The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 9 · Subsection 1 · Argument reviewed 4
Argument 4. reviewed.
The next Argument in which I am concerned, and the laſt which in this thing is produced, is, That the Eunuch muſt firſt believe, and then be baptized; upon his deſire of Baptiſme, Philip ſaith, If thou believeſt with all thy heart, thou maieſt. This I have confeſt carries more colour then all the former; and indeed I never met with any thing, either in Scripture, or reaſon produced, that carries with me ſo much as any colour for it, this excepted. Yet this is not unanſwerable. One difficult text does not uſe to take us off our hold of many plain ones. I anſwer, 1. Philip may call for that de bene eſſe, when the Eunuch was to be admitted, which was not yet eſſential to his admittance. Thoſe that preach preparatory Sermons for the Lords Supper, call for allthat may give the higheſt comforts, and not barely for that which is the Minimum quod ſic, to give admiſſion. 2. As I have ſaid, ſo I ſay ſtill, that dogmatical faith is a true faith, and to prevent needleſſe Criticiſms, it is truly a divine faith, ſo that none can ſay that Jeſus is the Chriſt (can believingly ſubſcribe that Article) but by the holy Ghoſt, 1 Cor. 12.3. And whoſoever ſayes with aſſent of judgment and underſtanding, that Jeſus the Son of Mary is Chriſt, the Son of the living God, ſpeaks more then fleſh and blood can ſuggeſt, and is not attainable but by Divine revelation. And whereas it is objected, that it is a falſe faith, when it pretends to be that which Scripture calls faith in Chriſt, and denominateth believors; I anſwer, 1. I have ſhewed before, that our proſeſſion qualifying for Baptiſme, is not a profeſſion that we have ſuch faith, (which cannot be done without an eminence of faith to aſſurance) but a profeſſion of the neceſſity of it to ſalvation, and an engagement to it. 2. It denominates believers in the ordinary and common language of Scriptures, and whereſoever believer is put in oppoſition to unbeliever or infidel, faith of this nature is ſtill underſtood. In that famous text, 1 Cor. 7.14. every man and woman is a believer, that was removed from heatheniſh Idolatry to the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, or (as Paulinus, whom Jerom ſo much magnifies, ſpeaks) was a baptized perſon. Otherwiſe the caſe there put about the validity of marriage, and lawfulneſs of marriage ſociety were not between an infidel and a profeſſour of Chriſtianity, but between a regenerate man whom this language onelyonly makes a believer, and one unregenerate, which in this language are infidels, which were a caſe never yet put to queſtion. When mention is made through the Hiſtory of the Acts of ſo many thouſands that upon the Apoſtles preaching believed, it can denote no more then the embracing of the way of Chriſtianity, in oppoſition to Judaiſme or Heatheniſme. If it imply a through Regeneration of the ſoul, there could be no unregenerate ones among them, which is wholly againſt the nature of viſible Churches, and all experience, as hath been abundantly manifeſted. As for that diſtinction (which ſeems to be hinted) between believing Chriſt, and believing in Chriſt, Mr. Ball in his Treatiſe of Faith, pag. 5. hath ſufficiently ſhewed the groundleſneſſe of it, pointing out Scriptures where a prepoſition is added to the word believe, when nothing but aſſent of mind is ſignified; And where it is put without a prepoſition, when truſt and confidence is implyed. Abraham believed God, Rom. 4.3. (where no prepoſition is added) and it was counted to him for righteouſneſſe. And on the contrary the Rulers believed foreign, in or on Chriſt, and loved the praiſe of men more then the praiſe of God, Joh. 12.42, 43. It followes, I think if a man ſay, This is the Son, the Heir, Come let us kill him, and the inheritance ſhall be ours, we will not have this man reign over us, that theſe are not true believers, nor have right to Baptiſme, though their belief that he was the heir be a dogmaticall faith true in its kind. I am ſorry that ſuch things ſhould be mentioned, where inquiry after truth is contended, and contention not ſtudied. It is well known, that I ſpeak to a faith of profeſſion, which is theirs that take to that party which is for Chriſt, and not with thoſe that profeſſedly go in a full oppoſition againſt him, and are in a high rode (any ſuch conviction of ſpirit ſuppoſed) of ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt. I know not why Dr. Ames ſhould be brought in, telling us, that in thoſe places where ſaving faith is ſpoke to, truſt in the Meſſiah is ever included: ſeeing we are ſpeaking of a faith that is ſhort of ſaving, nor yet that I ſhould be told that words of knowledge and aſſent do in Scripture oft imply affection and conſent, unleſſe that it be to let me know that it doth not generally hold; which in caſe I were in a ſtrait, and at want for a preſent anſwer, would well help me out. And whereas I am demanded, whether I do not know how ordinarily ſaving faith it ſelf is denominated from the Intellectual act alone? I anſwer, that I do know it, and if I were ignorant of it before, Mr. Burgeſſe hath taught me the ſame thing, with the ſame reaſon of it in his Spiritual Refining, page 170, 171. Poſ. 8. And I know alſo, that it hath its denomination often from the act of the will alone; But will it follow that the underſtanding is never fully perſwaded for aſſent, but the will is alſo (not alone ſomewhat moved, but) throughly inclined for conſent and acceptance. If the underſtanding at any time be brought to a reall aſſent whileſt the will is ſwayed by luſts and takes to other objects, that is to me ſufficient. Or will it follow that either the Eunuch did or muſt neceſſarily be preſumed to underſtand, upon that little acquaintance that it ſeems he yet had in the Goſpel, the whole of thoſe choyce obſervations? or can it be any way certainly collected, that ſuch a Confeſſion that he made was accompanied with a preſent ſaving work? But Mr. Baxter hath ſingularly engaged me to him, quoting thoſe Texts, John 11.25, 26, 27. John 1.49, 50. 1 Joh. 4.15. he addes, Here is more then right to Baptiſme. Then a man may have right to Baptiſme that is ſhort of thoſe great priviledges of dwelling in God, and being born of God; and I ſcarce know what to ſay more for my own opinion. It further followes, If you think (as you ſeem by your anſwer to do) that a man may aſſent to the truth of the Gospel with all his heart, and yet be void of juſtifying faith, you do not lightly erre. It followes not (I think) from any thing that I have ſaid, that I am in any ſuch opinion. That Expreſſion is in Philips words, and I have told you he might require de bene eſſe, that which is not neceſſary to the eſſe of Baptiſme. But in caſe I be in any ſo heavy an Error, I am thus holpen out of it. Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the regenerate, yet not with all his heart; Chriſt ſaith, Matth. 13. The Word hath not rooting in him. It is then granted, that he may believe all truths, and that which is added to prove that he cannot believe them with his whole heart, is not with me convincing. The Word had not root: not becauſe they did not intirely from the heart aſſent to it; But becauſe they received it not in the love of it. They received the light to inform their judgments, not any thorow heat for the warmth of their affections. There followes, Doubtleſſe whether or no the practical underſtanding do unavoidably determine the will, yet God doth not ſanctifie the underſtanding truly, and leave the will unſanctified: which muſt be ſaid, if the dogmatical faith that is the Intellectual aſſent of a wicked man, be as ſtrong as that of a true believer. Here is ſuggeſted that I ſay, that the Intellectual aſſent of a wicked man is as ſtrong as that of a true believer. I know not where I have ſaid it, or any thing that implies it. It may be a true aſſent, though not of that ſtrength. But if I had ſaid it will it thence follow, that God doth ſanctifie the underſtanding truly, and leave the will unſanctified? I trow not. Is every ſtrong Intellectual aſſent ſanctified? is every Intellectual aſſent which is of equal ſtrength with that in the regenerate truly ſanctified? Clearneſſe of light commands aſſent to truths, when corruption of affections will not ſuffer that at leaſt pro hic & nunc, that the goodneſſe or beſtneſſe (if I may ſo ſay) ſhould be believed. I believe it is as ſtrong in the Devils as in any Regenerate man in the world. I know not how it fares with ſome whom God may exerciſe more gently reſpective to temptations and Satans Buffettings, I am ſure that there are thoſe that would ſometimes freely give up all that is dear to them in the world, to be as clear in ſome fundamental truths as Satan himſelf; he doubtleſſe injects Scruples where himſelf is without ſcruple. I know ſome queſtion whether there be any ſuch thing as faith in divels, notwithſtanding James ſaith, The Devils believe and tremble. But certain it is, there is an Intellectual aſſent to Divine truth in the Devils, as we may ſee, Matth. 8.29. Mark 3.11. Luk. 4.41. Acts 19.15. and yet there is no ſanctification wrought. And therefore though the wicked match the regenerate in aſſent in their underſtanding, it will not follow that their underſtandings therefore are truly ſanctified. I am further referr'd to Dr. Downam againſt Mr. Pemble, which is not in my hands, and whether my anſwer be equal to ſilence, as is in the cloſe affirmed, I muſt leave to the Reader to determine.