom. 3. Contro. 1. Theſ. 1. & 2. And whereas Calvin is produced by ſome, as interpreting Titus 3.5. of outward baptiſme, his authority will but little help them.kNon dubito quin ſaltem ad baptiſmum alludat, imo facile patior de baptiſmo locum exponi. I do not doubt (ſaith he) but that the Apoſtle doth at leaſt allude to baptiſme; and further ſaith, I can eaſily bear, that this place ſhould be interpreted of baptiſme; on which words of his, Mr. Gataker, pag. 123. very well comments.lQuaſi aliam potius quorundam expoſitionem probaturus, ni aliorum importunitas aliò impelleret. Verba ſunt enim alii concedentis aliquid, potius quam animi ſui ſenſum enuntiantis. As though he would rather (ſaith he) allow another interpretation, if the importunity of others did not lead him that way. They are words of one granting, or rather yielding ſomewhat to another man, then ſpeaking his own mind, as he further obſerves. And Mr. Burges, Spiritual Refining, Part 1. pag. 214. ſpeaking of Baptiſme, ſaith, it is called the laver of regeneration, Titus 3.5. as ſome expound it, giving us to underſtand, that it is no expoſition univerſally agreed upon, and ſufficiently hinting, that it is the more inconſiderable part that do interpret it this way. Fifthly, Though we ſhould yield that theſe places were to be underſtood of the Sacrament of Baptiſme, as Calvin 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 onelyonly as they have their influence upon the underſtanding, and faith of the receivers. And therefore Calvin, when he was prevailed withall to yield ſo farre, as we have heard, preſently addes,mNon quod in externo aquae ſymbolo incluſa ſit ſalus, ſed quia partam à Chriſto ſalutem Baptiſmus nobis obſignat. Not that ſalvation is included in the outward ſymbole of water, but becauſe Baptiſme ſeales it to us, when Chriſt hath obtained it for us. And Danaeus ſpeaking to that Argument of Bellarmine, that the Scripture witneſſeth, that the words of the Sacrament are active inſtruments of our juſtification, and not ſeales of the promiſe, giving inſtance in theſe, and the like Scriptures for this purpoſe, anſwers:nInſtrumenta & ſigna etiam mere obſignantia & teſtantia dicuntur, per tropum & metonymiam id facere quod obſignant, nam & annulus ſponſalium qui ſolus eſt ſignum eorum, dicitur conjun gere & obligare ſponſos, contractus inſtrumentum quod ſolum conſenſus ſignum obſtringere contrahentes, Doctoratus ſigillum & literae creaſſe & effeciſſe n. Docto…em; quaeenim nos juvant efficere ea ipſa dicuntur, propter finem in quem ſpectant, in quibus ab eis juvamur. Verum vitanda eſt verborum hujuſmodi, quae ut cauſis vel ſignis vel inſtrumentis actionem tribuunt homonymia: ne propterea cenſcamus ea ſigna vel inſtrumenta eſſe cauſas iſt…us actionis, vel effecti, vel fructus efficientes; efficiunt enim aut efficere di cuntur illa effecta, ſuo tantum modo, nempe per modum duntaxat ſigni, quatenus obſignant & certificant eam actionem vel effectionem, aut per modum inſtrumenti, quoniam ad effectionem ad hibentur: multum enim ſigna, & vera inſtrumenta inter ſe proprie differunt; ſigna vero nihil plane ad effectio nem conferunt, qualia ſunt Sacramenta, ſed affectionem Sp. S. & opus illius in nobis duntaxat v…riſſime & certiſſime teſtantur & conſignant. Inſtruments, and ſigns meerly teſtifying, and ſealing are ſaid by a trope, and metonymy to do that which they ſeal; for even a ring uſed in eſpouſals, which onelyonly is a ſign, is ſaid to joyn and bind the eſpouſed; an inſtrument of contract, which is onelyonly a token of agreement, is ſaid to bind the contractors; and the letters and ſeal of a Doctor to create a Doctor: for thoſe things that are helpful to us, are ſaid to effect thoſe things, as to ſuch an end, in which they are helpful. But the homonymy of words of this nature is to be ſhunned, which attributes actions to ſignes, or inſtruments, as to cauſes, leſt upon that account, we may think that ſuch ſignes or inſtruments are cauſes of ſuch actions, or efficients of ſuch fruits, and effects. For they effect or are ſaid to do ſuch a work alone after their manner, that is, onelyonly by way of ſign, as they ſeal or certify ſuch an act, or work, or by way of inſtrument, becauſe they are uſed in the work. For ſignes and inſtruments properly ſo called do very much differ; For ſignes contribute nothing to the work, of which ſort are Sacraments, but onelyonly truely and certainly teſtifie, 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 onelyonly borrowed by way of metaphor, from the circumciſion of the fleſh, and applyed to the heart, as is clear, Deut. 10.16. where that work is given in command to the Jewes, and they were not commanded to circumciſe themſelves, but were already in Circumſion.
