Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 65 – Section Blake 69
§. 65.
R. B. 1. TO your Argument there needs no more to be ſaid then is ſaid to the former. When God hath in one Deed of Gift beſtowed on us Chriſt and Life, Remiſſion, Juſtification, Adoption, &c. (1 Joh. 5.10, 11, 12. Joh. 1.11, 12.) it muſt be in caſe of great ignorance that the perſon that knows that God giveth him Chriſt, muſt yet be conſtrained by after arguings to acknowledge that he giveth him Juſtification. And how this argument tends to explain the nature of Sacramental ſealing, I neither know, nor ſee any thing here to help me to know. If you will ſuppoſe ſuch an Argument as this uſed for Application, I would not ſtick to yield it uſeful; What God doth by his Testament give to all men▪ on condition they will Accept it, that he gives to me on condition I will Accept it. But he gives Chriſt and Life in him, to all men if they will Accept it; therefore to me: (Or if you will ſay, to all that hear the Goſpel.) Though the uſe of ſuch an Argument is more for lively Application, then confirmation of the Truth of the Grant.
2. Your ſuppoſition that your minor is ſealed, and not your major, hath enough ſaid to it.
3. The Sacraments may confirme your faith in Chriſt as given to you, otherwiſe then by ſealing, viz. as they are ſigns for Remembrance, Excitation to ſenſe and lively apprehenſions of Gods Donation, and as they are ſigns inſtrumental in ſole Conveyance of the benefit Given, as a twig and a turfe, and a Key in giving poſſeſſion, and the words and actions of matrimonial ſolemnization or Contract.
4. It is new Logick to my underſtanding, that the minor being ſealed, the Concluſion eo nomine is ſealed: The minor of many an Argument may be true, and the concluſion falſe. And therefore when the caſe ſo falls out, that both minor and concluſion are true, or ſealed, it is not eo nomine, becauſe the minor is true, that the Concluſion is ſo, (or is ſealed, eo nomine becauſe the minor is ſo) but becauſe both major and minor are ſo, and not then neither, but upon ſuppoſition that the Syllogiſm be ſound.
5. But to prove this, you ſay, the proof of any Propoſition in a Syllogiſm, is in order to the proof of the Concluſion: and ſo the ſealing of any Propoſition is in order to the ſealing of the Concluſion: Reply; The firſt is true. 1. But what is this to the matter? Is it all one to prove it and to be in order to prove it, to ſeal it and to be in order to the ſealing of it? Is the Concluſion proved on the proof of one Propoſition? No: therefore according to your own arguing, neither is it ſealed by the ſealing of one Propoſition. 2. That the ſealing of one Propoſition is in order to the ſealing of the Concluſion, I deny. 1. It may be a ſingle Propoſition that is ſealed, not ſtanding as part of a Syllogiſm: as this, I Give Chriſt and Life in him to you all that will Accept him. 2. If it be ſuppoſed part of a Syllogiſm, it is enough ſometime that the Concluſion be cleared or confirmed, or we enabled igfallibly to gather it, by the ſealing of one Propoſition: but it is not neceſſary that it be the very ſealing of the Concluſion, to which the ſealing of that Ptopoſition doth tend. When a Landlord hath ſealed a Leaſe to his Tenant, he hath ſealed this Propoſition, If A. B. well and truly pay ſuch Rents, he ſhall quietly enjoy ſuch Lands: ſuppoſe the minor to be, But A. B. doth or will well and truly pay ſuch Rents: ſuppoſe this minor Propoſition either falſe or uncertain, will you ſay then that the ſealing of the major was in order to the ſealing of the Concluſion? No: the Concluſion is Abſolute, therefore A. B. ſhall enjoy ſuch Lands: but the Propoſition ſealed is Conditional. It is enough that it ſecure his Right, if he pay his Rent, and that it enable him infallibly ſo to conclude, while he performs the conditions, though it tend not at all to ſeal the Concluſion. We ſeldom uſe ſeals to Syllogiſms: and not to Concluſions as ſuch, or eo noimne, becauſe a major or minor Propoſition is proved: though the thing ſealed may be to other uſes made part of a Syllogiſm.
