Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 43 – Section Blake 49
§. 43.
R. B. WHat is the concluſion therefore Juſtifying faith is not a prerequiſite in Baptiſm: or according to the ſimile, therefore no man is bound to aceept Chriſt to Juſtification before he is baptized. I confeſs▪ the reading of ſuch paſſages in Grave, Learned, Godly Divines, and that with ſuch confidence uttered as undoubted truth, and that in zeal to ſave the Church from the errors of us that are contrarie minded, doth very much convince me of humane frailtie, and that the beſt of men do know but in part, and in a little part too: and it makes me leſs angrie at thoſe unlearned miſtaken men, that have of late ſo troubled the Church: and to ſay with Seneca, Iniquus eſt qui commune vitium ſingulis objicit, &c. quanto in his Juſtior Venia ſit, quae per totum g…nus humanum vulgata ſunt? Omnes inconſulti, & improvidi ſumus; omnes incerti, queruli, ambitioſi. Quid lenioribus verbis ulcus publicum abſcondam? Omnes mali ſumus. Quicquid itaque in alio reprehenditur, id unuſquiſque in ſuo ſinu invenic…. Quid illius pallorem? illius maciem notas? Peſtilentia eſt. Placidiores itaque invicem ſumus. Mali inter malos vivimus. But to the matter.
1. Then it ſeems, if a man believe ſincerely and ſavingly, the main uſe of Baptiſm, as engaging, is paſt already. Muſt any ſound believer then be Baptiſed? or onelyonly unſound believers and Infidels that will promiſe to believe hereafter? But I will ſhew the foulneſs of this error anon, and therefore let it paſs now. 2. But you ſay, This is plain; to whom? all men have not the truth, that are confident that they have it; I ſee that you ſay, No man is bound to make good his Condition before engagement, &c. very dangerous: It is not our condition only nor principally, as to the efficient obligation, nor at all as to the Juſtification. Are we poor worms, our own Gods and Lords, that we ſhould be diſobliged till we will be pleaſed to oblige our ſelves? Our faith is Gods Condition as the Impoſer; three ſeveral Bonds hath he laid upon us. 1. As Legiſlator of the Law of Grace, he hath commanded us to believe in, and accept an offered Chriſt. And is Gods command inſufficient to oblige us, till we oblige our ſelves? then more happy are Pagans then I imagined. 2. As the Donor of Chriſt and Life, and the Author of the Promiſe or Deed of gift (and ſo Chriſt as Teſtator) he hath made our ſincere faith the condition; ſaying, If thou believe, thou ſhalt be ſaved. Hereby we are bound to believe, as a neceſſary means to ſalvation. This is but a ſanction of the firſt obligation. 3. The like may be ſaid of the threatning, He that believeth not ſhall be damned; which God addeth as Legiſlator to this Law, ſo that every man is bound to ſound Believing, as the neceſſarie condition of ſalvation, before he doth conſent himſelf, or oblige himſelf to it: even by an obligation which is ten thouſand fold ſtronger then any that he is capable of laying on himſelf.
3. It is alſo a very high miſtake, to think that our Covenanting or Conſent, (which is our actual believing) is none of our condition, when it is the great and principal part of our condition; yea all the condition of our begun Juſtification (not taking the word Faith too narrowly). You will perhaps ſay, Theſe are our conditions as ſubjects, but not as Covenanters. Reply. They are our conditions as ſubjects called to Covenant, as we are the perſons to whom the Covenant is offered: They are conſtituted by God as Donor, Benefactor, and Author of the Covenant or Promiſe, and not meerly as Rector. It belongeth to the Donor to determine of the conditions of his own gift, on which they ſhall become due or not. Yet doth God make no tranſactions with men but as with ſubjects; and therefore even when he deals with us as Benefactor and Donor in free gifts, it is ſtill as Dominus & Rector Benefaciens: he lays not by his Dominion or Soveraigntie, nor theſe Relations to us.
