Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 32
SECT. XXXII. The exceptions in my Examen, part 4. Sect. 5. against Mr Ms speeches about the covenant and conditionall sealing, are made good against Mr. M. and Mr. Blake.
BUt that we may the better discern the vanity of Paedobaptists conceits about the seal and covenant, I shall enquire a little more into this point, in which I find much jangling and uncertainty among them. To which I conceive my self the more ingaged, because some words of mine in my Examen, part 4. Sect. 5. gave some overture to Mr M. and after to Mr Bl. and Mr B. to except much against me about this point. Two things which I said in that passage, it seems, are not relished▪ one, that I said that God seals not to every one that is baptized, but onelyonly to true believers; the other, that making Gods promise in the covenant of grace conditional in this sense, that persons after agnize the covenant, and that to speak of it so as if it were common to the elect and reprobates, and conditionall in this sense, as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed, to agn…ze or recognize that sealing, or to free themselves if they please, and so nullifie all; yet so, as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him, …s symbolizing with Arminians. To this Mr M. replied but little, yet what he saith in his Defence, pag. 236, I shall briefly answer. First, saith he, Was not Circumcision Gods sign and seal, which by his own appointment was applied to all the Jewes and proselytes, and their children?
Ans. Circumcision was appointed by God to be applied to all the Jews, & proselytes and their children being males of eight dayes old, and was by his institution a sign of the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. Abrahams own circumcision in his own person, was, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircum…ised, but that God did by Circumcision seal …o every one the righteousness of faith who was rightly circumcised, I find not, nor if I did, should I think it were any thing to prove that God seals the righteousness of faith to every one that is baptized rightly, sith I doe not take circumcision and baptism to be all one, or to have the same use, or that baptism seals in the same manner as circumcision. Mr. M. adds, Did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their hearts, &c. Answer. No. And are not the Sacraments Signa conditionalia, conditionall signes and Seals?
Answer. I conceive baptism, according to Christs institution, to be a sign of the faith of the baptized, and so it is a sign absolute, and not conditionall, and because the object of that faith is Christ dead and risen again, whereby we are justified, and baptisme as fitted to mind the baptized of Christs death, but all and resurrection, Rom. 6.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.12. it is in its nature, that is in its right use▪ apt to seal▪ that is to assure justification and salvation, 1 Pet. 3.21. and so may be termed in its nature a seal aptitudinall, but yet it seals actually to none but those who truly believe, which it doth absolutely in respect of justification, and coditionally in respect of glorification, which is not yet attained, nor to be attained but upon conditition of perseverance: yet it doth not seal that as an uncertain thing because conditionall, for even the condition also is assured by vertue of the death of Christ confirming the covenant of grace, or the New Testament in his blood. But when I say these things are actually assured by baptism, I do not conceive they are actually sealed by God, not to the true believer without the inward testimony or seal of the spirit, without which God never sealed actually by his word or Sacraments these promises of the covenant of grace or the persons interest in them, although both the word of God, the oath of God, the death of Christ, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper, are in themselves, or in their nature aptitudinall seals, that is, apt signs to assure them. The like I say of the Lords Supper, both which are alike signes and seals, neither to an infant without extraordinary operation. Mr M. adds,
And did any orthodox Divines before your self, charge this to be Arminianism, to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions? I confesse it is Arminianism to say any thing is conditionall to God, this I never asserted…, but that the Gospel is both preached, and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith, will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and gone.
Answer. I never charged this to be Arminianism, That the Gospel runs upon conditions, that it is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith, according to the explication given. What I count symbolizing with the Arminians, I have before declared, to wit, Gods conditionall sealing and covenant common to elect and reprobates, as Mr M. in his Sermon seemed to conceive. To what I said that I did not well understand that God required of the Jewes infants to seal in their infancy, I reply saith Mr M. But I hope you understand, that the infants were sealed in their infancy, and by this they received not only a priviledge to be accounted as belonging to Gods family, but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the covenant, as they grew up to be capable of performing them.
Answer. I understand the Iewes were circumcised in their infancy, but that God did seal to every circumcised infant, either the truth of the promises, or his interest in them, or that they did in infancy seal to God, I do not yet understand. For though they had the priviledge mentioned, yet not by vertue of Gods sealing to them, and though they were obliged to the duties mentioned, yet not by vertue of their sealing to God.
But Mr. Bl. and Mr, B. are more earnest in this point, and in opposition to what I said in my Examen, part 4. Sect. 5. in his Answer to my Letter Mr. Bl. ch. 15. asserts, Sect. 1. The seals of the Sacrament are conditionall, not absolute, Sect. 2. The entrance into covenant and acceptation of the terms of it, is common to the elect and reprobate, a heart stedfast in the covenant, and the mercies of the conenant, are proper onelyonly to the elect and regenerate, Sect. 3. To say that the seals of the Sacraments are conditionall, and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant, as tendered in the Gospel; and accepted, is not to symbolize with Arminians. To which I replied in my Postscript, Sect. 21. concerning which Mr. Bl. in his plain Scripture proof, &c. pag. 224. of the first Edition, saith, But to these Mr. Bl. hath fully answered Mr T. though in his Apology he passeth over much, and is not able to discern his meaning. For my part I speak impartially according to my judgement, I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book, in opening the nature of the covenant, than in all Mr Ts book that ever he wrote about baptism.
