The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 9 · Subsection 1 · Argument reviewed 3
Arg. 3. reviewed.
Mr. Baxters third Argument is, That faith to which the promiſe of remiſſion, and juſtification is made, muſt alſo be ſealed to (or that faith which is the Condition of the promiſe is the condition, in foro dei, of the title to the ſeal): But it is onelyonly ſolid true faith which is the condition of the promiſe (of remiſſion): In what ſenſe faith is the condition of the Promiſe.Therefore it is that which gives right, in foro Dei, to the ſeal. To this I have anſwered, faith is not ſealed to, but remiſſion of ſins, or Salvation upon condition of faith; and when I come to ſpeak of the ſealing of Sacraments, I ſhall God willing make this more evident, that the Sacrament qua ſeal immediately reſpects our priviledges, and not duties, and I referre the Reader thither. When I ſay a profeſſor of faith may ingage to a lively working faith, I am followed with this Dilemma. 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 onelyonly ingageth ſo to believe hereafter. For if he profeſſe to have it already, then he can ingage onelyonly to the continuation, and not to 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 Baptiſme, to believe lively for the future, (inceptivè) and to believe for the future with a working faith. I ſhall firſt ſecond this dilemma with another of like nature, and then anſwer. He that thus profeſſeth to have a lively faith, either profeſſeth it knowingly, ſo that he is aſſured that he ſpeaks the truth, or with haeſitations, doubts and fears, ſo that he queſtions the truth of all that himſelf ſaies. The latter doubtleſſe can give no title according to Mr. Baxter. For a man to profeſſe, and remain wholly uncertain of the truth of ſuch profeſſion, can give no ſuch title as is required; if the former be intended, that every man profeſſing muſt know the truth of his profeſſion, then none that are below aſſurance that in preſent they ſavingly believe, have any right to Baptiſme, and then you ſee how high we are gone. Some think it is too much to require a full aſſurance of Grace from all that enter or are allowed to poſſeſſe their places in the Miniſtery, much more of all that enter into Chriſtianity. For a direct anſwer, I therefore ſay, It is not profeſſion to ſay that we have this faith, but a profeſſion of our aſſent to the neceſſity of it, with ingagement to it that gives this title. There followes, You ſuppoſe then, ſuch a profeſſor as this coming to Baptiſme, ſaying, Lord, I believe that thou art God alone, and Chriſt the onelyonly 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 there are luſts ſo deare to me, that I will not forſake them for thee. I will not take thee for my God, to rule me, or be my happineſſe; nor will I take Chriſt to governe me, and ſave me in his way; nor will I be guided, or ſanctified by the Holy Ghoſt; but hereafter I will, and therefore I come to be baptized. If I ſay ſuch have right to baptiſme, and you ſay we are bound to baptize them, how do you mend the matter? do not you conclude your fourty ſixt Section with theſe words? Vocation which is effectual onelyonly to bring men to an outward profeſſion of ſaving faith, is larger then election, and makes men ſuch whom we are bound to baptize. 2. I ſay and do profeſſe of thoſe that have thoſe ſecret reſervations wrapt up in their breſts, and not yet from under the power of luſts, yet convinced of their duty, and acknowledging the neceſſity, that it is the mind of God that they ſhould be baptized, and have admiſſion to ordinances, in order to bring them more ſincerely and unreſervedly to God. And this being the will of God, as you ſeem to yeeld when you ſay we are bound to baptize them; I ſay they have right in the ſight of God to Baptiſme, and it were ill with the Church if thoſe in Auſtins caſe, that would pray, Da caſtitatem, da temperantiam Domine, ſed non modò, ſhould be denyed all inveſtiture in Church priviledges. Where Mr. Baxter ſaies, that faith which is the condition of the promiſe is the condition in foro Dei of title to the ſeal: And I ſay, that I judge the contrary to be undenyable; After many words which are needleſſe to repeat, we have his reaſons, with a complaint that I have given no reaſon of my denyal. To which I ſay, That which in a parentheſis without reaſon is affirmed, may without rendring any reaſon be denyed. But before I come to conſider of his reaſons, it is neceſſary that the terms be looked into, and the queſtion rightly ſtated, that there may be no miſunderſtanding. When Mr Baxter ſpeaks of the condition of the promiſe, I ſuppoſe he means the condition called for, in order to the attainment of the thing promiſed, the promiſe for the object of the promiſe, as it is taken, Heb. 11.13. Otherwiſe the promiſe it ſelf properly taken hath no condition. There was no condition inducing God to make promiſe of Chriſt, nor to make tender of any ſuch promiſe. But he promiſes glory by Chriſt on his own terms and propoſitions. Now for the reaſons themſelves to make good that; that which is the condition of the promiſe, is the condition of title to the ſeal. The firſt is, The ſeal is but an affix to the promiſe: therefore that which is the condition of the promiſe, is, the condition of the ſeal. The ſeal is no affix to the thing promiſed, but it is often ſeparated from it. It is a means to convey, and a way to confirm it upon Gods tearms to thoſe that have their Intereſt in the Covenant. 