The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. The being of Sacraments depends upon their uſe.
Another Poſition yet followes from the words, The being of Sacraments depends upon their uſe, they are no Sacraments to thoſe that do not partake of them.
This is grounded upon this act of Abraham appointed of God, and accordingly done by him,The being of Sacraments conſiſts in their uſe. He received the ſign of Circumciſion. All that he did was in obedience of the Divine Commandment, Gen. 17.11. And ye ſhall circumciſe the fleſh of your foreskin, and it ſhall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. It was not the foreskin, but the foreskin cut off, that was the token of the Covenant. So alſo in that of the Paſſeover, Iſrael had a command from God, to take every man a lamb, and to eat the fleſh roſt with fire, and unleavened bread, and with bitter herbs ye ſhall eat it, Exod. 12.3, 8. It is not barely the Lamb, but eaten in the way that God preſcribed, that made the Sacrament. In Baptiſme, the command is, Baptize them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. It is not water that makes up Baptiſme, but water applyed to the ſubject, or the ſubject to the water. In the Lords Supper there is bread and wine in their ſignificancy held out, not for bare ſight, but a Command is added; Take, eat, drink ye all of this; bread and wine makes not up the Sacrament, without breaking, giving, taking, and eating. In thoſe Sacraments extraordinary. The Sea was no Sacrament, but Iſraels paſſage through it. The Cloud was no Sacrament, but Iſraels guidance by it, or the cloud guiding Iſrael, and Iſrael following after it. Neither was the Manna a Sacrament, or the rock conſidered in themſelves; but the Manna eaten, the water of the rock drunk by the Iſraelites. Even the fictious Sacraments of the Church of Rome conſiſt in their uſe: Their Order is no Sacrament, where there is none Ordained; and Marriage is no Sacrament, where none are married. Their Chriſme in confirmation, oyl in extream unction not applyed, are of no uſe, or efficacy. This is plain in Reaſon.Arguments to …vince it.
Firſt, The being of Sacraments depends on their inſtitution; Take away their inſtitution, and they have no being at all. But the inſtitution leads us not barely to an element, but preſcribes the uſe; not onelyonly to a ſign, but the application of it; not onelyonly to water, but to be baptized with water; not onelyonly to bread and wine, but the eating of bread, drinking of wine, and the beholding of both.
Secondly, the being of Sacraments depends upon the relation of the ſign to the thing ſignified, with the analogy and proportion that is held between them. This is plain; Take away ſuch relation, and the element is a common element, and not a Sacrament; ſet aſide, the conſideration of the blood, and Spirit of Chriſt, and water is an element for common uſe, to take away the filth of the fleſh, but for removal neither of the guilt, nor filth of ſin. Take away the conſideration of the body and blood of Chriſt, and bread may ſtrengthen nature, but not nouriſh the ſoul. But the relation is not barely in the ſigns, or elements, but in their applications to the ſubject; water beares no relation to the cleanſing of ſin, but waſhing with water; and bread and wine, no relation to the ſetting forth of the Lords death, remembrance of him, or life by him, but the breaking, eating, and drinking.
Thirdly, That which being removed nulls a Sacrament, that is neceſſary to the being of Sacraments. This is plain; Nothing can deſtroy being, but the want of that which is neceſſary to being: But the removal, or taking away of the uſe nulls and deſtroyes the bring of Sacraments. Let not the foreskin be cut off, nor the Lamb roſted, and eaten; the water not be applyed to the perſon, nor bread and wine eaten and drunken, there is no Sacrament; therefore the uſe of Sacraments gives being to them.
Fourthly, All benefit of, and in the thing ſignified, conſiſts in the application, therefore the Sacraments for their being, uſe, and benefit, conſiſt in their application likewiſe. The conſequence is grounded upon the analogy that is between the ſign and the thing ſignified. The antecedent is clear, the blood of Chriſt, the ſufferings of Chriſt not brought home to the ſoul, and intereſt obtained by application, doth not benefit, or profit.
Fifthly, That which enters the definition of a Sacrament, is of the being of it. This none can deny: But the uſe or office of a Sacrament enters the definition of it: Ergo. The Apoſtle defines it to be a ſign and ſeal, which plainly ſpeaks not the nature, but the uſe of Sacramental elements.