4. For your inſtance of ſervants and ſouldiers, they leave out the great part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace: which is, that we conſent to be ſervants and ſouldiers. The Relation muſt firſt be entered; God muſt be taken for our God, and Chriſt for our Redeemer, Lord, and Saviour; the Holy Ghoſt for our Guide and Sanctifyer: This is Faith and Covenanting. This goes before working and fighting. But this Covenanting is the great condition of Gods Covenant. As when the forementioned Prince is offered in marriage (with his Dignities and Riches) to a condemned beggar; as it is a gift, and covenant propounded on his part, and actually to be entered, it is conſent, or marriage-covenanting on her part that is the condition; yea, and all the condition of her firſt right to him and his riches and honors. So in your inſtance: It is the ſervants conſent or covenant to have ſuch a man for his maſter; and the ſouldiers conſent and covenanting to have ſuch a man for his General; that is the condition on which one hath all his firſt right to the Priviledges of the family, and the other to the Priviledges of the Armie. Is not this conſent neceſſarie in our preſent caſe? If you would have ſpoke to the point, you ſhould have ſaid thus, No ſervant is tyed ſincerely to conſent or covenant to be a ſervant, before he have received his earneſt: No ſouldier is tyed to conſent or covenant truly to be a ſouldier, till he be liſted; which are both plainly falſe. Baptiſm is as the liſting; Conſent (which is ſaving Faith) is the heart covenant, prerequiſite to liſting, and not the work to be done after, except you ſpeak of the continuance of conſent. Baptiſm is the ſolemnizing our marriage with Chriſt. And it is a ſtrange marriage, wherein the woman doth only promiſe that ſhe will begin hereafter to take that man for her husband, but not at preſent. Nay where ſuch preſent conſent is not Requiſite, is a fe…gned or nominal, or half-conſent, the condition on which a woman hath Right to the man and his eſtate, and a full conſent hereafter the thing that ſhe is engaged to.
5. In your minor, But faith that is Juſtifying to accept Chriſt, is the condition to which Baptiſm engageth; either you mean only the continuance of that faith, and that is true, (but not your meaning I think). Or you mean, the beginning of that faith (as doubtleſs the foregoing words ſhew that you do); and then why had we not one word tending to the proof, which would in this place have been very acceptable to me. I will anon make an argument of the contrarie.
You ſeem to me in all this to miſtake the very formal nature of a condition, as if it received its denomination from our promiſe to perform it; when as, by the conſent of all Lawyers that I have read of it, it is denominated from the determination of the Donor, Teſtator, or other Impoſer; and moſt evidently and unqueſtionably it is ſo, in unequal contracts, where one is the Benefactor, and hath the abſolute power of diſpoſing his own favors.
§. 44.
Mr. Bl. THat Faith upon which Simon Magus in the Primitive times was baptized, is that which admitteth to Baptiſm; Simon himſelf believed and was Baptized, Act. 8.13. But Simons Faith …ell ſhort of ſaving and juſtifying.
§. 44.
R. B COncedo totum; ſed deſideratur Concluſio; That may be ſaid to admit to Baptiſm, which ſo qualifieth the perſon as that we are bound to Baptize him, as being one that ſeemeth ſound in believing, as Simon did. But this is not Entituling, or, having Coram Deo & à faedere, Right to Baptiſm: nor doth prove that it is not ſaving Faith which God in his Covenant makes the condition prerequiſite to ſuch a Right to Baptiſm.
§. 45.
Mr. Bl. 6. IN Caſe only juſtifying Faith give admiſsion to Baptiſm, then none is able to baptize, ſeeing this by none is diſcerned: and to leave it to our charity, affirming that we may admit upon preſumption of a title when God denies, I have ſpoken ſomewhat, Chap. and I refer to Mr. Hudſon in his Vindication, whom learned Mr. Baxter ſo highly commends, to ſhew the unreaſonableſs of it.
§. 45.
R.B. 1. SEing you have read what I have ſaid to Mr. Tombes againſt this Objection, I ſhall take it as needleſs to ſay more, till you confute it: 2. I ſay not that onelyonly juſtifying Faith gives Admiſſion to Baptiſm. I ſay that the ſeeming, or Probable Profeſſion of ſuch a faith gives Admittance. 3. Nor is it left to our Charity, but impoſed on us as a Duty to Baptize thoſe that profeſs ſound belief: but whether the profeſſion be probably ſerious, or not, our underſtanding, and not our Charity muſt judge. And if you go not that way too, then it ſeems you would Baptize a man that ſhould apparently jeſt or deride Chriſt under colour of profeſſing: which were to Accept that as a profeſſion which is no profeſſion. For it is no further a profeſſion then it ſeems to be ſerious and expreſs what is in the heart. 4. Though God deny the juſtneſs of the hypocrites Title in foro Dei, yet he doth not deny it to be our duty to deal with them, for their profeſſion, as with thoſe whoſe Title is juſt. 5. I know not what Chapter it is that you refer us to for more. 6. Having lent Mr. Hudſons book out, I have it not now by me, and therefore cannot conſult him: but I ſuppoſe you would uſe the Arguments which you thought ſtrongeſt.