A ſecond ſort of Scriptures are ſuch in which baptiſme is mentioned, but faith evidently required to the attainment of the effects of it.A ſecond ſort of Scriptures are ſuch where Baptiſme is indeed mentioned, and the Sacrament of Baptiſme intended, but faith is evidently required for the attainment of the effect ſpecified. Theſe eſpecially are, Acts 2.38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſins, Acts 22.16. Riſe and be baptized, and waſh away thy ſins, calling on the Name of the Lord. I ſhall referre the Reader for a full vindication of theſe Scriptures to Mr. Gatakers diſceptation, pag. 9, 10, &c. pag. 56, 57. and ſhall onelyonly adde, that that phraſe, in the Name of the Lord, utterly deſtroies all that they would build on theſe words, ſeeing it implies faith in his Name, as, Acts 3.16. may be ſeen; And howſoever Infants that are in Covenant upon their parents profeſſion of faith, are baptized into this Name, yet thoſe of yeares (as theſe were, to whom this ſpeech is directed) are in their own perſons, not onelyonly to make profeſſion of faith, but in ſincerity to believe, in order to attainment to the pardon of their ſins, or any other ſpiritual priviledge of the Covenant whatſoever. Yea, that which theſe men would draw from theſe Texts ſtands not with their principles that urge them. The Sacraments work grace, ſay they, as inſtruments; I ſhall then deſire to know whether poſitive infidelity be not ſuch a barre that will hinder? If it be a barre in men of yeares, then the Sacrament works not without actual faith in the baptized: It is the priviledge of faith to obtain forgiveneſſe of ſin, Act. 13.39. Rom. 3.25. It is the work then of faith in the baptized to obtain it, and baptiſme to them (as Circumciſion to Abraham) is onelyonly 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 barre to the working of Sacraments. Sacraments onelyonly work in penitent perſons, repentance then is a qualification in them that obtain a pardon, and Sacraments by way of ſeal aſſure penitent one… of it.
Eighthly,8. The moſt eminent of the adverſe opinion produce Scriptures clearly oppoſite to their aſſertions. The moſt eminent that ever have appeared for this power in Sacraments to confer grace on the receivers, either utterly deny, or at leaſt very doubtfully affirm, that Baptiſme works in Infants any real change, but onelyonly that which is relative, that it conferres any habits, or any thing more then priviledges on Infants baptized, when yet the Scriptures that they bring for proof of this baptiſmal work, almoſt all speak to ſuch a change, that is reall, not relative; of habits, and not of priviledges. When this is made good, it will appear to any impartial eye, that the Scripture-Texts alledged come far ſhort of proof of any ſuch baptiſmal power to confer grace on all baptized Infants. This as it ſeems Reverend Dr. Ward ſuſpected, aſſerting the certainty of ſalvation of all baptized Infants, dying in infancy, he ſaith. ThatoQuae eſt noſtrae Eccleſiae & totius antiquitatis indubitata ſententia; &, ut ego reor, ipſius Scripturae. it is the undoubted opinion of all antiquity of our Church, and as he thinks of the Scripture it ſelf. For the former part of this aſſertion, that the moſt eminent, that have appeared on this party, have held, as before, let Reverend B. Davenant in his Epiſtle, ſpeak; Aſſerting by Arguments that which he ſayes he had often affirmed, that the argument borrowed from Infants, which Arminians, Papiſts, and ſome of our own uſe to maintain the apoſtaſie of Saints, or believers, is not onelyonly invalid, but altogether impertinent, as to that controverſie. His third Propoſition, to make good this, aſſertion, is,pPontificii non agnoſcunt pro fidei dogmate, habitus fidei aut charitatis, infundi parvulis in baptiſmo, neque tanquam de fide docent, effici u…los juſtos formaliter, inhaeſione habitualis juſtitiae aut Sanctitatis That Papiſts do not receive it for a point of faith, that the habits of faith, or charity are infuſed into Infants in Baptiſme, neither do they deliver it, as of faith, that are thereby made formally juſt, by any inherent habituall righteouſneſſe or holineſſe. To make this good, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Gerſon among the more ancient Schoolmen are brought in, and of the more modern Writers Soto, affirming, that habits infuſed into Infants are not ſo known, as is the Catholique faith, and that Eſtius doth ingenuouſly acknowledge, that this infuſion of inherent righteouſneſſe is problematically diſputed, the Maſter of the ſentences inclining to the negative. And whereas ſome later Papiſts affirm, that this opinion of infuſed habits in Infants, is now otherwiſe ratified then heretofore by the authority of the Trent Councel, he firſt anſwers, that that Councel hath no ſuch authority as to make that an article of faith, which for ſo many hundred years hath not been ſuch, and afterwards peremptorily denyes, that that Councel did ever ſo determine, concluding, that it is reſolved upon by Papiſts, that all baptized Infants are ſome way rendred acceptable to God; but that this is done by any ſuch infuſed habits, or by any inherent quality created of God, is (as he ſayes) as yet doubted among them. His fourth Propoſition is, thatqProteſtantes non concedunt fidem juſtificantem aut charitatem Deo unientem, aut gratiam regeneratricem, quae reparat omnes animae fa…tates in ipſo Baptiſmi momento infundi inſantibus. Proteſtants do not yield, that juſtifying faith, or charity, that unites us to God: or regenerating grace, that repaires all the faculties of the ſoul, is infuſed into Infants in the very moment of Baptiſme; quoting Calvin, Beza, and Peter Martyr, ſpeaking fully to it.rNec quenquam ſcio noſtris Theologis qui regenerationem illam quae ſita eſt in ſpiritualium qualitatum creatione (quam nos ſanctificationem, Pontificii formalem juſtificationem in digitant) in ipſo momento Baptiſmi productam definiant. Cumigitur nec Arminiani nec Pontificii nec Proteſtantes agnoſcant parvulos in ipſa Baptiſmi ſuſceptione fieri participes illorum habitualium donorum aut Spiritualium qualitatum quae propriè dicuntur conſtituere hominem juſtum et inhaerenter ſanctum, nemo eorum poteſt amiſſionem fidei aut juſtitiae aut ſanctorum Apoſtaſiam argumento ab infantibus ſumpto demonſtrare. Adding, that he does not know, that any of our Divines determine, that that regeneration which conſiſts in the creation of spirituall qualities (which we call Sanctification, and Papiſts, formal Juſtification) is infuſed in the inſtant of Baptiſme. And he brings in alſo Mountague in his appeal vouching it out of theſe Belgick and French Confeſſions, and then concludes, when neither Arminians, Papiſts, nor Proteſtants acknowledge that Infants in their participation of Baptiſme, are made partakers of thoſe habitual gifts and ſpiritual qualities, which properly make a man juſt, and inherently holy, none of them can demonſtrate the loſſe of Faith or righteouſneſſe, or Apoſtaſie of the Saints, by an argument drawn from Infants. His fifth Propoſition is, ThatſPatres nec actualem nec habitualem fidem aut charitatem parvulis in baptiſmo donatam agnoſcunt: converſionem etiam ſive novi cordis creationem, quae propriè regeneratio dicenda eſt, non niſi cum ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerint, in iis produci docent. the Fathers do not acknowledge, that either actual or habituall Faith, or charity is given to Infants in Baptiſme; and that they teach, that converſion or creation of a new heart, which is properly regeneration, is not wrought in them but onelyonly when they come to yeares, and are capable of reaſon. For this Auſtin is quoted, and frequent places out of him are produced; and with him Hierome, Nazianzen, Juſtin Martyr, and Bernard, making all up with the teſtimony of Whitaker, tPatres ne ſomniaſſe quidem de habituali Papiſtarum fide, quam illi volunt in Baptiſmo ex opere operato infuſam eſſe parvulis.that the Fathers did not ſo much as dream of the habitual faith which Papiſts ſay is infuſed, by the work done in Baptiſme, inferring