The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 17
SECT. XVII. A Corollary drawn from former doctrines.
FRom theſe two obſervations above mentioned, That God is the author, Sacraments are to be received from that hand that God hath aſſigned.and The Covenant people of God the ſubject of the Sacraments, this follows by way of Corollary, that The people of God are therefore to receive them from that hand, that God is pleaſed to appoint to adminiſter and diſpenſe them to them. If God pleaſe to vouchſafe a gift, he is worthy to appoint the hand for conveyance. This might have been the employment of Angels in glory, whom he makes miniſtring Spirits, and to whoſe charge he commits his ſervants; but he hath choſen another way communicating it by man to the ſons of men; honouring men ſo farre as to entruſt them with theſe Myſteries, whereby he, 1. makes tryal of their faithfulneſſe, whom he thus entruſts in ſo noble an employment, as the diſpenſation of his Covenant, and ſeal, his Word and Sacraments. 2. He makes known his power, ſetting up weak man in his cauſe to oppoſe, and get the upper hand over Satan, and the world; chuſing the weak things of this world to confound the mighty. 3. He provides for his own glory, which would have been endangered, in caſe Angels had been employed in this Ambaſſy; when an Angel was ſent to John, he was ready to forget himſelf, in his extaſie to worſhip the Angel, Revel. 19.10.22.9. In caſe the Treaſure were in heavenly veſſels, the glory would be of the veſſel, and not of God; we ſhould have conceived ſo much glory there, that we ſhould looked qo higher. 4. He condeſcends to our infirmity, that are not able to bear divine apparitions. This man hath known by experience, Judg. 13.22. Luke 2.9. and God himſelf hath conſidered, Deut. 18.16, 17.5. He thereby makes tryal of our humility, and obedience, whether we will ſubmit to ſuch which he ſets up, though no other motive but his appointment appears in it: yet this is not handed over to vsus promiſcuouſly by all, or any of the ſons of men, but thoſe that he hath choſen from among men in things appertaining to God, Heb. 5.1. The Apoſtle lets us know that all are not Apoſtles, all are not Prophets, all are not teachers, all are not workers of miracles, 1 Cor. 12.29. ſo we may conclude all are not ſtewards, every houſehold ſervant is not ſet over the houſehold to give meat in due ſeaſon.The diſpenſation of Sacraments is a part of the Miniſterial function. Arguments evincing it. This is a work in Goſpel times proper to the Miniſters of Chriſt, as by ſeveral Arguments may be made to appear. 1. They that were ſent out to convert and inſtruct, were in commiſſion alone to baptize, Matth. 28.19. But the Miniſters of Chriſt are ſent out to convert and inſtruct; they onelyonly are ſpiritual Fathers, Teachers, &c. Therefore this is their buſineſſe, as before this commiſſion it was by divine warranty practiſed by John Baptiſt, and afterwards according to the commiſſion through the Acts of the Apoſtles. 2. the Supper of the Lord is a ſetting forth of the death of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 11.26. and therefore alone their buſineſſe in a publick way who are to preach Chriſt crucified, 1. Cor. 1.23. 3. They are the ſtewards of the Myſteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1. Theſe are of his Myſteries, the outward elements as they hold out, and ſeal Goſpel-promiſes unto us. 4. They are ſet over the houſehold of God, to give them their meat in due ſeaſon, having in charge to feed the Flock of God, which is among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. 5. Sacraments are a viſible Word, which never can profit, unleſſe they be opened, and the Myſtery be interpreted. 6. They are ſeales of the Goſpel-covenant, and inſtituted appendants to it, and therefore to be diſpenſed by Goſpel-Miniſters, that are in commiſſion to preach the Goſpel. And ſo Mr. Tombes his quibble is againſt him. Though (ſaith he) the title of the Miniſter of the Goſpel be uſed in the New Teſtament, yet the title of the Miniſters of the Sacrament is a made title, Praecurſ. pag. 82. Sacraments are comprized in the Goſpel, and Miniſters of the Goſpel comprizes Miniſters of the Sacraments. 7. All ages of the Church give in their vote with it, no Church regularly giving this power to any other;Whether Miniſterial diſpenſation be of the eſſence of Sacraments? Yet I would have this underſtood with this caution, that I do not ſo make it of the eſſence of Sacraments in general, that no Sacrament can have any being, but in the hand of a publick Miniſter, ſeeing, for ought we can read, neither Circumciſion, nor the Paſchal Lamb were committed to the hands of men in Miniſterial function. Circumciſion was given in charge to the parent, and whether his own hand, or any others ſhould be employed in it, it is not mentioned. They might (for ought we read) make uſe of thoſe that were moſt dextrous in it. And for the Paſchal Lamb, Rivet among the Calviniſts, and Gerard among the Lutherans deny, that it was to be brought to the Priſt to offer; and though both were Sacraments, (as may be objected) inſtituted before the Prieſthood was ſettled, and while the firſt born were authorized for publick Miniſterial acts, yet we do not then find it charged on the firſt born, not yet afterwards veſted in the Prieſthood;The negavit judged probable. neither do I yet judge it to be ſo of the integrality of the Sacraments of the New Teſtament, that it ſhould be no manner of Sacrament, if it be not carried on by the hand of a Miniſter, The matter and form being firſt inſtituted, the Sacrament, is after put into a Miniſters hand to diſpenſe it. And I ſee not a flat nullity of a Sacrament,Goſpel order tranſgreſſed, when Sacraments are othewiſe diſpenced. but a foul breach of Goſpel-order, when that way is neglected. As David felt to his grief, and was brought to confeſſe a foul miſ-priſion, in the order of Gods worſhip, when the Ark was carried on a Cart, and not on the Levites ſhoulders, 1 Chron. 