fuch a Propenfity to do Evil, that I believe the worst Men do enjoy a Share of God's reftraining Grace, which does not let them be fo very wicked, as otherwife they would be. But in good and regenerate Men, the Point is out of all doubt: Let a good Man, who has formerly lived an ungodly Life, remember how irksome and impoffible (almoft) it look'd to him then, to refift a Temptation, which now he can do with Facility and Pleasure. This is not to be attributed only to an habitual Custom of Goodness; for oftentimes fincere Penitents experience it in themselves, of a fudden, upon their firft turning to God; they feel a total Renovation of their Minds, and fuch a new Principle within them, as gives them a perfect Abhorrence of all Evil, and a Difgust of their formerly most beloved Pleafures. Nor can you account for this by Fear or Fancy, for how fhould thefe filly Paffionis be able to make fuch noble Conquefts over Men's Natures? The beft and wifeft Chriftians know and experience this to be true and it rather fhews a Degree of Spleen or Humour, to deny so manifeft a Truth, which good Men are as fure of, as that they fee or walk.

But you do not fairly conclude; that it argues any Injuftice in God to punish Men for their Sins, though God does not afford them his Grace. For all Men may have as great a Share of God's Grace, as is neceffary to their Salvation, if they fincerely ask it by Prayer; but there is no Reason why God fhould be obliged to force the Influence of his Holy Spirit upon them, whether they will or no. Nay, fuch is the Goodness of God, that he puts good Thoughts very often into the Minds of wicked Men, in order to reclaim them, tho' they as often ungraci onfly flight and defpife them. If they would take care to encourage and cherish thofe good Motions, God would go further with them, and give them Grace fufficient to conquer their evil Habits; but when they refuse Gods gracious Offers at firft, and fhew no manner of Willingnefs to amend their Live, but induftrionfly stifle every good Thought which is fuggefted to them, it is unreafons ble to think, that God ought to force their Wills to Repentance,

pentance, and to deal with them, as if they were mere Machines.

Phil. But methinks, Credentius, the Notion which the Generality of you Chriftians have of the Sacraments, is very odd, viz. That they confer Grace, as your Divines fpcak. Now, tho' we grant that Grace is given by the Holy Ghoft, yet it is not to be imagined that it should come by eating Bread, or by being dipt in Water. This, the Socinians are Men of too good Reason to be unfenfible of. And one of them argues thus: *The Word and Sacraments are a fort of Means that act not by any natural Tendency of their own, nor by any Harmony, Suitableness, or Agreeablenefs to our Powers, Faculties, or Natures, but by a Theurgical, Teleftick, and Myftical Operation; which is to fay, they work upon our Minds, as Spells, Charms, and Incantations. Let a Man in Black Sprinkle you with fome of the Churches Water, or give you a Bit of Bread, or a Sup of Wine, over which he has pronounced the wonder-working Words prefcribed in Mother-Churches Ritual, though by Nature you are as bad as the Devil, you shall be qualified for Heaven. And this no less certainly, than by tying the Norman Knot, you may gain the Love of the Perfon you defire; or by other Devices, recorded in the learned Books of Magick, you may caufe Hatred, raife Winds, and do a thousand other Feats. Therefore, when St. Auftin defined a Sacrament to be the outward vifible Sign of an inward Spiritual Grace; the good Father should have confidered, that this is the Definition of a Charm, and not of a Gofpel-Sacrament.

Cred. I am heartily forry that any who pretend Refpect to our bleffed Lord, as the Unitarians do, should endeavour to expofe any Part of his Holy Inftitution, which can do no Service to any but the Infidels; for no Body that believes the Orthodox Doctrines, will ever be brough over to the Unitarian Principles by fuch fhocking Railery; which makes all good Men but hate and abhor their Principles the more. But let us look a little into this Jeft of a Comparison, between Sacraments and Charms.

Sacrament

ned to be an

outwo ri

You find Fault that a Sacrament is defined to be an out rightly def ward and visible Sign of an imvard and Spiritual Grace. But, I pray, for what Reafon? These Things in our and vible Religion, which we call Sacraments, are holy Rites inSign, &c. ftituted by our Lord Jefus Chrift, the Founder of our Religion. They were called by the Latin Church Sacramenta, from the Roman Sacramentum, the Soldier's Oath or Engagement to his General. Now, because in these two Rites, viz. Baptifm and the Lord's-Supper, there was a mutual Engagement, or Covenant, between Chrift and his faithful People; therefore the Ancients thought it not improper to call thefe Sacraments, or Engagements. The Sacrament of Baptifm was a Covenant, by which we first enter into the Service of Chrift, and agree with him to obey his Commands, upon condition we may be Partakers of the Rewards his Religion promifes; and in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, we not only commemorate his Benefits, but receive fresh Affurances of his Promifes, and new Affiftances of his Grace to perform the Conditions required for them. Now this being the Nature of thefe tivo Performances, where is the Impropriety of eftablishing a vifible Sign? Is not there fomething like this in all Sorts of Covenants? When the Romans made an Agreement with their Enemies, the Fecialis made ufe of fuch an outward Sign, and throw'd a Stone violently out of his Hands, wifhing, If he acted treacherously, that the Gods would deal with him as with that Stone. So Gen. xv. 10. Abraham makes a Covenant with God, by dividing the Body of an Heifer, a She-goat, and Ram, into two Parts. And to this Day, we ftill find the like Ceremonies used in private Contracts; as in the Selling of Eftates, the Delivery of Writings; in Matrimony, the Delivery of a Ring, or the Joining of Hands. Now what Reason is there, why our Saviour might not ordain these outward vifible Signs, in thefe two federal Ordinances, as well as any civil State does the like? Thefe outward vifible Signs ufually carry fuch a decent Solemnity with them, as very much engages Men's Attention and Refpect, and helps to make a greater Impreffion upon their Memory, than when

