Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 35
SECT. XXXV. My speeeh about Gods sealing to none but believers, is cleared from Mr Baxters Objections.
Mr B. Plain Scripture, &c. pag 222. calls it my fourth error that I affirm in my Apolog. pag. 152, 153. That every right administration of Baptism is not Gods sealing. Actually it sealeth not but when it is administred to a believer. It may be called a right act of the Administrator according to Gods appointment, but not Gods sealing, &c. And for confutation saith thus. It must be understood that our question is not about the internall seal of the spirit, but onelyonly the externall seal of the Sacrament, which are two distinct things. The nature of this seal, and whether it seal conditionally or absolutely, I have fully opened in the Appendix of my Aphorisms of Justification, whither I must desire the Reader to turn and read it, …o save me the labor of doing it here.
Answer. That these imagined errors of mine about the nature of the Covenant and seals are not the root of my pretended error about baptism, is abundantly shewed before; and it hath been often affirmed by me, that the reason of my opposing infant-baptism is, because it agrees not with the institution and e…amples of baptism (which Mr B: his words cited in the next Section before verifie) in the holy Scripture, and the arguments from the Covenant and seal, and the pretended law of visible Church-membership, no way extant unrepealed, of which the Apostles practice shewes they were ignorant, though many godly and learned men have embraced them, are meerly an humane invention▪ That there is no error of mine in what I hold about the covenant, much lesse dangeeous error, is already shew; I shall now shew the subtilty of Mr B: his arguings against my speech about Gods sealing.
According to his direction I have read over his sayings in his Appendix in answer to the ninth Question, and what Mr Blake excepted against him, and his reply to Mr Blake in his Apologie, Sect 60, &c. And the issue of my thoughts in this, 1. That there is nothing but jangling and uncertainty in their debates about the imaginary sealing by the Sacrament, it being not agreed what is sealed, the outward or inward covenant, what is the Syllogism, whose parts are to be sealed, or what part thereof is to be sealed, the Major, Minor, or Conclusion, nor how …t is sealed conditionally or absolutely, actually or aptitudinally, nor to whom the sealing is, whether to every communicant or onelyonly to penitent believers. And in my reading of other Authors… I find much uncertainty in their determinations about this pretended sealing, and the thing sealed, which I have briefly touched before. Mr. Humphrey in his Rejoynder to Dr. Drake, part. 1. Sect. 4, 6. part. 2. Sect. 4, 5. tells us, That in the nature of it the Sacrament is Gods seal onelyonly, not metaphorically or tropically, but formally, not a seal of our faith but of Gods assuring the tenor of it, not onelyonly mans particular interest absolutly, but conditionally to all, and that as well the threatning of condemnation in c…se of unbelief, as the promise of righteousness in case of Faith, the receiver of the Sacrament seals not by way of assuring, or conveying, but engagement …o the condition on his part yet not in esse, but in fieri agreeing to the terms of Christ pr…posed, expecting salvation if ever he have grace to perform his engagements, and yeildeth to be damned if not. 2. That the dig…adiations of Pae…obaptists one against another, are by Gods just judgement usefull to shew their iniquity in …ressing o…hers to subscribe to their Dictates, which they oppose one anoth…r in. 3. That they do evidently prove that the argument is not good which th…y b…ing for infant-baptism to prove their covenant-right to the seal. For if infants be onelyonly in the outward covenant, and baptism seal another covenant, then title to this seal comes not by bare interest in that. If it be a mutuall engaging seal, then it is no seal of an infant who doth not ingage; if it seal the condi…ional covenant, and it belongs to all, then all may be sea…ed, if covenant interest intitle to the seal, if baptism seal absolutely to none till he beli…ve, then baptism is no compleat seal, and so no Sacrament to a man till he believe; if it seal the threatning as well as the promise, th…n those sh…uld have the Sacrament to whom the threatning belongs, as well as those to whom the promise; if it seal absolutely onelyonly Gods generall truth, then it seals nones particular interest, and then none can claim title to it. 4. That most of their speeches are meer dictates without shew of proof, and that from the metaphor of the seal of the covenant, which the Scripture no where useth, and Mr B. thinks it the way to lose our selves and not to edifie, to make it the subject of tedious disputations, and to lay too great a stress on it. As for what he wisheth me in his Apol. against Mr. Bl. Sect. 80. to take notice of it, I reply to what he saith against my distinction of actuall & aptitudinal seal, I think it not worth while to reply to it, si…h I used that distinction onelyonly to shew how Bellarmin might be answered without Mr Bl…kes way of conditionall seal: It is little material whether the Sacrament be called a seal actuall or aptitudinall, or no seal at all, the explication of my meaning before given is enough to justifie my words against any thing Mr B. hath or can object. As for that which he saith, That the question is not about the internall seal of the Spirit, but onelyonly the externall seal of the Sacrament, which are two distinct things, I answer, the question is about my words whether they be true, which deny that God sealeth in every right administration of baptism, and affirm that he sealeth not but when it is admistred to a believer: And though it be true the seal of Baptism and the Spirit be two distinct things, yet I say God never sealeth by Baptism without the Spirit, nor can baptizing without the sealing of the Spirit be rightly according to Scripture language and truth, called Gods sealing. Let's see what Mr. B. opposeth.