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. When it is granted that the uſe of the ſeal is to confirm the thing promiſed, it will not therefore follow that there is the ſame condition required for intereſt in the ſeal as for intereſt in the thing in promiſe. If a man will ingage under ſeal to give me one hundred pounds, provided that I will come to ſuch a place and accept it, my profeſſed willingneſſe will Intereſt me in the ſeal, my actual acceptance in the Moneys. 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 pura, vel in diem, vel ſub conditiene, and thoſe ſubconditions are ſpecified oft from their various conditions) But there is not two Covenants: Therefore. I know not well how to reach this. Is there not one thing needful to intereſt me in a bargain, or to make me a Covenanter, and another thing to obtain the benefit accruing by ſuch conditional bargain or Covenant? 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 firſt have 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. But ſure it is not againſt the nature of ſeals to be before the mercy covenanted for, and promiſed. And I beſeech you take this into ſerious conſideration, and do not ſleightly paſſe it. Juſtifying faith with you is the Covenant, and do not you preach to work men up to it? and I hope your labours are happily ſucceſſeful. Yet all of theſe to whom you preach (perhaps not a man excepted) hath this ſeal, and is baptized. Do you now in all your Miniſterial labours go againſt the nature and common uſe of ſealing? To keep a due order we muſt then forbear baptizing, not onelyonly till men profeſſe to believe, but are actually in the faith, in a way that juſtifies. 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 then do ye build ſo much againſt Mr. Tombs, on that Argument from Acts 2. The promiſe is to you and your Children, arguing a right to the ſeal from an intereſt in the promiſe? I Argue not from an intereſt in the ſeal to an intereſt in the thing promiſed, but require ſomething further. By this it appears that you take the promiſe properly, and not for the thing promiſed, and then I pray you reconcile this to your ſecond reaſon; The uſe of a ſeal is not to confirm in this that I have a promiſe, but that I ſhall have intereſt in the good that is promiſed. 6. Where you ſay that an acknowledgement of the neceſſity of ſuch faith with ingagement 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 ingage to own him ſincerely for the future, have a title to Baptiſme. How comes I pray you that [future] in? you manifeſt much reading in the Law, and I have heard this as a Maxime, In obligationibus ubi nullus certus ſtatuitur dies, quovis die debetur, There is no day overtaken but the ingagement is for preſent; though God in mercy except when for a long time the ingagement hath been preſumptuouſly neglected. But bring me a man that in his heart is convinced that Jeſus is the Chriſt, with his mouth profeſſes him, and ingages for him, and in the mean ſpace actually renounceth him, and I will do what you would have me with him; That is, a man that is falling headlong down a ladder, at the ſame inſtant he is climbing up it. When I bring this ſimilitude for illuſtration of the point in hand, that a promiſed ſervice and fidelity in war is enough to get liſted, and to do ſervice is of neceſſity to be rewarded, I am told that this runs upon the great miſtake which I have been ſo often told of, and am further informed that the formal reaſon and denomination of a condition is from the donors conſtitution, or impoſition, giving this benefit onelyonly on the terms by him aſſigned, and not upon our promiſe to perform them. If I have been told of it often, it is well if I can be convinced of it now. I utterly deny that the denomination of conditions of a Covenant in actual being, is from the one, and not from the other, that is, excluſively to the other. I well know the donour is to preſcribe, and the receiver is to accept without putting in Exceptions. But if there be no acceptance of terms, there is no Covenant; and there being no Covenant, there can be no Covenant conditions, as is plain by the uſual definition of Covenants; where the Goſpel is preached, and no entertainment at all given, there is no Covenant people of God, they ſtand bound by Law precepts, but are under no obligations to Covenant conditions.