§. 46.
Mr. Bl. HEre it is objected: 1. When Chriſt ſaith▪ Make me Diſciples of all Nations baptizing them, he meant ſincere Diſciples, though we cannot ever know them to be ſincere. I Anſwer, In Caſe I make this firſt Objection brought against me, my ſeventh and laſt Argument for me, it will fully diſcover the weakneſs of it; and thus I form it. All that are Diſciples unto Chriſt, and made Diſciples for Chriſt, are to be baptized: But ſome are made Diſciples to Chriſt, that are ſhort of Faith ſaving and juſtifying, as hath been proved at large: This Diſcipleſhip that Chriſt here mentions, is ſuch of which whole Nations are in capacity, as is plain in the Commiſſion; to which this Nation (with others) hath happily attained according to the manifold Propheſies before cited: Of theſe the whole Ʋniverſal viſible Church conſisteth, ſo irrefragably proved by Mr. Hudſon in his Treatiſe of that ſubject, and his Vindication. Now if whole Nations, yea the whole Ʋniverſal Viſible Church (conſiſting of diſcipled Nations) were all Believers, it were a great happineſs; the Election would be as large as Vocation, when Chriſt ſaith, Many are called, but few choſen.
§. 46.
R.B. 1. TO vindicate my Objections: If it be not ſincere Diſciples that Chriſt means in that Text, then no Apoſtle was bound by that Commiſſion and great Precept to endeavour the making of ſincere Diſciples (but only counterfeits and half Chriſtians:) But the Antecedent is falſe, therefore, &c. 2. For your Argument, I grant the Concluſion; and what would you have more? But knew you not that it is not the thing in Queſtion? 3. I grant the Minor, taking the word Diſciples equivocally, as a Corps is called a man; and I confeſs it uſual ſo to take the word: but otherwiſe I deny the Minor. To be Chriſts Diſciple (as to the aged) is to be one that hath unfeignedly taken Chriſt for his Maſter, to Teach him and Rule him, renouncing the contrary guidance of the Fleſh, the World, and Devil: and it implyeth that he hath already learnt his neceſſity of Chriſts Guidance, and who Chriſt is, and what a Maſter, & to what End it is that we muſt learn of him, and what are the great conditions on which he receiveth his Diſciples. And I think they that do this ſincerely, are juſtified: and they that do not, are but ſeeming Diſciples; but if you will call ſuch Diſciples (as we muſt becauſe they ſeem ſo) then you may ſay, They are Really ſuch (ſeeming) Diſciples. 4. To your confirmation, I deny the Minor: and I ſay, that it is ſo new Doctrine to affirm that whole Nations are not capable of being ſound Believers, that it deſerved one word of proof. Much leſs ſhould you have hid your Minor, and turned it into à Negatio exiſtentiae, when it ſhould have been but à Negatio Capacitatis. Doth it follow that a Nation is not capable of ſound faith, becauſe they have it not? or will not have it? 5. Do you think Preachers yet be not bound to endeavour the ſa…ing Converſion of whole Nations? If you ſay, No: you take them off the work that their maſter hath ſet them on. If you ſay, Yea, then you think they muſt endeavor to perſwade men to that which they have not a capacity of. 6. If there be any Nation uncapable of Faith, then God cannot make them Believers. But that is not true, therefore, &c. 7. You ſay not well that the whole Univerſal Viſible Church conſiſteth of Diſcipled Nations, if you mean [only] as you ſeem. For then poor ſcattered Chriſtians in a Heathen Nation, ſhould be no part of the Univerſal Viſible Church. 8. Vocation uneffectual, is common to Pagans. Vocation throughly effectual, is of the ſame extent as juſtification, and (I think) Election. Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward Profeſſion of ſaving Faith, is larger then Election, and makes men ſuch whom we are bound to Baptize.
§. 47.