His opinion I prove unsound, thus, 1. If the Sacrament rightly administred to an hypocrite, have all in it that is essentiall to Gods actuall sealing, then it is his actuall sealing, &c. But, &c. Therefore, &c. A seal is an engaging or obliging sign, or at least a testifying. He that actually useth a sign to such an end, doth actually seal. Now 1. God useth this sign. 2. And to this end. He useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his Name at his command; for immediatly he never useth or applyeth it to any. 2. He commandeth it to be used to this end, to engage himselfe to make good his promises. For 1. To what other end should God command them? 2 Else he should command them to be used to one end to one, and to another end to another, which cannot be shewed that he hath done, (I speake of the end of the Ordinance, not of the event which God hath decreed shall follow.)
Answer. The Minor of this Argument is denied. And to the proof I say, 1. That it is not alwayes true, That he that actually useth a sign to such an end, doth actually seal. For if actuall sea…ing be actuall assuring …as it is conceived to be … Rom. 4.11. whence this phrase is taken) the actuall sealing must be denominated, not onelyonly from the end but also from the event, as if God use a sign to comfort, he doth not actually comfort except the person be comforted. 2. That it is not universally true, that God useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his name at his command, but then when they represent his person. As for instance, when Aaron offered sacrifice, burned Incense, &c. which were to signifie Christ, they did these things in Gods name, that is, to his honor, at his command, yet I do not conceive it can be said that God did offer Sacrifice or burn Incense. And for baptism, though I confesse it is commanded by God to be done by his Ministers, and that it is to be done into his name, yet it is no where intimated as if they did it in stead of God, or Christ, as their act. 3. But let it be granted that baptism done right…y according to Gods command by his Ministers, is his act; how is it proved that it is used by God to this end▪ to engage himself to make good his promises? For my part I read not any where in Scripture, that God used baptism for this end, to engage himself to make good his promises, nor doth Mr. B. prove that end by any passage of Scripture. And to his reasons I answer, 1. To the first, though neither I nor Mr. B. know any orher end, yet doth not this prove, that that is the end. Besids, if I should assign no other end, yet it were enough to answer Mr. B. his question to say, it is to try obedience, as in Abrahams offering his son. But Mr. B. might easily know if he would heed the Scripture, that there are other ends of God in commanding baptism; to wit, the owning of Christ as our Lord, 1 Cor. 1.13. Gal. 3.27 joyning all Christians into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. Ephes. 4.5· The 19, and 27 Atricle of the Curch of England acknowledge this to be one end of baptism, to be a sign of profession, and to be a mark of difference of Christians from others. To the second, though it were granted to be absurd, that God should command the Sacraments to be used to one end to one, and to another end to another, yet this doth no whit prove that this is the end which Mr. B▪ assigns for the fore-going reasons. Yet sure if infant-baptism were granted, baptism must needs be to one end, to wit, a sign of profession to the aged, which it is not, nor can be to an infant. Lastly if it yeelded that the end of baptism were to engage God to make good his promisses, it is a good argument against Mr. B. t…at God seals not actually to an hyppocrite, sith he doth not promise, and co…sequently not to engage himselfe, by the S…crament to make good his promise unto them. But Mr. B. adds thus.
3. If the promise be to o…hers besides believers, then so is the seal (for to whom God promiseth, to them he engage…h himselfe to performe, but the promise is to others therefore &c. This will be evident if it be once understood that it is only the conditional promise which sealeth by the Sacraments [if thou believe in the Lord Iesus thou shalt be saved]▪ For this promise is made to unbelievers, though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any …hat performe not the Condition. Thus I have fully proved in the foresaid Appendix to my Aphorisms: and will fall under the next question.