And pag. 222. he chargeth me with two errors in Apologie, and saith of them, I conceive these dangerous errors of Mr T. about the nature of the Covenant and Seals in generall, are the root of his error about baptism, or at least much strengthen it, and there he takes upon him to refute them. Since that time Mr. Bl hath renewed his exceptions, Vindic grat. ch. 7. to which as touching upon Mr B. about the thing sealed, and manner of sealing, Mr B. hath replied in his Apologie against Mr. Blakes Exceptions, Sect. 60, &c. pag. 115. Because of Mr Bs censure I have received the passages in Mr Blakes answer to my Letter, ch. 15. & in my Postscript Sect. 21. and leaving Mr. B. (who is no competent judge of my Writings, by reason of his prejudice against me and the cause I maintain) and others to conceive of my books as they please, I am not ashamed to profess, 1. That I discern no such true worth in Mr Blakes mentioned passages which open the nature of the covenant, but rather sundry that darken it, the shewing of which now would be but a digression. 2. That there is not one of the three positions set down by Mr Blake, which doth contradict anything I said in my Examen, part 4. Sect 5. For I said not the Sacraments are Seals absolute, not conditionall; but that God seals not upon condition persons agnize the covenant, as Mr M. said in his Sermon, pag. 49, nor did I deny, that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of i…, is common to elect and reprobate, but that Gods covenant of grace, or as I said before, his promise in the covenant of grace, is common to the elect and reprobates, and this was it which I termed symbolizing with Arminians, not that which Mr. Blake sets down. 3. That I do not find that I have need to make any further reply to Mr. Blake therein, nor to the six arguments he brings, Vindic. Foed. ch. 7. to prove Sacraments sealing conditionally. And for the flings Mr Blake hath at some spe…ches of mine, I shall briefly return answer. Those words of mine, I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall Seal, for that which seals doth assure, and supposeth the condition▪ In my apprehension, that which is called conditionall sealing, is not sealing, but offering or propounding, or representing: but about this I will not contend, Mr. Bl. leaving out the later words, thus oppose…h, Then our Lawyers have a long time decived us, who have given us presidents (as they call them) for obligations under seal, to run in these words; The condition of this obligation is such, and after an indication of the condition, to conclude and close up all: then this present obligation to be void and of none effect, or else to stand in full force and vertue: Seals we see leave the condition to me doubtfull. Whereto I reply.
Neither I nor the Lawyers do deceive Mr Blake, but he deceives himself, the words of the president do intimate that the validity of the obligation is conditionall, and is left doubtfull, not that the seal is conditionall, which doth absolutely assure or testifie the obligation: or, as the Lawyers speak, the act and deed of him that seals, which is not future, but present, and so not conditionall. Mr Baxter Apol. against Mr Blake Sect. 77. I never heard of nor knew a conditionall sealing in the world, though I have oft heard of the effects of obligation and collation of right to be conditionall, which are not onelyonly separate from the terminus proximus of sealing, but also are directly the effects of the covenant, promise, testament, &c. onelyonly, and but remotely of the seals, inasmuch as that seal is a full owning of the testament of conveyance: yet such a thing as a conditionall sealing may be imagined. In a word, a conditionall engagement, or obligation, is one thing, and frequent; a conditionall seal, or sealing, is another thing but unknown. There are other things at me as calumniating Mr. M. concerning his words, as symbolizing with the Arminians, which I shall acqui… my self from in answering Mr B. and that Mr Bs questionist and my self are both of one pitch both for knowledge and ignorance, and stand equally affected to Mr. Bl. both in respect of his person and opinions; which intimate as if he were perswaded I were that questionist, whom I profess to be unknown to me, and were disaffected to Mr. Blakes person, though I knew not wherein I have shewed any disaffection to him, and for my knowledge or ignorance be it more or lesse, I hope it will appear in the conclusion, that God hath given me so much knowledge as to shew the vanity of Mr Blakes and Mr Bs pleas for Infant-baptism. And for his flirt or scoff at the wide standing open of the door in my night Sacraments, I think my actions justifiable in celebrating the Lords Supper at night as Christ did, with such notes as the Apostle made thereon in calling it the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.20. and relating it so distinctly, v. 23, 25. My admitting none but bap…zed persons after profession of faith, is justified by Mr Blakes own words, though somewhat misrepresenting my tenent, Vindic. Foed. ch. 23. nor do I admit any one other profession to baptism than was done in the first times by men who had the Spirit of God to guide them; and if any be baptized in the night, it's justifiable by Pauls action, Acts 16.33. His flings also which he hath, Vindic. Foed. ch. 17. p. 126. shew the same Satyricall vein, when he saith, I establish a new conditionall covenant against the New Testament light, which I shall shew I establish in that sense, I do it according to plain New Testament light, and censures these words, the not teaching one another spoken of, Heb. 8, 11. is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law, Apol. pag. 154. said somewhat Magisterially after my manner, whereas neither could I well dilate then being straitned in time, and the exposition of that place there was but on the by, and enough was said by me in those words answerably to the occasion, and I conceived understanding men would gather the reason of my interpretation from those few words, which is, that the new covenant being there declared cōtradistinct to that in Horeb, as the writing the laws in the heart is mentioned to distinguish it from the writing in stone, so the teaching is mentioned to distinguish it f…ō that obscure teaching which was under the Law, which I said not magisterially, nor any thing else, as Mr. Bl. miscensures me. This is enough, if not too much to answer these flirts of Mr. Bl.
Fourthly, I add, That I find sundry passages in Mr. Bl. which seem to me to speak to the same purpose with my words, as Answer to my Letter, pag. 99. that Baptism assures actually when men doe believe, pag. 102. out of Mr. Ball, They that be truly in covenant obtained the highest blessings, p. 106. This covenant of Jeremies is no more than that promise, Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou mayst love the Lord, &c. And his words Vindic. Foed. ch. 7. pag. 46. That the Sacrament doth actually seal to believers and penitent ones, are answered by Mr B. Apol. against Mr Bl. sect. 10. thus, I perceive Mr. T. and you are more of a mind than I was aware off.