Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3
Mr. Tombs seems here to make the Covenant and election to be one and the same, as by this passage, so by that which follows; but these Scripture still distinguishes.
To which I say, it is true that I make the elect and those that are in the Covenant of grace one and the same, but neither in that passage or any other, do I make the covenant and election to be one and the same, as Mr. Blake mistakes me.
He saith further; We find promises and prophecies, as to the taking into Covenant in time to come, Ezek. 20.37. but not any such respective to election.
To which I say, the prophecy of taking into Covenant, Ierem. 31.33, 34. is respective to election, or else God promises to write his Laws in their hearts, and not to remember their sins who are not elect.
He goes on. All the promises of call of the Gentiles is to bring them into the privileges of glory, formerly proper to the Jews. To be in covenant was their great privilege: And this is not conferred on the Gentiles before all time, but done in time, Isaiah 42.6. when he brings them light, then he brings them into Covenant.
To which I say, The Jews privileges were some of them (as those Rom. 9.4, 5.) such as God never promised to the Gentiles to bring them to, he never promised to make any entire nation little ones, servants, &c. to be his visible Church.
But God promised to the Gentiles the saving privileges of justification, adoption, regeneration, eternal life, Ephes. 3.5, 6. and this was only to true believers or elect persons, verse. 11, 12. And these were in Covenant in respect of God's act of promise before they were in being, in which sense alone infants may be said to be in the covenant of grace; but in respect of the conferring of the things promised and the possession of them by faith, so neither they then were in Covenant Ephes. 2.12. nor are infants now.
He adds, That text Rom. 11.26, 27, is too notoriously abused; a prophecy of their future call into covenant, is made a proof that they are already in covenant, upon that account we may make the resurrection (if not past, as the ancient Heretics Hymen • us and Phile • us affirmed, 2 Tim. 2.18. yet) at least present. There is like promise of the resurrection of the dead, as there is of the call of the Jews into Covenant, and resembled to the resurrection, as Ezek. 37. so also Rom. 11.15. If by virtue of the text alleged they be already in covenant, by virtue of like Texts the dead are already raised.
Answ. Had Mr. Bl. either heeded my words, or been willing to give them any fair interpretation, he had forborne this censure, in which he doth too notoriously abuse me. I said, the Jews, Rom. 11.26, 27. not yet born, or not yet called are in the Covenant, have the promise of grace made to them, which later words I put in on purpose to show in what sense I said they were in covenant, to wit, in that they had the promise of grace made to them (in which sense I took the Paedobaptists to mean, that infants are in the covenant of grace, nor do I yet know how they can mean otherwise) and this is proved plainly from Rom. 11.26, 27. That God hath promised to save all Israel, to turn away ungodliness from Jacob, and saith, this is his covenant unto them, when he shall take away their sins. I say not they are in covenant in respect of the things promised as already possessed, but that they are in covenant in respect of God's act of promise, they have promise of that which they shall have when they are called, as I often express myself: which being rightly understood, the cavil of Mr. Bl. vanisheth of itself, for though the resurrection be not past, because of a promise of it, yet the term Covenant being the same with a promise they may be said to be in Covenant in respect of a promise made to them, who yet enjoy not the thing promised. Which is confirmed even from the common allegation of Paedobaptists, who say, that by virtue of the promise, Gen. 17.7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, infants of believers are in the covenant, which can be true only in respect of the promise made, which is as much before they are born as after.
To this Mr. Bl. answers, 1. That this can be an argument barely ad hominem ; seeing though we affirm, yet he denies any such Covenant. I reply:
1. That it is true that I deny that Gen. 17.7. there is a covenant made to believers and their seed, but I deny not the Covenant to be to Abraham and his seed, nor do I deny elect infants to be therein comprehended, and that afore they are born.
2. If it be only an argument barely ad hominem, yet it is sufficient, till the tenet on which it proceeds be disclaimed by them, which Mr. Bl. hath not yet the heart to do.
But he answers, 2. I say, as they were in being, so they were also in covenant, not actually, but potentially, which is nothing to Master Tombes his purpose.
I reply. To be potentially in Covenant may be meant either in respect of possession of the things promised, and so I grant they were in covenant only potentially, or in respect of the making of the Covenant, and so they were in covenant actually, that is, the promise was made to them, and this is enough for my purpose to prove a person may be in covenant unborn, in which sense only infants are in covenant, and therefore if infants thus being in covenant make them visible Church-members, and give right to their baptism, by the same reason unborn or uncalled infidels have right to baptism.