Mr. Bl. OBject. 2. When he ſaith, He that Believeth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, here Faith goes before Baptiſm; and that not a common, but a ſaving Faith; for here is but one Faith ſpoken of, and that is before Baptiſm. Anſw. 1. This is the weakeſt of all Arguments, to reaſon for a precedency of one before another, from the order in which they are placed in Scripture. So we may ſay, John Baptized before he preached the Baptiſm of repentance, for his baptizing is mentioned before preaching of Baptiſm, Mar. 1.4. So we may ſay, We muſt have glory firſt, and Vertue after; for ſo they are placed by the Apoſtle, 2 Pet. 1.3. All that can be collected, is, that we muſt in Gods ordinary way of conferring ſalvation, have both Faith and Baptiſm; though there be not the like abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſm as of Faith: Baptiſm being neceſſary, neceſſitate praecepti, Jeſus Chriſt having Instituted and commanded it; but Faith neceſſary both neceſſitate medii & praecepti, ſeeing Chriſt not onelyonly commanded it, but ſalvation can at no hand be obtained (by men in capaicty of it) without it: And it hath been well obſerved, that in the words following, the like ſtreſs is not laid on Baptiſm as on Faith: not [he that is not baptized] but [he that believeth not] ſhall be damned.
§. 47.
R. B. IF affirmations be good proof of the weakneſs of Arguments, then this is ſufficiently confuted. But to the reſt: 1. I confeſs there may be a Hyſteron Proteron in the Scripture: and in ſuch a caſe we may not gather the reall precedency of that which is firſt named. But otherwiſe, I know not whence we ſhould better gather the natural order then from Scripture order in expreſſion. If I may by the order of your ſpeeches gather the order of things in your conception and intentions, then may I obſerve the Holy Ghoſts order alſo to the like ends: for I ſuppoſe you ſpeak not more orderly then the Holy Ghoſt. But I may ſure to that end obſerve the order of your expreſſions, therefore. Moreover, this is not one Text going againſt the order expreſſed in moſt others: but contrarily, the ſame order is uſually obſerved in other Texts that ſpeak of Faith and Baptiſm, putting Faith firſt. Furthermore, this is not a meer Hiſtorical Narration, or circumſtantial by-paſſage, but it is the very ſum of the Law of Grace, ſolemnly delivered by Chriſt to his Apoſtles (with their grand Commiſſion) before his Aſcention: and where may we expect if not here; where in ſo few words is expreſſed the ſubſtance of the Covenant? Moreover, it is not doctrinally and in general precepts onelyonly, that this order is held, but in particular precepts▪ directing in preſent matter of execution. The Eunuch muſt Believe with all his heart, and ſo others commonly muſt profeſs belief, before they muſt be Baptized: and the Scripture gives no hint that this is one kinde of Faith, and that another, Mar. 1.4. ſhews firſt in General what John did in the wilderneſs, viz. Baptize: and 2. in what order he did it▪ viz. firſt preaching that Baptiſm of Repentance to them. That 2 Pet. 1.3. is ſpoken in perfect Logical order: It ſpeaks not of Chriſts order of Execution, and our order of Aſſecution, but of Gods and our order of Intention. If it had been ſaid▪ that he giveth us glory and vertue, it had been a Hyſteron Proteron: but it is only, he called us to glory and vertue: And of ends the Ultimate is the firſt in Intention, and all ends are ſo before their means; and therefore may well be ſo in expreſſion.
2. I think as Baptiſm is truly Medium ad ſalutem, ſo it may be ſaid to be neceſſary, neceſsitate medii, as well as neceſsitate praecepti: only with a diſtinction of neceſſitie, according to its: Degrees; Faith is abſolutely neceſſarie; as ſine qua non, and Baptiſm is of an inferior leſs neceſſitie, ſometime but ad bene eſſe, & ſolemnitatem. Laſtly, the command foregoing, Diſciple me all Nations, Baptizing them: ſetteth Faith (in preſent or perſons at age themſelves) before Baptiſm, as included in Diſcipling: And if this text which contains the Commiſſion, put not Faith before Baptiſm, its like others do not, and then why may no… any H…athens that will, be baptized: and the text ſpeaks but of one faith, for ought I can finde.
§. 48.
Mr. Bl. 2. LEt Peter where he ſpeaks of ſalvation by baptiſm, interpret theſe words, Baptiſm doth now alſo (ſaith he) ſave us by the reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, 1 Pet. 3.21. and then explains himſelf. Not the putting away the filth of the fleſh, but the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God; this anſwer or reſtipulation to the outward adminiſtration of Baptiſm, is that which follows upon Baptiſm, but Juſtifying Faith is that reſtipulation (at leaſt a principal branch of it) and therefore there is no neceſsitie that it go before, but a neceſsitie that it muſt follow after baptiſm. It is true that in men of years, Juſtifying ſaith ſometimes goes before baptiſm, as in Abraham it went before Circumciſion: but it is not of necſesity required to Intereſt us in a Right, neither of Baptiſm nor Circumciſion.
§. 48.
R. B. I Will not now ſtand to enquire of the fitneſs or unfitneſs of your term, Reſtipulation, as here uſed. Varro uſeth Reſtipulari as being the ſame act as ſtipulari: and Civilians uſe it but rarely. In every ſtipulation they make two parties, the Stipulator (which is he that asks the queſtion) and the Promiſer (which is the anſwerer, that obligeth himſelf). Though rarely and unuſually alſo, the Promiſer be called Stipulator. But I ſuppoſe it is Reſponſio Promiſſoris, that you mean by Reſtipulation, and not another Interogation whereby a double ſtipulation is made; ſuppoſing this your meaning I Reply: 1. Why did you not give us one word for proof, that this Reſtipulation is a thing following Baptiſm? This is too dilute and eaſie diſputing. I took the contrary for an unqueſtionable truth. The beſt Interpreters judge, that Peter means here, the Anſwer whereby the Promiſer in Baptiſm did ſolemnly oblige himſelf: which was to two Queſtions. Credis in Patrem, filium & ſpiritum ſanctum? Credo. Abrenuncias Diabolum, mundum & Carnem? Abrenuncio. And who knoweth not that theſe went before the application of the water? (of which more anon.) Doth not mutual conſent expreſſed go before the ſealing of the Covenant? Doth Chriſt bid us Baptize men into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoſt; and would you have us do this before they profeſs their conſent? ſhall we Baptize them firſt, and ask them whether they believe and conſent after?
2. I gratefully accept your Conceſſion, that Juſtifying Faith is that Reſtipulation. Which is your minor: (that is, Juſtifying Faith, profeſſed). And thence I conclude, that then Juſtifying faith is Eſſential to the mutual Covenant, and ſo without it, God is not thus in Covenant with men: For who knows not, that ever read Civil Law, that there is no ſtipulation ſine Promiſsione, which you call (and ſo do other Divines) Reſtipulation? and that this Reſtipulation is an eſſential part of the contract, called ſtipulation? This being paſt doubt, it follows, that Juſtifying Faith being our Reſtipulation, is an Eſſential part of the contract or Baptiſmal Covenant. And it is apparant that Peter meant not any other contract which was to be entered between God and man, after the Baptiſmal Contract, and different from it▪ for then he would not have ſaid Baptiſm ſaveth us; and have interpreted it, de fidâ reſponſione vel promiſsione, & non de nudâ lotione.
3. The Conceſſion which you were forced to, about men of years, how it doth cut the throat of your cauſe, I ſhall ſhew you anon.
§. 49.
Mr. Bl. OBj. 3. That faith to which the promiſe of Remiſsion and Juſtification is made, it muſt alſo be ſealed to, (or that faith which is the condition of the Promiſe, is the condition in foro Dei of the Title to the Seal). But it is only ſolid true faith which is the Condition of the Promiſe (of Remiſſion). Therefore it is that only that gives Right in foro Dei, to the Seal. Anſw. Here is an argument firſt propoſed; 2. in a parentheſis paraphraſed: For the propoſition, I ſay, Faith is not ſealed to, but Remiſsion of ſins, or ſalvation upon condition of Faith. A profeſſor of Faith that goes no further, may engage himſelf to a lively working Faith, and upon thoſe terms, God engages for, and puts his Seal for Remiſsion and ſalvation. For the parentheſis, That faith which is the condition of the Promiſe, is the condition in foro Dei of Title to that Seal; I judge the contrary to be undeniable, that Faith which is the condition of the Promiſe, is not the condition in foro Dei, of Title to the Seal. An acknowledgment of the Neceſsity of ſuch faith, with engagement to it, is ſufficient for a Title to the Seal, and the performance of the condition of like neceſsity to attain the thing ſealed. To promiſe ſervice and fidelitie in war, is enough to get liſted, as to do ſervice is of neceſsity to be rewarded.