A discourse concerning unction and washing of feet proving that they be not instituted sacraments or ordinances in the churches by Isaac Chauncy ...

§ 3. Our Learned Author proposeth divers Objections, and returns Answers, which we pro∣ceed to reply to.

Obj. 1. This is to make more Sacraments than two. Which he Answers by way of Con∣cession, only distinguishing betwixt Seals of the Co∣venant of Grace, and Seals of other Promises.

Reply. There are no Promises made even of outward good Things to God's Children but in Christ Jesus, and contained in the Covenant of Grace, and there needs no other Seals but what are Seals to that. Circumcision Sealed the Promise of Christ to Abraham, and all the Promi∣ses of the Land of Canaan, and of External Bles∣sings

therein. He instanceth in the Rainbow, Gen. 9.11,12, &c. But that was God's confirm∣ing Seal of the Covenant of Grace to Noah, and of an External Good promised to the Church, and to the World, for the sake of the Church, and accordingly applied by the Prophet Isaiah to the Covenant of Grace, as a Confir∣ming Sign to us.

But what is this Instance to our purpose? Whatever the Rainbow was, it was no Insti∣tuted Church Ordinance, and cannot be called a Sacrament; for that is such a Sign and Seal as is Instituted by Christ for our Obedience thereto, wherein by some Acts of ours appoin∣ted by Christ, we shew forth some Spiritual Thing that our Faith is exercised on thereby.

Obj. 2. If it be a Seal its of Remission of Sins; for that is spoken of in the Text by the Apostle.

Ans. Remission of Sins there, is not that gene∣ral and eternal Forgiveness promised in the Cove∣nant of Grace, but the taking away of a temporary Guilt.

Repl. But is there any saving Remission but what belongs to the Covenant of Grace? And must there be one Seal for Eternal Remission, and another for Temporary? If a Seal of Re∣mission must be carried to the Sick, it makes much to justifie a Popish Practice in carrying the Lord's Supper to them. It is true, there is a Forgiveness spoken of in Scripture, which is only not to punish with Temporal Punishments, and is not Saving, as to the Soul, as Psal. 78.38. And there's no Seal as I know of, belong∣ing to such a Temporal and Negative Salva∣tion

properly considered, remaining as an Or∣dinance in the Church.

Obj. 3. All Sacraments are Seals to absolute Promises; and when rightly used in Faith, have certainly their effect: But this hath not, for so none should dye who in Faith should use it.

Ans. True, all Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace are such, — but yet God may have ap∣pointed another Seal for the Confirmation of the Promises of outward Mercies: — Of this nature is the Ordinance of Imposition of Hands.

Repl. We have no ground to believe that God hath appointed any other Seals than such as belong to the Covenant of Grace, which He hath annexed thereto by his Institution. He instanceth in Imposition of Hands, which he saith is a Sacrament for increase of Gifts. But, 1. Was it not used at first for bestowing Gifts? How comes it now to be changed from the first Intention? 2. Whatever Sacrament is for en∣crease is to be often repeated, but so is not Im∣position of Hands, according to the zealousest Assertors thereof. 3. Sacraments, as Signs, hold forth and signifie, by way of Symbol, al∣ways some spiritual and inward Grace; we never find they terminate upon common Gifts, and corporeal Benefits, and we read of a Sa∣crament for encrease of Grace, but none for encrease of Gifts. 4. Why should not Unction be for encrease of Health, as well as Imposition of Hands for encrease of Gifts, and so to have a double use for Recovery of Health, and en∣crease or continuance of it after recovery? 5. What is there in Imposition of Hands to encrease Gifts? Is it naturally so, or by Insti∣tution?

None can say the former; if the latter, there's a Promise annexed for encrease of Gifts, and then the oftner used, the more Gifts will be encreased; but we find no such Promise an∣nexed, neither is it reasonable to say, that those Rites that were used in bestowing Gifts in the Primitive Times, should be continued to ours for encreasing them. 6. We read of a Sacrament to signifie the gift of Grace, and another for the encrease of it, why not two Sacraments in respect of gifts also for those distinct ends.

Obj. 4. This gives Countenance unto the Papists extream Unction, and condemns our Reformed Churches for rejecting it.

Ans. 1. The Church of Rome retains almost all Ordinances, only she hath perverted them, — as she hath perverted this from being an Ordinance of restoring Health, and forgiving temporary Guilt of particular Sins, to become a Sacrament of Ju∣stification and Forgiveness of all Sins, and so a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and that not for the Sick, but for all dying Persons when past Reco∣very, in which case it should not be used.

Repl. 1. Though the Church of Rome make an Image of every Ordinance of Christ, it cannot be said to retain all Christ's Ordinan∣ces, and its retaining some, argues not that all their Ordinances are Christ's.

2. If the Church of Rome use Unction to a sick Person, though in articulo mortis, how doth she pervert it, for there's nothing in the Text that excludes any sick Person from the use of it? And if the said Person may be Prayed with, and for, why not Anointed too? For

how many of such as are apprehended to be in a dying condition do recover notwithstanding? And how much the rather should Ʋnction be used to such, if one end be for the removal of temporary Guilt, that the Decumbent may not depart under it.

3. How come Sacraments for Forgiveness of Sins to be of two kinds; some for Forgive∣ness of all Sins, and some for Forgiveness of some only? Where there is a Sacrament for Forgiveness of all, there needs none for For∣giveness of some; if Christ in his Wisdom had Ordained so, no doubt but He would have Or∣dained the Repetition of Baptism as Tempo∣rary Guilt should be contracted.

4. If the Forgiveness here spoken of be Soul-saving from Guilt, it must belong to the Covenant of Grace, and the Papists must be right in making it a Sacrament of Justification, and must be of special use in articulo mortis, al∣lowing it to be instituted for the above-said end and purpose.

5. Who knows when a sick Person is past Recovery? If he be so, (1.) Is he not to be prayed for, and with, by the Elders? (2.) May not he be under Temporary Guilt? And is there not need enough of Forgiveness to him in that respect? (3.) And why should not all means be used for Recovery, especially by an Ordinance, whilest there's Life there's hope. (4.) Its becoming extream Unction, is praeter intentionem Agentis; some (as is here granted) do die, and so far the Unction Administred by Protestants must be extream Unction.

6. There will need in this case a Directory with a double Catalogue of Diseases, to tell in which Unction should be applied, and in what Cases not; as it may be Queried whether its to be used in Acute Diseases only, or in Chronical al∣so? especially such as are known to be in∣curable for the most part, as in Pthisis, Gout, Stone, Dropsie, &c. And whether if used, it may be repeated often, while the Patient is long under a lingering, languishing condition? Whether so often as the Elders pray with the Patient they may anoint? Whether if the Physician pronounce the Disease Mortal, any Unction at all ought to be applied? What should be done in cases of Diliriums and Di∣stractions? In case also of Lameness, Dumb∣ness, Wounds, &c. there will a hundred Que∣ries arise necessary to be resolved, when to Anoint, and when not, if it may not be used in all Cases of Sickness.

Ans. 2. The Reformed Churches seeing that such a Sacrament could not be, and this must needs be a perversion of it, did justly reject it as they used it; only in rejecting it they went too far (as in some other things) even denying it to have that use of restoring the Sick, as a Seal of the Pro∣mise, and an indefinite means to convey that Blessing, which God in Mercy hath appointed it to be.

Repl. What is here acknowledged to be done by the Reformed Churches, in rejecting Un∣ction as a Sacrament upon all accounts, is most Justifiable, neither have they gone too far herein, nor in laying aside Four more of the Popish pretended Sacraments; neither

doth it appear by all that hath been said, that Unction hath now any Sacramental use in re∣storing of Health, or that any Promise here, or in the Scripture, is any more of Health, than of Food and Raiment, &c. or hath any Seal annexed to it any more than Promises of outward Good have their respective Seals: Neither is there any real Forgiveness of Sin, Temporal or Eternal, but what belongs to, and is bestowed by that Covenant of Grace; therefore there can be no Seals of it, but what are Seals of that Covenant; and if Anointing be a Seal of a Promise that belongs not to the Covenant of Grace, it must be a Seal of a Promise made in the Covenant of Works, or else quite out of Doors.