The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 9 · Subsection 1 · Argument vindication 2
Argument 2. vindicated.
Argument vindicated. 2 My ſecond Argument is, All the obſurdities following the reſtraint of the Covenant to the Elect, or men of a ſaving Faith: follow upon this reſtraint of intereſt in baptiſm.] Mr. Baxter anſwers, What abſurdities follow ſuch reſtraint of it to ſound believers, as I have aſſerted, I ſhould be willing to know; though with ſome labour I have ſearched for it. Bear with me therefore, whileſt I examine what you referre me to. It is, pag. 109. where you charge thoſe abſurdities. I wonder that all this labour for ſearch ſhould need, when as he ſaies, he hath a reference, and the Reader I think may ſee enough from Mr. Baxters own hand in the places already mentioned; one part of the firſt abſurdity which I have preſſed, Mr. Baxter is pleaſed to repeat; This reſtriction of the Covenant (to ſhut out all the non-regenerate) makes an utter confuſion betwixt the Covenant it ſelf and the conditions of it: The reſtriction of the Covenant to the regenerate, confounds the Covenant and conditions together.or (if the expreſſion do not pleaſe) the Covenant it ſelf, and the duties required in it: between our entrance into covenant, and our obſervation of it, or walking up in faithfulneſſe to it. All know that a bargain for a Summe of money, and the payment of that Summe: the covenant with a ſervant for labour, and the labour according to this covenant, are different things. Faithfull men that make a bargain, keep it; enter covenant, and ſtand to it: But the making, and keeping; the entring, and obſerving, are not the ſame: and according to this opinion, Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant, and regeneration is our keeping of Covenant: before regeneration we make no Covenant, after regeneration we break no Covenant, there is no ſuch thing as Covenant-breaking. All this makes an utter confuſion in the Covenant. After a charge big enough, he ſaies, I cannot give my judgement of the intolerableneſſe, and great danger of your miſtake here manifeſted; without unmannerlineſſe, I will therefore ſay but this, It is in a very weighty point, near the foundation, wherein to erre cannot be ſafe. To which I onelyonly ſay, I wiſh he had ſpoken fully out, that the intolerableneſſe and ſuppoſed great danger of my miſtake, might have been ſeen, and I earneſtly deſire all my friends, that in caſe I erre in this manner as I ſtand charged, that they would afford me their help to diſcover my error; but I truſt I ſhall make it good, that my error at the higheſt is but equivocal. He addes: In my Aphoriſms, (pag. 265.) I gave my reaſons for the contrary; we muſt therefore ſee firſt what is ſaid there, where he thus beſpeakes his Reader. Here let me mind you, of one uſeful obſervation more. The Covenanting on our parts, is a principal part of the conditions of the Covenant, though this may ſeem ſtrange, that a covenanting and performing conditions, ſhould be almoſt all one: And indeed, I think all intelligent Readers will judge it to be farre more ſtrange than true, though we are to hear of that which is more ſtrange preſently, we are told of reaſons in this page, but I find no piece of a reaſon in it, but onelyonly, I ſay, inſtead of a reaſon; And I know not where any thing towards a proof of this poſition may be found, unleſſe it be in the Poets Hyperbole, Dimidium facti, qui bene coepit, habet; He that hath well begun, hath half done; yet half is not almoſt all. He goes on. It is a truth ſo farre beyond all doubt, that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of grace, as that it is in other terms a great part of the ſubſtance of the Goſpel. Here are myſterious words. Is our covenanting a part of the condition, or is the condition a part of the Covenant? The condition is here made the integrum, and our Covenanting one part of the condition. This is above my reaſon. And for the other part, I ſay, if our covenanting be a great part of the ſubſtance of the Goſpel, then the Jew outwardly did make a better progreſſe in Goſpel-waies then we are yet aware of, or the Apoſtle underſtood when he ſpake ſo much as we read, Rom. 2. concerning him, for he was in Covenant, otherwiſe he had been no Jew at all, but a Pagan or Heathen. Having told us, (I cannot gueſſe to what end) that