Mr. Bl. page 386. saith, he willingly closeth with me, where I say, that the judgment of charity is no rule to a Minister whom to baptize; nor do I dissent from what he saith, if his meaning be as the words seem, I as well know when any man is in covenant, as he knows when he is a believer: when any man doth avouch himself to be one of the people of God, as he knows when they profess to believe. I do confess that by the same knowledge whereby any man is known, and so far as he is known to be a believer, he is known so far to be in covenant; he that avoucheth himself to be one of God's people, and that professeth to believe is in appearance, and to be taken as in covenant, and a believer. But how doth Mr. Bl. know that this or that infant is in covenant and to be baptized? not by God's promise, for there is no such promise of any Gentile believer, that all his infants, or any one in particular shall be his people, either by regenerating grace, or outward ordinance: not by profession of believing or avouching himself to be one of the people of God, for no infant doth, or can without miracle do it; therefore it must be by a judgment of charity (which Mr. Bl. agrees with me to be no rule to a Minister whom to baptize) or no way. And consequently were it granted (which is not) that being in covenant in respect of God's promise of being a God to some infants of believers did give a title to baptism, yet no Minister could upon this ground baptize this or that particular infant, nor any infant now existent, since he neither doth nor can know without special revelation, that God hath made this promise or covenant to it.
What he adds, And it appears when it is brought home, this is all his ground of challenge of baptism of persons in covenant, because their interest in covenant is not manifest, is not right. For I assert first, that bare interest in the Covenant, that is, as I have often said, this thing, that God hath promised to be his God, doth not of itself entitle a person to baptism, since God hath made this promise to thousands yet unborn, and of those that are born to thousands yet uncalled, perhaps Jews, yet professed unbelievers, whom no man can say rightly to have title to baptism. 2. That if it were granted this interest in the covenant did entitle to baptism, yet no Minister can by this rule justify his baptizing of an infant, since he neither hath, nor can have, ordinarily, knowledge, that the infant he baptizeth hath this interest in the Covenant.
What he saith of me, that I seem to make election and interest in covenant commensurate ; All elect are interested in covenant, and all interested in Covenant are elect; I do grant it, being understood of the covenant of Evangelical grace, of regeneration, justification, &c. in respect of God's promise of it, and I have often shown that both Paul, Rom. 9.8. and many of the soundest Protestant Divines say the same. But what he adds of me; And elect infants (as he hath more then once acknowledged) might be baptized in case their election were known, is Mr. Bls. mistake of me, who do nowhere say, that they may be baptized in case their election were made known, but that infants born might be baptized in case their regeneration, faith, sanctification were made known. Whereas a person not yet begotten, may be known to be elect, but not to be regenerated, or made a believer. And by my tenet there is a bar against baptizing of infants, in that they want title to baptism; and if they have title, we want knowledge of it. As for Paedobaptists tenent I profess, I do not know what they count a bar against baptizing of infants according to their tenent, there being such uncertainty in their tenets, some holding all are to be baptized in case of danger of death, some all born in a Christian nation, some, all who are in families of persons professing the Christian faith, though the parents were infidels; some, only the children of Church-members after the way they call Congregational; some judging of the interest in the covenant by a judgment of charity; some by a judgment of certainty. What my tenet is, I have shown already. Though I conceive that Christ's words, Mat. 19.14. did import that the infants were elect, yet I do not say, that Christ was displeased with the disciples for being ignorant of their election and justification, and for that reason not admitting them to be blessed by him, but for that knowing Christ was the great prophet, who was sent to bless, they did hinder those that were brought to be blessed from access to him.
As for Mr. Bls. question, who say that the covenant of grace without any other command is a command to baptize infants, I think Mr. Stephens said it when he made a convertibility between the word of promise, and the word of command; and whereas Mr. Bl. saith, if Christ had never given a command for it, neither old nor young ought to have been baptized, it is true; nor in my speech of his, and Mr. Stephens tenet did I mean when I said [without any other command] to exclude the institution of baptism, but it being supposed to be instituted by Christ, Paedobaptists do frequently prove a command to baptize infants by virtue of being in covenant, without any particular command of baptizing them, or any other description that comprehends them, as Mr. Marshalls first argument in his Sermon, