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