the ſame act is called our conditions, as the performers; and Gods conditions, as the impoſer, and promiſer: giving his bleſſings onelyonly on theſe impoſed conditions, he addes, Moſt properly they are called the conditions of Gods Covenant, or promiſe, rather than of ours; for our own promiſe is the firſt part of them, and our performance of that promiſe, but a ſecondary part: Is not here a convincing reaſon? Our own promiſe is the firſt part, our performance the ſecond part; Ergo they are more properly the conditions of Gods, Covenant then of ours. I deny not the thing, but wonder at the reaſon; but, ſpeed it as it will, I thence collect, that promiſes and performances are diſtinct things, and that is enough for me. Our promiſing to God, I am ſure, is our covenanting; this then differs from Covenant-keeping, or performance, and is not to be confounded with it. There followes, For, 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Chriſt, and life to the World on condition of their acceptance: This our Divines againſt the Papiſts, and the doctrine of merit have fully proved. That God doth freely give Chriſt to thoſe that accept him, I freely yield, and that our Divines have fully proved it againſt Papiſts, I confeſſe, and that it muſt be aſſerted againſt Antinomians; but what Divines have proved that Gods Covenant is his free gift of Chriſt, and life to the world on condition that they will accept, I know not: It is the firſt time (I think) that ever I heard it. This then is a full definition of a Covenant, which I yet think comes ſhort of it; and if it be a truth, it well ſerves my purpoſe; many a Covenant is made, and conditions never performed. After his expreſſion of himſelf about the modification of our acceptance of Chriſt by faith, he addes, Our acceptance or conſent, is our Covenanting and our Faith. So that our Covenanting with Chriſt, and our Faith is the ſame thing: that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms, or a conſent that he be ours, and we his on his termes. And who knowes not that this Faith or Covenanting, or conſent is the condition by us to be performed, that we may have right to Chriſt, and life offered. I do know the latter, and therefore upon that account, (as upon divers others) I deny the former. I know that juſtifying faith is the condition by us to be performed; and I as well know, that it is not our covenanting, but our making good our Covenant. That Faith by which the Romans ſtood in Covenant with God, was ſuch a faith that the whole viſible Church of the Gentiles had, and the Jewes both, Rom. 11. But this was not a juſtifying faith, but ſhort of it. To make juſtifying faith, and Covenanting Synonyma is an error, I am confident, of what ſize I leave to others to determine. If they were both one, Scripture would promiſcuouſly ſpeak of them; but we find that it ſtill diſtinguiſheth them, and gives us clearly to underſtand, that the greateſt part of Covenanters are ſhort of Faith that is ſaving and juſtifying. Ordinances in which the Covenant of grace is diſpenſed, and which ſpeak all thoſe that entertain them to be in Covenant, are granted of God to men ſhort of juſtifying faith, as their proper inheritance, Rom. 3.1. Deut. 33.4. Titles implying a Covenant-ſtate, (as I have abundantly ſhewed) are given of God to them that are ſhort of this faith, viz. Chriſtian, Diſciple, Saint, Believer, Called, Brethren: God impoſes Covenant-conditions, makes promiſe of Covenant-bleſſings upon theſe impoſed conditions, to thoſe that are ſhort of Faith that juſtifieth; Theſe therefore are in Covenant. Though I hear neither of Scripture nor argument, nor any thing elſe but bare words in two or three Paradoxes for my conviction, yet by a ſimilitude I ſhall underſtand, that our own Covenant-act is the primary condition of Gods Covenant. In his Aphoriſmes he ſayes, It may ſeem ſtrange, but now a ſimilitude ſhall render it familiar, If a King (ſaith he) will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman, and a beggar, on condition that ſhe will but have him, that is conſent, and ſo covenant and marry him; here her covenanting, conſenting, or marrying of him is the performance of the condition on her part, for obtaining her firſt right in him and his: but for the continuance of her right is further requiſite. If we had had either Scripture or argument to have given us a firſt light, then a Simile might have ſerved for ſomewhat, and come in as a garniſh; but being ſerved in alone, it may ſpeak the Authors thoughts, but never ſettle any in the truth. And I ſhall leave it to the Reader to judge whether the edge of it may not eaſily be turned againſt himſelf, and whether when it is brought home, it will not prove deſtructive to his own opinion. I muſt therefore tell the Reader, that our relation to Chriſt whileſt on earth, is more frequently expreſſed in Scriptures, by eſpouſals, then marriages: as we may ſee through the book of Canticles, and Hoſ. 2.14. 