thero

there is only a bare verbal Agreement in a Covenant. Befides, thele outward vifible Signs are abfolutely neceffary in divine Covenants, or in Stipulations between God and Men; for unless God did ordinarily and immediately converfe with Men himself, there must be fuch an outward and vifible Sign to reprefent the Stipulation of God on his Part. From all which, I conclude, that you have no Reafon to find Fault with the outward vifible Signs in the Sacraments, but rather to admire the Fitnefs and Excellency of their Institution.

Now

Charms.

Nor is the Inftitution in these Covenants of outward Difference and vifible Signs more reasonable than your Comparison of of Sacrathem, with Spells and Charms, is void of Reafon. For ments and Spells or Charms are Diabolical, or at least fuperftitious Practices; but neither of thefe can be charged upon the two Sacraments inftituted by our bleffed Lord. He had à Power from Heaven to found the Chriftian Religion, and had Authority from thence to ordain what Methods were fitting for the Propagating or Practicing it. when the Sacraments are founded on fuch divine Authority, it is not very decent or civil, to compare this pious Covenant with God, with the Contract of Witches, or other deluded People, with the Devil. Or if it becomes an Infidel to do fo, the Socinian did a little forget him felf, to talk after this Rate, before he had declar'd himself openly to have come over into the Camp of the Unbe lievers. Befides, is there any thing in our Chriftian Sacraments, like thofe idle Superftitions, by which the Devil beguiles Witches, and other fimple People? Baptifm is a fober and ancient Rite, which in all Ages out of mind, has been used, either for Luftration, or in Token of Purgation from Sin; or elfe to inftitute Profelytes into a new Religion. The Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, is but a kind of Commemoration Feaft, which was used among the Jews; and before the Inftitution of their Religion, there was fomething like it, among the Euchariftical Sacrifices of the Patriarchs. Now when our Chriftian Religion retains no more than these two very ancient and very fober Rites, they are very improperly cal Kk 2

led

How Sacraments

confer

Grace.

led by you, and the Socinians, Spells and Charms: For they do, in my Mind, bear very little Analogy to the boiling together the Hair of a Wolf, and the Juice of Hemlock, and fuch other diabolical Foolerics, which Witches, or fuperftitious People use.

Well! But you may think them, to be like Charms, because they are faid to confer Grace to the Partakers of them. But you are under a Mistake, if you think that the Generality of Chriftians do own, that the Sacraments do confer Grace by a phyfical Power of their own, as the Heat of the Sun produces Plants, or warms us; or that Grace is obtained, as the Papifts pretend, by the pure Opus Operatum of the Sacraments, by the bare external receiving them, without due Refpect had to the Worthi nefs, or other Qualifications of the Receivers. For thefe are Fancies which we Proteftants cannot agree to; for this Opinion would allow, that Juftification would be the proper Effect of the Sacraments, which is only in Scripture attributed to Faith and Holiness of Life, when the Apoftle exprefly affirms, That outward Baptifm does not Save us, but only the Anfier of a good Confcience toward God, I Pet. iii. 2 f.

Grace of But though this Opinion be erroneous, it does not folBaptifm. low, that no Grace at all is conferred in the Sacraments. Tho' they do not produce this Effect of themselves, or by their bare facramental Inftitution, yet they may be made a Means of it, by the Affiftance of God's holy Spirit, co-operating with them, and the Faith of Believers. And if we credit the Holy Scriptures, it must be plain to us, that by thefe Sacraments, we receive many fupernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghoft. Our Saviour tells Nicodemus, difcourfing to him of Baptism, that That which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit, Joh. iii. 6. and joins all along together, the being born again of Water, and the Spirit. And fo the Apostle, Tit. iii. 5. puts together the Washing of Regeneration, and the Renewing of the Holy Ghoft. And fo throughout the whole fixth Chapter of the Romans, he fhews the great Advantages, and spiritual Graces which we receive by Baptifm, that being dead before,

by