this as the reſult of all that in five ſeveral propoſitions he had delivered; thatuHinc quivis perſpiciat quam invalida ſit haec concludeni ratio, Multi ex infantibus baptizatis poſtea pereunt in infidelitate et impoenitentia; Ergo fides, charitas, reli quae que Spirituales qualitates in renatis Spiritus virtute productae aliquando amittuntur. (from thence any man may ſee) how invalid this argument is, Many baptized Infants afterwards periſh through unbelief, and impenitence; Therefore faith, charity and other Spiritual qualities, wrought by the Spirit in the regenerate, are ſometimes loſt. And having delivered himſelf thus in the negative, that Baptiſme works not theſe graces or habits in infants; His firſt propoſition, in the affirmative, tending to ſhew what Baptiſme does work, is,wOmnes infantes baptizati ab Originalis peccati reatu abſolvuntur. That all baptized infants are acquitted from the guilt of original ſin; for which opinion, many Fathers, and Schoolmen are quoted by him, as they were for the former. So that I think the firſt part of my poſition is fully made good, that the moſt eminent that ever have appeared for this power of Sacraments to conferre grace on the receivers, either utterly deny, or elſe doubtfully hold that Baptiſme works any real change in infants, but onelyonly that which is relative, and that it conferres, not habits, but onelyonly priviledges on Infants baptized.
For the other part of the poſition, that the Scriptures which theſe bring for proof of this power of Baptiſme, almoſt all ſpeak of ſuch a change, that is real, not relative; of habits, and not of priviledges. The proof is eaſy. What thoſe Scriptures are which by them are produced in this Controverſy, may be ſeen in the former poſition, and that almoſt all of them ſpeak of a real change, not barely that which is relative, is evident. The alone Old Teſtament text that I can find, is, Deut. 30.6. with Jer. 9.25. where circumciſion of the heart is mentioned; which texts as they can hardly be interpreted to ſpeak at all of the Sacrament of Circumciſion, in the outward rite, ſo it is certain, that a real change is ſpoken to by Moſes in Deuteronomy, and by the Prophet alſo complained of to be wanting. Reverend Dr. Ward yields that Spiritual Circumciſion of the heart is there meant; but he ſaith, that by this Spiritual Circumciſion, the remiſſion of original guilt, is underſtood. To whichxCordis circumciſione peccatorum remiſſionem denotari ut credam, nihil adhuc quod ſuadeat video, quod cogat multo minus. Certe ſi quis verba illa, Deut. 10.16. Circumcidite ergo praeputium cordis veſtri] aut ill…d etiam, Jer. 44. Circumcidimini ſive circumcidite vos Jehovae] expoſuerit, Remittite vobis peccata veſtra; foreign (pute) foreign. Mr. Gataker replies, that he ſees nothing that can perſwade, much leſſe force him to believe any ſuch thing, Adding; that, If any ſhould expound, Deut. 10.16. Circumciſe the forſkin of your heart, or, Jer. 44. Circumciſe your ſelves to the Lord, to be as much as forgive your own ſins, it would be thought ſtrange. Diſceptatio, pag. 147. yea, he makes the contrary plainly to appear. As for thoſe texts, Titus 3.5. 1 Corinthians 6.11. Epheſians 5.25, 26. they ſpeak all to the ſame thing; In every one of them a real, habitual change is mentioned, Acts 2.38. Remiſſion of ſinnes is indeed mentioned, and very probably, Acts. 22.16. But in what ſenſe to be underſtood, I have ſhewed in the laſt place; ſo that I think there is ſo much yielded, and ſo little proved by the eminent advocates in this cauſe, (that according to Scripture, there is any ſuch cauſality in Baptiſme for the pardon of ſinne in every Infant that is preſented to that ordinance, and received) that even upon this account it is juſtly to be ſuſſpected. Beſides, that the blood of Chriſt and his Spirit are not onelyonly diſtinguiſhed by them, but divided; The vertue of his blood, is aſcribed to thoſe that have no portion in his Spirit, as though that Chriſt came, both by water and blood unto ſome: and by blood onelyonly unto others.