Answer: I read, tha… to Abraham & his seed were the promises made or said, Gal. 3.16. That the promise through the faith of Christ might be given to them that believe v. 22. Jf ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed & heires according to the promise v. 29. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great & pretious promises 2 Pet. 1▪4. The children of the promise are counted for the seed Rom. 9.8. Strangers from the Covenants of promise Ephes. 2.12. But this is to use Mr. B. His own words of my doctrine, str…ng and wild dostrine to say that God promises to unbelievers, the promise of salvation is made to unbelievers, that to them he engageth himselfe to performe: nor do I see how he can avoid Antinomianism, which he so much abhors, to wit the justification of Infidels, if i… be true, that this promise is made to unbelievers. Nor is he relieved by saying, the promise is made to them though the good promised is not to be enjoyed, For what is this but to say the promise is made to them by God, but not performed, which is to make God false? Nor is he relieved by saying it is made conditionally only to unbelievers (if thou believe thou shalt be justified.) For this is equivalent to this he that bel…eveth shall be justified, and so the promise is made only to the believer: though it may be said to be offered, tendered, propounded as a Law, or ordinance of God to unbelievers. yet neither Scripture language, nor any other approved Au…hors speech, will I concieve warrant this speech, God promiseth, engageth himself to performe, this pormise (of salvation, justification,) is made to unbelievers. As for his dictates in his appendix, and the next question, the futility of them is already shewed. He goes on thus.
2. If God do no more in his actual calling to believers, than he doth when the Sacrament is rightly applied to hypocrites, then he actually sealeth to hypocrites. The major is proved by the enumeration on the severall acts. 1. God maketh the promise. 2. He commandeth ministers to publish it. 3. He hath instituted the Sacraments as mutual engaging signes or seals. He commandeth ministers to deliver or apply them to those that profess their consent, and desire to enter or renew the Covenant, (This I need not stand to prove, beeing Mr. T. Here yeildeth that the giving of the Sacrament is the right act of the administrator, which it could not be except it were commanded) as also the initiating seal to the children of those believing parents that will enter him into the Covenant, as is proved before. Now what act more than these doth God performe to the elect or believers.
Answ. It was assayed to be proved before, but not proved that God commandeth ministers to deliver or apply the Lords Supper to them that desire to renew their Covenant, or baptism to believers infant children; what I said of the right act of the administrator I spake perticularly of baptism. Nor is it true that God maketh promise to hypocrits, or commandeth ministers to publish it, and how is it from Scripture speech, or truths to say, God hath instituted the Sacraments as mutual engaging signs or seals, and how destructive this is to infant baptism is shewed before. To this puestion, I answer, The witness of the spirit is a further act of God necessary to his sealing as I meant my words, and express my self in my Postscript. Sest: 21. Pag 153. what saith Mr. B. to this?
Jf it be said that he add the seal of his spirit; that is nothing to the question, seeing we are speaking only of the outward seal. Answ. though Mr. B. spake only of the outward seal, yet he should have spoken of the inward also. If he would have opposed my saying, he should have proved that God actually seals by the outward Sacrament without the inward testimony of the spirit, till then, he spake nothing to the question.
But saith he. Jf it be said that he assureth the conscience of the truth of the promise, and maketh the outward seal effectual. I Answ. 1. That is still the inward seal, and so nothing to this. Answ. He should rather have said it is all in all to this, sith my words denie Gods actual sealing withou… ▪
2. That is the making of the seal successful, which is nothing to the sealing: If you seal a deed of gift to three men and one believeth it, and another doth not believe it, and another doth half believe it, yet this doth not make it no sealing to him that believeth not; you seal equally to them all.
Answ. 1. However it be in mens sealing, yet Gods actual sealing is still effectual, they seal only to the eye, he to the heart, 2 Cor. 1.21, 22. 2. He makes no deed of gift but to believers, nor seals to any but them Ephes. 1.13. and …4.30. Rom. 4.11. and 8.15, 16.
3. And God doth not alwayee assure the elect or believers, but they oft conclude hardlyer against themselves than others do that have. So that I desire Mr. T to produce any one act which God performes to believers, and not to others, which may appropriate the name of sealing to them.
Answ. though God do not alwayes actually seal to believers, yet this doth neither prove that his actually sealing is uneffectual, nor to any others.
Mr. B. hath answere to his demand, and were it not that I much pitty the souls of many ministers and poeple who are by this notion of [seal of the Covenant of grace] partly perverted to uphold and continue as manifest a Corruption as ever was in the Christian church, I mean infant-baptism, being by all, most by Mr. B. Confessed to be without institution and example in Bible, parly perplexed about delivering and recieving the Lords-supper, it would much trouble me that I have spent so much time de lanâ Caprinâ, a new devised notion▪ But overshooes over boots, I must needs add few lines more in answer to Mr. B. whose page 1…6 saith thus.
And by this the former question about sealing conditionally may be decided: which Mr. T. darkneth with a m…ze of words; and addeth [That God seals not conditionally in this sense, as if he left it to a mans liberty to whome he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please, and so nullifie all: yet so as to afford them awhile the favour and privileige of being in Covenant with him, which Mr. M. He concieves meant by his conditional sealing] Heare are more things heapt up, then will be satisfied in one answer: therefore I say 1. it is improperly called liberty of the will which consists in an indifferency to good or evils as Gibeouf and Bradwardin &c. will teach you. 2. more improp…rly is the nullif…ing of the Covenant called a freeing themselves which is an enslaving themselves. 3. And the violating of the Covenant is not fitly called a nullifying of it. 4. Yet if you will needs use those terms; I say that God sealeth the conditional promise to thousands that shall perish, and le…veth it to their own choise, whether they will recognize and continue, and be faithfull to the Covenant (giving them onelyonly the common grace:) which men do prove unfaithful to, & break the Covenant, and so p…rish for treading the blood of the Covenant under foot. And doth Mr. T. thinke that no wicked men perish as Covenant-breake…s with Christ?
Answer. I am so used to Mr. B. his snarling at me, that I think it not worth while to take notice of all the noise he makes, and methinks a wise Reader should be no whit moved with these frivolous accusations of me, as darkning the thing with a maze of words (which is a pretty phrase) which are very few and very plain, intimating as if▪ I would needs use those terms though improperly, which were used of necessity when I was to set down M M. his meaning, not as mine, but his, even his very expressions, except it be to observe the quarrelsom vein he was in when he wrot that book against me. If the expression be not proper, let him blame Mr. M. yet let it be observed, that the speech of the nullifying the covenant, was neither mine nor Mr. Ms, but nullifying all, which is to be understood of the sealing and priviledge mentioned. As for his reference of me to Gibeo…f and Bradwardin to shew the impropriety of the use of the term [Liberty] I am not likely to be taught by them, except I had the books (one of which I have lost by the plunder of above three hundred bookes never recovered) and Mr. B. had given me better directions where to find my Lesson. I conceive it liberty of will properly so called, whereby men are moved to chuse evill, though the persons be in a state of servitude, John 8.33. Else it were not penall to chuse evill. And for what Mr. B asserts, I have shewed before that Gods covenant of grace is neither made nor sealed by God to any but the elect; and I say, that though wicked men may perish as covenant-breakers with Christ, that is, as breaking their own covenant or promise with Christ, yet no man ever breaks the covenant of grace, that is Gods new covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ, it being the very end of the making of the new covenant, that whereas the old occasioned God to complain of Israel as not continuing in it, there might be another covenant established or made a Law on better promises, that it might be foreign, which we read faultless, but more rightly Plaintless, that is, not occasioning God to complain by reason of the breach of it, as the Author to the Hebrews plainly shews, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, &c. And this is expressly called Gods covenant to turn away ungodliness from Jacob, Rom. 11.26, 27. So that to deny the promise of the first grace of regeneration, conversion, or effectuall calling to be properly Gods covenant of grace, and to make a conditionall after to be Gods Covenant of grace, and to say Gods covenant of grace may be broken, and persons with whom it is made not continue therein, is to alter or deny the new covenant, and to make voyd the grace of God and the comfort of his people, and to my understanding to symbolize with Arminians.
Mr. B. adds, 5. It is unworthily said, That God affordeth these but a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him, seeing it is their own wilfull act to cast themselves out of this priviledge; they might have continued it, and proceeded further in it if they would.
Answer. I agree that it is unworthily said; but by this censure though he aim at me, yet heedlesly he hits Mr. M, whose speech this was. But whoever be in the fault, it seems while the rod is in Mr. B. his hand, I must be lashed. Yet Mr. B. his reason is so far from proving it unworthily said, that it seems rather to be worthily said, that God affords them but a while the favour of being in covenant with him, sith it is their own wilfull act to cast themselves out I rather think it unworthily said, because God should fail them to perform his covenant of putting his fear into their heart, so as that they shall not depart from him; nor his covenant be everlasting contrary to Jer. 32.40.
6. Saith Mr. B. Yet withall we affirm, That to his elect God freely giveth, as leave, so a will to enter sincerely into Covenant with him, and faithfully to keep covenant, and so the continuance of the priviledges of the covenant
Answer. If Mr. B. had as the Scripture doth, ascribed this to Gods covenant, and understood the difference between the covenant of grace under the Gospel, and the nationall covenant made with the people of Israel, much of the opposition between us had been saved. But sith things are as they are, I am resolved with Gods assistance to try his strength in what is yet unanswered of his second main argument, after I have examined the remainder of what Paedobaptists say after the old way of arguing from Covenant and Seal.