15.13. ſo it is when the Sacraments are delivered by any other hand then a Miniſters; yet the Ark (though carried as it ought not) whereſoever it was, it was yet the Ark of God; ſo theſe ordinances (though adminiſtred as they ought not) are yet ſtill Sacraments, they are ſtill divine inſtituted ordinances, where the man is ſuch that hath his intereſt, by a free Covenant grant; and the Ordinance is the ſeal appointed for ratification of this Covenant, though conveyed by an unmeet hand, it is (I ſuppoſe) no meer nullity, though a tranſgreſſion. That of Mr. Hooker, Eccleſiaſtical Policy, lib. 5. Sect. 62. is worth our obſervation: If any thing be herein amiſſe, the harm which groweth by violation of holy ordinances, muſt altogether reſt where the bond of ſuch ordinances holds. And having ſhewed how it is otherwiſe in juriſdiction, he addes, Factum alterius alii nocere non debet. Baptiſme on the other hand being a favour which it pleaſeth God to beſtow, a benefit of the ſoul for us to receive it, and a Grace which they that deliver, are but as meer veſſels, either appointed by others, or offered on their own accord to this ſervice; of which two if they be, the one it is but their own honour, their own offence to be the other, can it poſſibly ſtand with equity and right that the faultineſſe of their preſumption in giving Baptiſme, ſhould be able to prejudice us, who by taking Baptiſme have no way offended? We juſtly abominate the opinion of Papiſts on the one hand, that make the intention of the Miniſter to be of the eſſence of the Sacrament, ſo that if that be wanting, there is no Sacrament, as alſo the opinion of Donatiſts of old, and Anabaptiſts of later times on the other hand, that make the quality of the Miniſter likewiſe eſſential; ſo that where he is defective in holineſſe and fidelity, there the Sacrament muſt of neceſſity be wanting in its power; and efficacy. And theſe opinions we reject as upon other accounts, ſo upon this that it brings Chriſtians into inextricable ſtraits, how ſhall they reach the Miniſters intention, at the time that he is about this buſineſſe; None knowes (but he that ſearcheth the heart) this thoughts at that time, and ſo no other knowes whether any more then common water hath been applyed, or commpn bread received. How ſhall they know the Miniſters goodneſſe? how ſhall they know his graces? Hypocriſie is ſpunne with a thred ſo fine, that anothers eye cannot diſcern. And in caſe the Miniſters goodneſſe were but ſeeming goodneſſe, then that which we received were but ſeeming Sacraments. This opinion of the very eſſence of Sacraments, depending on the lawfulneſſe of the call of Miniſters, puts them to little leſſe trouble. If a man will know whether he were ever baptized, he muſt be put to it, to make enquiry whether his Baptiſt were lawfully ordained, being happily dead before he is able to put this to the queſtion. And this being the Sacrament of his initiation, he may well queſtion whether he ſtand actually and orderly enrighted in any Church? priviledg, or be in any orderly way any Church-member, in caſe this fail? Many things being done, are of force, and ſtand firm, though he that did them deſerves no praiſe. Though they do not nullify a Sacrament, yet they break a Goſpel rule, Factum valet, faciendum none eſt, is an old maxime. And the more neer men come to the place of the Miniſterial function, the more unqueſtionable is the validity of ſuch adminiſtratrions, when any aſſumes other parts of the Miniſteriall function, to officiate in publick in that way that the peoples eſteeme of him, is as of a Miniſter called to this work; thoſe that otherwiſe ſeem much to ſcruple, yet then conclude, that as a Goſpel promiſe is a promiſe, though from his mouth whom God hath not ſent to preach the Goſpel, ſo a Goſpel Sacrament from his hand, is a Sacrament. The call and the work, are not ſo inviolably joyned, but that the work is done, though unduly, by him that is not called to it; yet though the validity of the work be aſſerted, the diſorder muſt be oppoſed. Entring upon Aarons work, and never called of God, as Aaron was; with Vzziah officiating in that work, that appertains not to him; leaving ſcruples in the thoughts of thoſe to whom in this diſorder they have adminiſtred theſe ordinances. This the Church hath never ſuffered, ſave onelyonly tha Papiſts and Lutherans diſpenſe with Baptiſme in caſe of neceſſity (putting ſo much weight upon it, and placing ſuch efficacy in it) which the Church of England alſo ſuffered after the reformation till King James his dayes, and then (as appears in the conference at Hampton-Court) it was reformed. Dr. Abbot in his Lectures read, while it ſtood in power, appeared publickly againſt it, and as I remember (for the book is not in my hands) affirmed, that zealous Miniſters then generally did diſtaſte, and decry it. The Midwife was uſually employed in the work as neareſt at hand, to caſt water upon the infant ready to dye in her armes, though in no capacity of that function by reaſon of her ſex; and though the ſex might have born it, ſhe was never called to it. But they muſt firſt make that good, that all periſh without Baptiſme, or that the act of Baptiſme aſſures us of ſalvation, before they can juſtifie this practice, (Proteſtant Writers with irrefragable arguments oppoſing it) produce as a diſpenſation from God for the breach of an order by him ſet up; otherwiſe we ſhall conclude that from the time of the ſaid conference, it hath juſtly been put into the hands of the lawful Miniſter; and notwithſtanding Mr. Tombes his quibble, it was upon juſt grounds concluded by the late Aſſembly in their confeſſion of faith, Chapter 27. Sect. 4.