Yet I grant that where the Syllogiſm is ſuch as that one of the Propoſitions doth morally contain the Concluſion in ſenſe, though not in terms, there the concluſion is ſealed when that one Propoſition is ſealed: becauſe it is the ſenſe and not meer terms that are ſealed; and undoubted naturals are preſuppoſed in moralitie, and therefore the ſealing of one is the ſealing of both: For example, if you argue either from a Synonimal term, or from the thing as Defined to the thing as named, or from the Genus to the Species, or from the Species to the Individual; thus, ſuccinum corroborat cerebrum: At Ambarum, vel electrum eſt ſuccinum: therefore Ambarum vel electrum corroborat cerebrum: or thus, Privatio viſus eſt naturae malum. Caecitas eſt Privatio viſus: therefore, Caecitas eſt naturae malum. Or thus, God made every creature: Man is a creature: therefore God made man. Or thus, All men on earth are ſinners. I am a man on earth: therefore I am a ſinner. In all theſe, if you ſeal the major propoſition, or affirm it true, you do indeed, though not in terms, affirm or ſeal the concluſion morally. The confeſſion that you ſay I make, reacheth no higher. But obſerve that its only morally that I ſay you may be ſaid to ſay or ſeal the concluſion; becauſe unqueſtionable naturals are preſuppoſed in Morals and Legals.
§. 66.
Mr. Bl. HE that Believeth is Juſtified and ſhall be ſaved; is his major Propoſition. This he ſaith is ſealed unqueſtionably: when indeed I have ever thought, and yet think, that it is not at all ſealed. Sacraments ſeal not to the truth of any general Propoſition, but with particular application as they are diſpenſed, ſo they ſeal; but they are applyed particularly, Take, Eat, &c. This Mr. Baxter ſeeth pag. 69. and therefore in that abſolute univerſal Propoſition, he finds a particular Conditional Promiſe, to which he ſaith God ſealeth: If thou believe, I do pardon thee and will ſave thee.
§. 66.
R. B. ALL this is anſwered ſufficiently already. Only obſerve that by ſhall be ſaved, and I will ſave thee, I mean but ſhall have, or I will give thee preſent Right to ſalvation; For the continuance of that Right, hath more then Faith for its condition.
§. 67.
Mr. Bl. THat it ſealeth not to the truth of the minor Propoſition, But I believe, (he ſays) is beyond diſpute, giving in his reaſons. It ſhould ſeal then to that which is not written; for no ſcripture ſaith, that I do believe; ſo certainly Sacraments do ſeal; they ſeal to that which is not directly written, they ſeal with particular application, but the man to whom they are applyed hath not his name in ſcripture written; they ſeal to an individual perſon, upon the Warrants of a general Promiſe: though I do not ſay that Propoſition is ſealed; yet me thinks this reaſon is ſcarce cogent.
§. 67.
R. B. YOu deny not my aſſertion, but argue againſt the reaſon of it; as before by telling us what you thought, ſo here by affirming the contrary certain, you attempt the confutation of mine. To your inſtance I give theſe two returns 1. It is equivocation, when our queſtion is of ſealing to a thing as the ſubjectum obſignatum, for to inſtance in ſealing to a perſon as the finis cui. The ſeal, that is to application as an end, not to application as the ſubject ſealed. 2. But if you reſpect not the perſon as the end of application, but as the party expreſſed in the Promiſe which is ſealed, then I ſay, If you can prove that the univerſal Propoſition doth not in ſenſe contain the ſingulars, ſo that this ſingular, If thou believe thou ſhalt be ſaved, be not in Moral Law ſenſe contained in this univerſal, All that believe ſhall be ſaved, (the Law ſuppoſing them all to be men and ſinners) then I will prove, that God doth not properly ſeal to the ſingulars; But till then I ſuſpend.
§. 68.
Mr. Bl. MR Baxter ſayes, The great queſtion is, whether they ſeal to the Concluſion, as they do to the major Propoſition? To which he anſwers, No, directly and properly it doth not. If the Propoſition ſeems directly to prove the Concluſion, then that which directly confirms any Propoſition in a rightly formed Syllogiſm, confirms the Conculſion. If the Concluſion be not ſealed, then no Propoſition is ſealed, or elſe the Syllogiſm is ill-framed.
§. 68.
R. B. TThis is too new Doctrine to be received without one word of proof. Doth he that ſealeth the major of this following Syllogiſm, ſeal the Concluſion? All that truly Receive Chriſt, are the Sons of God, and ſhall be ſaved. Judas did truly receive Chriſt; therefore Judas was the Son of God, and ſhall be ſaved. I think both Premiſes muſt be true, before the Concluſion will thence be proved true. And it is not ſealed by God, when it is falſe.
§. 69.
Mr. Bl. REaſons are given. This Concluſion is nowhere written in Scripture, and therefore is not properly the object of Faith; whereas the ſeals are for the confirmation of our Faith; To which I ſay, It is written Virtually, though not expreſly. That I ſhall riſe in Judgement is nowhere written, yet it is of Faith that I ſhall riſe; and when I have concluded Faith in my heart, as well as Reaſon in my Soul, knowing my ſelf to be a Believer as I know my ſelf to be a man, I may as well conclude that I ſhall riſe to Life, as that I ſhall riſe to Judgement.