2 Cor. 11.2. and that there is ordinarily a relation of men to God, preceding faith that juſtifies. Now Mr. Baxter is not ſo ill read in the Civill Law, but that he knowes that there are ſponſalia de futuro, and ſponſalia de praeſenti. Thoſe, God is pleaſed to take for his people, that are his onelyonly in the firſt relation, and to honour them with priviledges to bring them on to the ſecond. Whereas he ſayes, Our Covenant principally is to receive, nor is it onelyonly de futuro, but de praeſenti. I may anſwer, firſt, If our Covenant be to receive, then it doth precede this receiving; and ſecondly, if he mean, that it is our duty to receive Chriſt in preſent, and not to delay the leaſt moment of time, I ſhall readily yield; but in caſe he ſay, that preſent profeſſion and engagement to receive gives a people no title to any Covenant-relation, before Chriſt be actually and ſavingly received, I may well ask what we are to ſay to the whole body of Old Teſtament-Scriptures? were not all Iſrael in Covenant? were they not all viſibly the people of the Lord? are they not owned of God for ſuch, when they were at the worſt and loweſt? How many thouſands of Scripture-Texts may be brought to evince it? Had they called themſelves ſo, and valued themſelves as ſuch, on this account to be a people nigh unto the Lord; and no people ſo nigh, it might have been ſaid to be their own vapour; but when God gives them that teſtimony of honour, and hath never done with it, ſure he would have us to believe it. There is a firſt right therefore, before that right in the ſimilitude contended for; and that is no other but a right of Covenant: to be without God and without hope is the caſe of a meer heathen uncircumciſed in the fleſh, Eph. 2.11. The ſtate of viſible relation is one ſtep nearer, than aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael do enjoy; and yet too ſhort of a ſtate of ſalvation. Mr. Baxter concludes, By this time I leave it to the Reader to judge who it is that introduceth confuſion about the Covenant, and whether it be an error of the lower ſize: And I am very well contented to ſit down and hear his judgment: and if it be upon this determined againſt me, I ſhall ſay the authority of man is mightily prevalent. I have yet ſeen no title of Scripture, nothing of reaſon, onelyonly that which I take to be Scripture-Paradoxes, are laid down as Maximes.Reſtraint of Covenant denies any breach of Covenant. There followes, As for that you adde, that then there is no Covenant-breaking, I reply, 1. quoad eſſentiam, et poſſibilitatem, there is, 2. quoad exiſtentiam, there is a breaking of mere verbal and erring half Covenants; but if you think, that ſound Covenanting may be utterly broke, then you are againſt the certainty of perſeverance. Real Covenants may be broke.I deſire to know whither this eſſence, poſſibility and exiſtence refers, whether to the Covenant, or to the breaking of Covenant. If it refer to the Covenant, as the words ſeem plainly to imply, then here is a new piece of learning, that the eſſence of a thing may be broke, and the exiſtence ſtand firm. I have learnt that exiſtencies may be deſtroyed, and eſſences remain, and inſtance is commonly given in Roſes in winter; But I have not untill now heard the contrary. But if theſe referre to breaking of Covenant, then the meaning is, there is a poſſibility, but there ſhall not be a futureity: But this is flatly to gain-ſay the Scriptures, that complain ſo frequently of actual breach of Covenant. Somewhat therefore is granted, and ſomewhat denyed. It is granted that there is a breaking of mere verbal, and of erring, half-Covenants; but I am told, that if I think that ſound Covenanting may be utterly broke, then I am againſt the certainty of perſeverance. If