Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 49 – Section Blake 51
§. 49.
R. B. 1. BOth Sacraments rightly uſed, are a mutual Sealing to the mutual Covenant. As in the Lords Supper; Taking and eating, is our Sealing, profeſſing action; ſo in Baptiſm, receiving the water applied, is our Seal and profeſſing Paſſion: (For we are more Paſſive in our new birth, then in our feeding for growth). So is the preſenting our perſons, or our children, of our delivering them up to Chriſt, as his Diſciples. It is therefore our part, as well as Gods, that is Sealed to.
2. Where you ſay, A profeſſor of Faith may engage to a lively working Faith; you mean, either a Profeſſor of that lively faith, or a Profeſſor of a dead, not working Faith. If the firſt, it is a contradiction to ſay, He profeſſeth to have a lively Faith; and He only engageth ſo to believe hereafter. For if he profeſs to have it already, then he can engage only to the Continuation, and not the Inception of it. If you mean the latter, then I ſhall ſhew you anon, that a man profeſſing a Dead, not-working Faith, is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptiſm, to believe lively for the future, (incepivè) and to believe for the future with a working Faith. In the mean time, this ſhould be proved, which yet I never ſaw. You ſuppoſe then, ſuch a profeſſor as this, coming to Baptiſm, ſaying, Lord I believe that Thou art God alone▪ and Chriſt the only Redeemer, and the Holy-Ghoſt, the Guide and Sanctifier of thy people; and that the World, Fleſh, and Devil is to be renounced for thee: but at preſent theſe are ſo dear to me, that I will not forſake them for thee; I will not take Thee for my God, to Rule me, or be my Happineſs, nor will I take Chriſt to Govern me, and Save me in His way, nor will I be Guided or Sanctified by the Holy-Ghoſt; but hereafter I will, & therefore I come to be Baptized.
3. That which you judge undeniable, you ſee I deny. It is not therefore de facto undeniable. When you and I can each of us attain to ſuch a height of confidence, of the Verity of our ſeveral Contradictory Propoſitions, in a matter of ſuch moment, and about the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, which the Apoſtle reckoneth as the milk of Babes, who are unskilful in the word of Righteouſneſs (Heb. 5.12, 13, 14. and 6.1.2.) it encreaſeth my conviction of the great neceſſity of toleration of ſome great errors, even in Preachers of the Goſpel; For either yours or mine ſeem ſuch. I finde no proof of your undenyable Propoſition. 1. The Seal is but an affix to the Promiſe: therefore that which is the condition of the Promiſe, is the condition of the Seal. 2. The uſe of the Seal is to confirm the Promiſe to him to whom it is Sealed: Therefore the condition of the Promiſe is the condition of the Seal. 3. If the Promiſe and Seal have two diſtinct conditions, then there are two diſtinct Covenants (for from the conditions, moſt commonly are contracts ſpecified: and therefore Weſenbechius and ſuch like Logical Civilians, call it the form of the contract, or ſtipulation to be either Dura vel in diem, vel ſub conditione, and thoſe ſub-conditions are ſpecified oft from their various conditions). But there is not two Covenants, therefore▪ but of this more anon.
4. Is it not againſt the nature and common uſe of Sealing▪ that it ſhould be in order before the Promiſe or Covenant? and that men ſhould have firſt right to that Seal on one condition, before they have right to the Promiſe; and then have right to the Promiſe after on another condition? 5. If it be ſo undenyable, that that Faith which is the condition of the Promiſe, is not the condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal; as you affirm: why do you then build ſo much againſt Mr. Tombes, on that argument from Act. 2. The Promiſe is to you and your children; arguing a Right to the Seal, from an Intereſt in the Promiſe?
6. Where you ſay, that An acknowledgement of the neceſſity of ſuch faith, with engagement to it, is ſufficient for a Title to the Seal. I Reply, then thoſe that at preſent renounce Chriſt, ſo it be againſt their knowledge and conſcience, and will engage to own him ſincerely for the future, have right to Baptiſm. A convinced perſecutor may acknowledge this neceſſity, and engage, that before he dies he will be a true Believer, and yet reſolve to be no Chriſtian till then, no not ſo much as in profeſſion.
7. Your inſtance of ſervice & fidelitie in war, runs upon the great miſtake which I have ſo often told you of. The formal Reaſon and denomination of a condition, is from the Donors conſtitution or impoſition, giving his benefits only on the terms by himſelf aſſigned; and not from our Promiſe to perform them. And therefore our Promiſe it ſelf, is the chief condition of Gods Promiſe, and (to ſpeak as your ſelf did). Our Juſtifing faith being our Reſtipulation, that Reſtipulation is not only part of our condition, but the whole as to our firſt Right to Chriſt, Juſtification and Salvation; though that Right ſhall not be continued, nor we actually glorified, but on condition both of continuing that faith, and of adding (if there be opportunitie) ſincere obedience, in perſeverance to the death.
§. 50.
Mr. Bl. 4. AS for the argument ad hominem, framed againſt thoſe who make initial or common faith, ſufficient to entitle to Baptiſm, and yet affix Remiſsion of ſins to all Baptiſm, even ſo received without any performance of further engagement; I leave to them to defend, who maintain ſuch Doctrine, and to ſpeak to the Abſurdities that follow upon it.
§. 50.
R. B. THough you avoid the dint of this argument, by forſaking Dr. Ward here, yet it may perhaps appear that your own way is clogged with more Abſurdities then a few.
§. 51.
Mr. Bl. 5. THat of Philip to the Eunuch, ſeems to carry moſt colour; The Eunuch muſt believe with all his heart, before he muſt be baptized; and I have known it trouble ſome, that are fully convinced, that a Dogmatical faith gives title to baptiſm, ſatisfying themſelves with this anſwer, that howſoever Philip called for ſuch a faith which leads to ſalvation, yet did not expreſs himſelf ſo far, that no faith ſhort of this gives title to baptiſm.
It may be anſwered, that a Dogmatical faith is true faith, ſuo genere, as well as that which Juſtifieth; therefore I know not why men ſhould give it the term of falſe Faith, ſeeing Scripture calls it Faith, and ſuch as thoſe Believers, and the heart in ſuch a Faith (as to an entire aſſent) is required. If we look into the Eunuchs anſwer, in which Philip did reſt ſatisfied, and proceeded upon it to baptiſm, it will take away all ſcruple: his anſwer is, I believe that Jeſus Christ is the Son of God: There is no more in that then a common Faith: this is believed by men not juſtified: yet this Faith entitles to baptiſm, and upon this confeſsion of Faith the Eunuch is baptized.