Here is no Conroverſie in this thing among parties, ſave with the Church of Rome; neither is there any with them, ſave in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. They confeſſe that the being of Baptiſme doth ſo conſiſt in the uſe, that without it, it is no Sacrament. OnelyOnly the Lords Supper (for Tranſubſtantiations ſake) though never uſed, is ſtill a Sacrament, when they reſerve it in a box, carry it about for pomp, hold it up for worſhip, it is ſtill a Sacrament. The body of Chriſt is ſtill there, and if a mouſe falls upon it, the mouſe receives a Sacrament, knawes upon Chriſts fleſh. But when worms breed in it (as they may by their own confeſſion) they are hard put to it. They cannot breed upon accidents, the ſhape, the colour of bread cannot give being to worms. And to ſay that the ſubſtance which remains there, which is the fleſh of Chriſt, breeds them, is no low blaſphemy. The generation of one is the corruption of another, and God will not ſuffer his holy One to ſee corruption. I remember an anſwer to this great difficulty, (when I firſt read Philoſophy) out of Conimbricenſes Phyſicks; That learned Society did determine, that God by miracle did create matter, and laid it by the conſecrate hoſt, and that did putrifie, and not the conſecrated bread, and ſo Worms were generated. They ſure believe that it is an eaſie thing to put God upon miracles. Againſt this permanency of this Sacrament out of the uſe of it, we ſay,
Firſt, If the uſe of this be inſtituted,The Sacrament of the Lords Supper equally tranſient with Baptiſme. as well as the uſe of Baptiſme, and given in command; then this Sacrament conſiſts in the uſe, as well as Baptiſme. This cannot be denyed, for the inſtitution, and Comman of Chriſt muſt equally lead us in both. But in the Lords Supper, as well as in Baptiſme, the uſe is within the inſtitution, and given in Command by Chriſt; Therefore this Sacrament of the Lords Supper conſiſts in the uſe, as well as that of Baptiſme. Whereas Bellarmine replyes to this, that Chriſt commanded the bread to be eaten, but not preſently after conſecration; therefore to delay eating is not againſt the inſtitution. To this we anſwer, 1. Neither did he command water, as ſoon as ſet apart for Baptiſme, to be applyed to the party to be baptized; yet till it be applyed, the party is not baptized, water is no Sacrament; and ſo the bread and wine in that interim ſtill applyed, ſtill wants the nature of a Sacrament. 2. He did command it then to be eaten, by Bellarmin's confeſſion, though not inſtantly to be eaten; and he gave the like command of the cup, as of the bread, yea, with more exactneſſe a note of univerſality added, Drink ye all of it; yet their Laity have a Sacrament, and never drink of it. 3. That which the Apoſtles did, that Chriſt enjoyned (as Ameſius well replyes;) they underſtood Chriſts intimation, as well as the moſt nimble-headed Jeſuites, but they did not reſerve it, but did eat it.
Secondly, If there be no footſteps in all the holy Scriptures, of any other way of dealing with the elements of the Lords Supper, then the eating and drinking of them; then, according to the inſtitution, they muſt be eaten, and drunken: But there is no footſtep there, of any other dealing with the Sacrament, then eating and drinking; Therefore according to the inſtitution it is not to be reſerved, but to be eaten and drunk. Indeed Chamier quotes Croquet replying, that ſome of the Ancient have ſaid, that Judas took one part of the Sacrament, and reſerved the other for ſcorn; but this may be well reckoned among others of like nature in their Legends. And I would adviſe all thoſe that believe it, if they be ambitious to be diſciples of Judas, to follow it.