by ſound Covenanting, truth of Covenant be meant, this may be broke, and no Saint apoſtatize, but if integrity of heart and ſuch ſoul-qualifications as might be deſired in Covenanters be underſtood, the truth of a Covenant ſtands, where this is wanting: otherwiſe none but upright, honeſt, ſincere men, can ever make bargains. It follows, They broke their particular Covenants about reforming Idolatry, and ſuch particular ſins. And theſe particular Covenants were branches of their grand Covenants, and ſo habemns reum confitentem. It is farther ſaid, They broke their verbal, and equivocal Covenant, or promiſe to God, whereby they ſeemed to accept him on his own terms, but did not. But it ſhould be remembred, that this Covenant they broke was a marriage-Covenant, as is frequently teſtified in Scriptures, as, Jer. 31.32. where the Lord ſpeaking of the Covenant made with Iſrael when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt: Which my Covenant they brake, ſaith he, although I was an husband unto them: which is further clear, Jer. 3.1, 14, 20. Hoſ. 2.17. This then was a reall, and no equivocal Covenant, or elſe Mr. Baxters ſimilitude, on which he puts ſo much ſtreſſe, is ſpoyled. And I never knew, that verbal Covenants, where ſincerity of intention for faithful performance was wanting, were equivocal Covenants: much leſſe where a man did not fully underſtand himſelf in covenanting. All want of integrity is not equivocation: Men may promiſe and not perform, men may promiſe and never mean to perform, (which I think few unregenerate men directly do) and yet not equivocate. If a Gentleman ſhall promiſe a Tenant a Leaſe for life, provided that he will give him a dogge, he brings him one, and accordingly expects his Leaſe, the Landlord puts him off in telling him that he indented with him for a dog-ſtar, or a dog-fiſh, here is equivocation; but had he directly promiſed and broken faith, it had been no equivocation, but falſification. I have heard of one of quality that often ſolicited one to ſerve him, after long importunity he got a promiſe from the man, that ſuch a day he would come and ſerve him, he kept his day, and came and ſerved a writ upon him: This was equivocation; but if he had not come at all, as the ſon in the Parable did not work in the Vineyard, when he had ſaid he would, that had been plain falſification. If thoſe were equivocal Covenants, and no reality of the being of a Covenant between God and them in them, then all the honour that followed upon them, and mercies enjoyed were equivocal likewiſe. Then whenſoever God calls Iſrael his people, we muſt underſtand him his equivocal people: when he calls them his portion, we muſt underſtand it his equivocal portion: when he ſayes, Judah is his inheritance, we muſt underſtand his equivocal inheritance: and Chriſts word, Matth. 8.12. The children of the Kingdom ſhall be caſt out, muſt be interpreted, the children of the equivocal Kingdom: and, Matth. 22.14. Many are equivocally called: and, Rom. 9.4. the Apoſtle muſt be underſtood, To whom pertaineth the equivocal adoption and the equivocal glory. Theſe certainly broke Covenant, and yet we have no example of Saints apoſtaſie in them. When the Jeſuits forced Texts of Scripture to find (if it had been poſſible) one or two equivocal ſpeeches in our Saviours words, as Joh. 7.8. I go not yet up to this feaſt, leaving out [Yet] that ſo there might be either an untruth, (for he did go up) or an equivocation: as alſo in thoſe words of his quoted from the Pſalmiſt, Joh. 10.34. I have ſaid ye are gods: how would they have gloried, in caſe they had learned, that Scripture was almoſt all over equivocal? Give them this, and the day is theirs in the doctrine of equivocation.
Mr. Baxter addes, Your ſecond abſurdity is, That then there are no hypocrites, and replyes rather, Then all unregenerate profeſſors are hypocrites. They pretend meerly to real proper covenanting, and they do covenant but verbally and equivocally. But the great falſhood of this I have ſufficiently diſcovered, and therefore my Argument which he notably curtails ſtill ſtands firm. It were too tedious to trouble the Reader with all my words and his.
The third abſurdity which I preſſe, Mr. Baxter doth not vouchſafe to name, but onelyonly refers to his anſwer to Mr. T. I ſhall therefore let it alone, not intending to interpoſe between them.