The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Of the definition of a Sacrament.
THe next conſideration of Sacraments in mans fallen condition is, from Abraham unto Chriſt, in the time of the diſpenſation of the Old Covenant; In which thoſe known Sacraments, Circumciſion, and the Paſſeover were of force, and given in charge of God to his people: and together with thoſe Sacraments extraordinary (or ſuch as come near up to the nature of Sacraments,) The Cloud, the Red-Sea, Manna, and the Rock, Sacraments under the old & new Covenant of one and the ſame nature.1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. But intending to ſpeak of Sacraments in general, and there being no eſſential difference between the Sacraments, under the Old and New Covenant: One and the ſame definition, containing whatſoever is eſſential to a Sacrament in any of them, as many wayes might be made manifeſt. Their names are promiſcuouſly uſed, the cloud that Iſrael was under, and the ſea that they paſſed through, is called by the name of Baptiſme, 1 Cor. 10.2. and ſo alſo is Circumciſion, Colloſ. 2.11, 12. The thing ſignified, and benefit received, is in every one the ſame. The Apoſtle comparing thoſe that did eat of Manna, and drank of the Rock in the Wilderneſs, with believers in Goſpel-times, that partake of the Lords Supper ſaith, They all ate the ſame ſpiritual meat, and did all drink the ſame ſpiritual drink, for they drank of that ſpiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Chriſt, 1 Corrinthians. 10.3, 4. And, we may ſay the ſame of thoſe that did eat of the Paſſeover, As Chriſt was that bread that Manna did typifie, Joh. 6.49.50. ſo it was he that was held out, and his death ſhewed forth in the Paſſeover, 1 Cor.. 5.7. I ſhall therefore wave this different conſideration of them, and make it my buſineſſe to enquire what a Sacramen is, and to make diſcovery of the generall nature of it which in caſe out of Scripture I can reach, that will ſerve for a bottome on which all that I intend to ſpeak may be grounded. Bellarmine ſpends a whole Chap. in enquiry, whether a Sacrament can properly be defined? quoting ſeverall Schoolmen for the negative; That it cannot be defined, becauſe a Sacrament is not one of it ſelf, but an aggregatum; one by accident, or at leaſt not ens reale, no real being; and thoſe things that are but one accidentally, or not really, are below a definition. He quotes others in the affirmative; Some, that it may be defined imperfectly; others, that it admits of a perfect definition. After a diſtinction laid down very little to the purpoſe, (one member of the diſtinction being by his own confeſſion not conſiderable by Divines) he concludes that a Sacrament morally conſidered (as it ought to be conſidered by Divines) may be defined, having a reall being, and according to its own way of being, it is one. Morall Philoſophers define (ſaith he) a Kingdome, a City, a Family, though they be not one phyſically, but by aggregation; ſo do Divines define a Church, a Councell, or Sacrament, which are one in being no other way. Suarez agrees with him, Diſput. 1a. de Sacramentis, Sect. 4ta. which Whitaker, praelect. de Sacr. pag. 4. acknowledges to be true.A Sacrament may be defined. So that he obſerves, it is agreed that they may be defined, and I wiſh we could as well agree upon a definition. It would be an endleſſe work to reckon up, and it would no leſſe then tyre the Reader, to read all the definitions of a Sacrament, which may be found among thoſe that treat of this ſubject. Bellarmine reckons up ſix ſeverall definitions of thoſe that either really are, or at leaſt he would have to be of his party. Two of which, he ſaies, are gather'd out of Austin, the third is from Hugo, de Sancto Victore, the fourth is from the Maſter of the ſentences, the fifth is the definition of the Catechiſme of the Councell of Trent, and the laſt, he ſayes, is found with Gratian. Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere Cap. 11. And Cap. 13. he names two others, one of Scotus, and the other of Occam. which he ſaies, Chemnitius blames with the other; yet Cap. 14. obſerving a great difference among us (as he ſaith) in our definitions of a Sacrament, ſaith it is an evident argument that we are departed from the truth which is one, when his own party can keep the truth, and differences with it. Whitaker confeſſeth, that Luther, Melanccton, Chemnitius, Martyr, do differently define a Sacrament, but all their definitions (he ſaith) come to one. He reſts in the definition that Calvin gives, lib. 4. Inſtitut. Cap. 14. which he defends againſt the objections of Bellarmine who ſpends the whole ſixteenth chap. of his book againſt it. And a definition indeed ſingularly exact. But ſeeing the Spirit of God himſelf hath furniſhed us with a definition of a Sacrament, which either explicitely expreſſeth, or virtually comprizeth all, that according to Scriptures can be required in a Sacrament, I ſuppoſe that will carry moſt authority, and this the Apoſtle delivers, Rom. 4.11. And he received the ſign of Circumciſion a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith. This Whitaker ſaies,aHaec br…vis ac perſpicua definitio Sacramenti eſt, ut mihi videtur. Primo enim foreign pro genere ponitur, hoc eſt, Signum externum aut ceremonia. Deinde foreign, hoc eſt, ſigillum juſt…t…ae, quae ex fide ſcilicet eſt, rem Sacramenti & finem & uſum d clarat; Ut ſi poſſemus eſſe Scripturis contenti non meliorem definitionem deſideraremus. is a plaine and brief definition of a Sacrament, and if we could be content with the Scriptures we ſhould not deſire a better. Praelect. de Sacram. Cap. 2. pag. 3. See Parcus on the words, The adverſaries quarrells (he ſaith) hath forced Divines to look out further; but I think we ſhall beſt ſtoppe their mouths, in holding faſt to the letter of Scripture; And this is therefore my Reſolution. And Peter Martyr on Rom. 4. ſayes, I Scarce think there is any place, in which the nature of Sacraments is ſo briefly and explicitely laid down, as in thoſe words of Paul, in which Circumciſion is called a ſeal. But before I come to the opening of this definition, (which may ſeem ſcarce full, in caſe we look only to that which is explicitely delivered; I muſt take out of the way ſome objections made againſt it.