Thirdly, The promiſe in this Sacrament is not to be divided from the precept, by any that will expect a bleſſing. But where the promiſe is, This is my body, this is my blood in the New Teſtament; in the inſtitution, There is a precept, Take, eat, Drinke ye all of this; therefore they muſt eat, and drink, that will have benefit in the promiſe. It would little I ſuppoſe pleaſe the Reader to hear Bellarmine, Suarez, and other Jeſuits to exempt this Sacrament from the common nature of Sacraments, and to make it permanent, when the other (as they ſpeak) are tranſeunt. Thomas Aquinas, Part 3. Quaeſt. 73. art. 1. reſp. ad. 3. makes this difference between the Euchariſt and other Sacraments, This Sacrament is perfected (ſaith he) in the conſecration of the matter, other Sacraments are perfected in the application of the matter to the perſon to be ſanctified. Suarez, diſp. 42. Sect. 4. quotes it with approbation; and Scotus in quanto Diſt. 8. quaeſt. 1. as he is quoted by Ameſius, All the Sacraments except the Euchariſt conſiſt in their uſe; ſo that in them the Sacrament, and the receiving of the Sacrament is the ſame. He that pleaſes may read Bellar. Arguments, lib. 4. de Euchariſtia, Cap. 2, 3, 4. Suarez in the place named with Whitakers, Ameſius, Vorſtius in 3. Tom. Bellar. Theſ. 9. pag. 406. Chamier againſt them both, with others of that party, de Euchariſtia, lib. 7. cap. 4, &c. I ſhall deſire to take up the Reader with that which I judge more neceſſary; Gerard in his Common places, Cap. 4. de Sacramentis, makes it his buſineſſe to find out the Genus in the definition of a Sacrament, in which the general form of Sacraments, he ſayes, is to be included; and concludes, 1. In the negative, that it is not to be defined a ſign, and in the affirmative, that it is an action. Though this perhaps might rather have been taken into conſideration when we ſpake of Sacramental ſignes, and laid open that part of the definition, yet being ſlipt there, it may not inconveniently be ſpoken to in this place. In this determination of his, he ſuppoſeth, he meeteth with a double error; One, of the Papiſts, but now examined, that the Euchariſt is a permanent thing, and not tranſient; which it cannot be, in caſe it be an action. And the other both of Papiſts, and the followers of Calvin, (as he calls them) both of which affirm, that it is a ſign, and that muſt ſupply the place of the genus in the definition; and though he profeſſes willingly to yeeld, that Sacraments may be called ſignes, in reſpect of their office, and end; yet he will not have it put into the definition, forgetting it ſeems (for he doth not once take notice of it) that the Apoſtle in the Text ſo defines it. His Reaſons to conclude, that Sacraments are not to be defined, as ſignes are:1. aAliud eſt res ipſa, aliud ejus officium ac finis, aliud appellatio ejus ex officio, aliud definitio ex eſſentia. Definitio eſt foreign. Ergo genus in definitione peti debet ex rei definitae eſſentiâ; jam vero eſſe ſignum non pertinet ad quidditatem, ſed ad ejus finem & uſum. A thing it ſelf is one, and the end, and office is another. The appellation of it by the office is one, and the definition by the eſſence is another: Now to be ſignes, and ſeales, is the end and office of Sacraments. To which I anſwer; That Sacrament denoteth the office and uſe for which ſuch and ſuch an element, according to Divine appointment, ſerves. If we ſhould go about to define bread or water (which are appointed to be ſignes) to be ſignes and ſeales, we ſhould run upon a great errour. For it is neither of the eſſence of bread, nor wine to be a ſign. But defining a Sacrament in that way, we hold forth the very eſſence of it.
2. He ſaiesb2. Definitio debet conſtare ex prioribus & notioribus; Sacramenta eſſe ſigna & ſigilla ex prioribus & notioribus, quia ipſorum cognitio pendet ex actionibus & ceremioniis, hae enim cum fine, qui eſt ſignare, conjunctae, dicuntur ſigna & ſigilla The definition ought to conſiſt of that which is before, and better known then the thing defined; But ſignes and ſeales are not before, and better known then Sacraments. The minor which every one will be ready to deny, he proves, Becauſe the knowledg of them depends on actions and Ceremonies, as though the Elements alone were ſignes without conſideration of the actions which in the inſtitution are enjoyned. His third reaſon is, becauſec3. Proprium genus debet eſſe propinquum; ſignum autem eſt genus Sacramenti remotum, tum quia à fine petita eſt haec denominatio, tum quia mediantibus actionibus certo verbo & externo elemento conſtantibus ſignant. to be a ſigne is not the immediate, but the remote genus of a Sacrament, which he proves in that it is no ſign oterwiſe then by reaſon of actions accompanying. Where we meet with the ſame miſtake as before. If it be by the help of actions that they are ſignes, it is then by help of themſelves, Elements with their actions and not otherwiſe are ſignes. 4. He ſaies,d4. Pars rei non eſt genus rei ut totius; ſigna in oculos incurrentia ſunt pars Sacramentorum, una terrena ſcilicet, cui adjuncta res coeleſtis inviſibilis Sacra mentum proprie dictum conſtituit. One part of a thing is not the genus of it, as whole: But ſigns are but part of a Sacrament, There being two parts, one terrene, and the other heavenly; and therefore it is not the genus. To which I reply, 1. The action which he puts into the definition is but one part ſure, and the earthly part, whether it be the action of the diſpenſer, or receiver, that he underſtands by action. 2. It ſeems that he would have a definition of an outward Element, and Chriſt put into one notion together. 3. We define that which lies upon our hand by divine inſtitution, which is the office of ſuch, and ſuch Elements with the actions about them, leading to the thing ſignified. Laſtly, He ſaithe5. Genus non debet eſſe ambiguum; at qui vox ſigni eſt ambigua, &c. that the genus in a definition must not be ambiguous: But this is ambiguous, for men ſpeak of ſignes ambiguouſly. But this is nothing to thoſe that ſpeak diſtinctly of ſignes, when they put them into a definition, and make it to appear what ſignes they mean; So that the Apoſtles defini-nition making Sacraments ſignes, is yet uncontroulable. And defence being made that they are rightly defined to be ſignes, all that is ſaid to prove that action is to be the genus, may eaſily be anſwered.
1. The author by an induction proves, that actions are enjoyned in all Sacraments, which we eaſily yield, and as eaſily prove that thoſe are ſignificant actions, and ſo make up the ſign, and that they are Sacramentall, not quâ actions, for then as often as we eat bread, or drink wine, we ſhould be at a Sacrament; and as often as a woman puts water upon her childs face, ſhe ſhould be about baptiſme.
2. Sacraments (ſaith he) are actions; Circumciſion is an action, ſo the Paſchal Lamb, Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper. The firſt is the cutting off the foreskin; the ſecond is the roſting, and eating of a Lamb; the third is dipping or ſprinkling with water, and the fourth eating and drinking bread and wine. Anſw. 1. And all theſe are ſignificant actions in and about an outward element, and ſo we are where we were. 2. Theſe inſtances are no proofes that Sacraments are actions, but that action is required to the making up of a Sacrament. It is not ſimply action, but an action with reſtraint to ſuch an Element, in, and about ſuch a ſubject; Circumciſion in any other part could have been no Sacrament, nor yet eating of any other creature in the time of the law then a Lamb of the flock, or of the herd; nor yet any other eating and drinking of bread and wine, then in the manner preſcribed. And ſo we may ſay of dipping, pouring, or ſprinkling 3. He does not tell us, whether it be the diſpenſers action, or the receivers, that makes a Sacrament. In Circumciſion, and Baptiſme he ſpeakes nothing of any action in the receiver. In the Paſſeover and Lords Supper he ſaies nothing of any action of the diſpenſer. And it is for the receivers ſake that the Sacrament is appointed, and Iſaacs Circumciſion, and every infants Baptiſme (if not Abrahams Circumciſion, and Baptiſme of men of years) may rather be defined by paſſion then action. And paſſion may as well challenge the ſeat of Sacraments, as action, where he placeth it. He concludes, that ancient and modern Writers, yea, Calvins followers call them by the name of rites, and Ceremonies, which we know to conſist in action. Here is a manifeſt miſtake, rites and Ceremonies are not alwaies actions, neither humane, nor divine Ceremonies. The high Prieſts Ephod, with the reſt of thoſe holy garments preſcribed, were Ceremonies, and ſo was the ſurplice while in uſe in England, and yet theſe were in the predicament of Habitus and not of Actio. It is true that the putting them on was an action, but that was not the Ceremony, but the wearing of them in the work of worſhip, and the putting it on was no act of him that wore it, but his that waited upon him. And kneeling at the Sacrament was eſteemed a Ceremony with us, yet no action, but a geſture, or poſture of the body, and in the predicament of Situs, Dr. Burges indeed in his rejoynder defines a Ceremony to be an action, pag. 29. But preſently he explaines himſelf, and ſaies, I call it an action, becauſe nothing is or can be a Ceremony in reſpect of exiſtence, or being, but onelyonly in reſpect of acting or uſage thereof, as a ceremony: ſo that he takes action abuſive, for any manner of uſage whatſoever; upon the publiſhing of the book, I ſpake with the author of this thing, and he acknowledged action ſtrictly taken, was too narrow to be the Genus of a Ceremony, and that it was holpen by the word uſage. So Dr. Sanderſon, that renouned Logician, ſpeaking of the execution, done by Phinehas in the diviſion of his text, calls his ſtanding up an action, but preſently addes. Though I call it an action; yet it is a geſture properly, and not an action, ſo that when rites, and Ceremonies may be poſtures, or habits, it cannot be ſaid that they conſiſt in action; ſo that it is clear, that Sacraments conſiſt in their uſe, and though actions be ſeen in every Sacrament, either done by the diſpenſer, or receiver, or both; yet thoſe actions being upon, and about ſome viſible element, and the Elements themſelves, with the actions being all ſignificant; Sacraments are yet rightly defined to be ſignes, and not actions.