Firſt, It is plauſibly objected, that this is a definition of Circumciſion onelyonly in particular,Vix puto ullum extare locum, quo tam breviter, tam explicite natura S…cramentorum proponitur, quam his Pauli verbis quibus circumciſio vocatur ſignatum. and therefore can be no definition of a Sacrament in generall. The collection is not ſound from the ſpecies to the Genus; If man be defined by reaſon, or riſibility, it will not follow, that Animall, every creature with life may be ſo defined.
Firſt,Objections againſt this d…finition. To this Pareus in his anſwer to the ſixth doubt on Rom. 4 ſayes,bQuod omni Spec…ei ine ſt toti generi recte tribuitur. Sicut igitur valet: Homo, Equus, & quodv…s animal ſentit, movetur: & ſenſus ac motus differentia ſy ſtatica generis recte d…citur: ſic valet: Circumciſio Paſcha & quod vis ſignum foederis eſt foreign addita foederi, obſignation is cauſa, Ergo omne ſignum foederis eſt foreign juſtitiae fidei: & hoc pro generica differentia Sacramentorum recte habetur. That which belongs to every ſpecies, is rightly applyed to the Genus; that which belongs to every particular, is juſtly applyed to all univerſally, A man, A horſe, and every other Creature of an animal life is ſenſible, moves, &c. and therefore it is rightly ſaid that every animal is ſenſible and moves: ſo it is rightly ſaid that the Paſſeover, the Lords Supper, and every other Sacrament is as a ſign, (which adverſaries confeſſe) ſo a ſeal of this righteouſneſſe, and therefore that which is ſaid by the Apoſtle of this Sacrament in particular, is true of all in generall.
Secondly, I ſay, the Apoſtle mentions there nothing properly to Circumciſion, as diſtinguiſhing it from other Sacraments, all that is in the definition, with equall reaſon belongs to all Sacraments, as well as to Circumciſion, and diſtinguiſhes them onelyonly from other Ordinances; what is ſaid of Abraham in this text, might be applyed to the Eunuch, or the Jaylour, changing alone the name of Circumciſion into Baptiſme. He received the ſign of Baptiſme, a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of the faith, that he had being unbaptized.
Secondly, It is further objected by Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis, Cap 17. and after him by others, that Circumciſion is not here ſaid to be a ſeal univerſally to any faith, but only a ſeal of the individuall faith of Abraham, and then it can neither be a definition of a Sacrament in the generall, nor yet a definition of Circumciſion, the diſtinct ſpecies of it, which is cleere in that it is expreſſely ſaid, that it was a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of the faith that he had being yet uncircumciſed, that he might be the father of all them that beleeve. But onelyonly Abraham could be ſuch a father, and therefore Abrahams Circumciſion, not every mans is here held forth.
This I have fully anſwered, Treatiſe of the Covenant, Chap. 26. pag. 187, 188. in my aſſertion of the purity of the Old Covenant, and therefore I ſhall not now ſtand to repeat.
Thirdly, It is objected, this will ill agree to the Circumciſion of others, that after Abraham did receive this Sacrament; It cannot be fairely ſaid, that Iſaac received the ſign of Circumciſion, a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of the faith, which he had being yet uncircumciſed, ſeeing he was not in the faith till after Circumciſion; and that is no definition of Circumciſion, that agrees not to all mens Circumciſion; that is no definition of the ſpecies, that agrees not to every individuum.
Anſw. Neither is it needfull that that additionall particle which is proper to Abraham, as a leading perſon in the Covenant, to enter into it, ſhould agree to all mens Circumciſion: He was in the faith, and had it ſealed; Iſaac was confederate with him in Covenant, and was upon that account to be circumciſed, which engaged to actual faith; and upon actual believing it ſealed this righteouſneſs of faith to him: This precedency of faith is a ſeparable adjunct, and comes not into the definition. To make the definition full and clear, the whole text of the Apoſtle is to be taken into conſideration with the context, and all that in the Hiſtory, Gen. 17. to which it relates, hath relation to it, all which is vertually in the words comprized; where we may obſerve,
1. The Perſon receiving, or by right intereſſed.
2. The thing received.
3. The end or uſe.
4. The thing ſignified or ſealed,
The Perſon receiving, or by right intereſſed is Abraham, and giving, and receiving being relatives (as Pareus on the words obſerves) if Abraham received it, it is neceſſarily implyed, that there is ſome one that gave it; Chriſt ſayes, Joh. 7.22. Moſes gave Circumciſion to the Jewes, becauſe he delivered unto them a Law concerning it, Levit. 12.3. but God gave it in charge to Moſes, as we may ſee there, verſ. 1. as, Gen. 17.9, 10. he had before given it in charge to Abraham; And therefore Chriſt ſaith, that Circumciſion was of the Fathers. God is then the author, as Abraham the receiver of Circumciſion.
Abraham that thus received Circumciſion from the hand of God may be conſidered,
1. As a man, ſo he ſtood in no other relation to God, then barely as his creature, and with others in the world was without God, and not within the verge of his Covenant, and for ſeventy and five years he thus continued,
2. As a profeſſor of the faith, and worſhipper of the true God, renouncing the gods that he had worſhipped in Charran, and profeſſedly ſerving the Lord Jehovah onelyonly.
3. As a man upright, and ſincere in the Covenant, comming up to the termes propoſed of God, and walking perfect before him. In all of theſe capacities Abraham may be conſidered, as any other of the ſons of Abraham that are ſincere and faithful. In the firſt capacity he had no right to Circumciſion; all that are in that condition, are called by the Apoſtle Circumciſion: yet it was not of neceſſity to his intereſt in the Covenant, or Circumciſion, the ſigne and ſeale of it, to be ſincere in Covenant; though it be neceſſary to the attainment of the grace of the Covenant, and mercy ſealed in the Sacrament. As others came into Covenant, and were intitled to the initiating ſign and ſeale, ſo might Abraham, but others came in upon a bare profeſſion: as thoſe multitudes of Proſelytes that joyned themſelves to Iſrael: One of which was Doeg an Edomite, 1 Sam. 21.9. had he not been of Iſrael by profeſſion, he had not been detained in the Sanctuary before the Lord, upon any religious account, as we find he was, ver. 7. And had he been right in the Covenant, he had not had ſo many things in charge againſt him, neither had the Pſalmiſt ſpoken in that language that we read of him. The Eunuch, as we have cauſe to think, had an heart right with God, but it was not ſo with Simon Magus, as Peter expreſly tells him, Act. 8.21. Abraham then is conſidered as a man profeſsedly in Covenant, when he received this ſign of Circumciſion.
The thing received is here Circumciſion, which I ſhall ſpeak to onelyonly, as of a Sacramental kind; and not conſider it in the individual nature of it, as the initiating Sacrament of the Old Covenant, held out under that external rite of cutting off the foreskin of the fleſh.
The uſe of it is, to be a ſign and ſeal for ſignification, and ratification to thoſe that received it.
The thing ſignified and ſealed is, the righteouſneſſe of faith, ſo it is alſo called, Heb. 11. Elſewhere it is called the righteouſneſſe of God, Rom. 10.3. being freely given to us of God, and onelyonly able to juſtifie us in his ſight; but chiefly, becauſe it is wrought by Chriſt, who was not meer man, nor barely a creature, but the true God, as St. John ſtiles him, 1 Joh. 5.20. This righteouſneſs of God is applyed to us, and made ours by faith, Phil. 3.9. and therefore as it is called, the righteouſneſſe of God, ſo alſo here and elſewhere, the righteouſneſſe of faith. This text being thus cleared, a full and compleat definition of a Sacrament may be found.
The definition of a Sacrament.A Sacrament is a ſign appointed of God, to be received of his Covenant-people, to ſeal the righteouſneſſe of faith unto them.
I know there is ſomewhat put into the definition of a Sacrament by ſome that treat of this ſubject, which is not here in words expreſt, and therefore upon that account, this definition may be challenged as defective; as 1. The Miniſter by whom it is to be diſpenſed from God to man. But whether this be eſſential in a Sacrament or otherwiſe, (as afterwards is to be enquired into,) it is ſufficiently implyed. In caſe it muſt be received from God by his people in that way, and from that hand that he himſelf in his Word hath appointed. 2. The Sacraments contain as well a profeſſion of our duty towards God, as Gods tender and ſeal to man, of which here is nothing ſaid. But this we ſhall find, both in the ſign and ſeal (which are both mentioned) neceſſarily included, and as it appears that it is comprized, ſo to make it more clear and explicite, it may by the Reader be added.