Then it muſt neceſſarily follow by way of Corollary, that there is no holineſſe remaining in the elements, There is no continued holineſſe in Sacramental elements.no relative holineſſe abiding upon them, further then according to the inſtitution they are applyed and received. The water in the veſſel that containes it is no further (as I may ſay) conſecrate then as it is applyed to the perſon baptized. The river of Jordan, nor yet the waters near Aenon, in Salem, had no more holineſſe then other waters in Jury. The reliques of bread and wine in the Lords Supper, have no more of holineſſe, when they are taken from thence then they had when they were brought thither. Tipling off of the wine in the place where it was immediately before received as a Sacrament (of which I have heard) is undecent, and unſuitable to the work that they have been upon, yet it is no other then common wine that then is taken. Care ſhould be taken not to defile the perſon who remaines conſecrate to God, and in participation of theſe elements makes profeſſion of it, no ſuch fear of prophaning the elements themſelves. But for a great part theſe are well contented to be prophane, provided that the elements may be eſteemed, and honoured as holy. This high opinion of holineſſe in the conſecrated wine robbed the people of it. Many of the Laity have beards that may lick ſome drops of it up, and the number encreaſing it muſt paſſe through ſo many hands, or be put to ſo many mouthes, that ſome may be ſpilt; and thoſe fears here ſo wrought, that they may not meddle at all with it. And how great diſputes there have been, what ſhall be done with it, if a weak ſtomack vomit it up while the ſpecies of it doth remain unchanged; they that are verſt in Popiſh Caſuiſts well know. And all this from that monſter of Tranſubſtantiation. But when a right uſe of the Sacraments is underſtood, all theſe ſuperſtitious conceits will vaniſh, and come to nothing; when a ſealed indenture hath done its office, we no longer look much after the wax, and parchment.
Secondly,Their touch or abode upon any thing or utenſil does not make it holy. If their Sacramental nature remain no longer then their uſe, ſo that themſelves are no further holy, then their touch, or former abodes cannot make any place, or utenſil holy; it cannot leave any ſuch remaining holineſſe (as ſome conceit) behind. So it would follow that in caſe the words of conſecration be pronounced over all the bread in the greateſt pantry, or to be ſold in the market place (which men of that opinion ſay may be done) then not onelyonly every bit of that bread is turned into Chriſt, but all the binges or panniers that receive the bread in them muſt have an holineſſe remaining, and abiding upon them, and ſo in like caſe all the Wine in the cellar, yea, all the earth of the Land of Canaan would remain holy by reaſon of the Manna falling upon it, which was ſpiritual meat, therefore a prophaning of it, to tread with the foot upon it, much more for beaſts to dung and graze it. As much is ſaid to prove that the rock was Chriſt, as there is to prove that the cup is Chriſts blood. If that had ſuch a ſanctifying power, then all the ground on which the water ran, yea, every beaſt that drank of it, was made holy. The thought of this might have ſilenced that talk of bowing to the place of Gods ſpecial reſidence, by which they meant the place where the Sacrament hath been celebrated, which of a Table they made an Altar, which then according to our Saviour Chriſt, muſt make holy the body and blood of Chriſt, offered upon it, and the body and blood of Chriſt muſt not make it holy, Ye fooles, and blind, whether is greater, the gift or the altar that ſanctifieth the gift? Matth. 23.19. But with us the gift did put the ſanctification upon the Altar, that from the time that the gift had been upon it, men muſt upon ſight ſtill worſhip ad, verſus, coram, amazing thoſe that were offended at it, with their diſtinction of inheſive and abſtractive holineſſe.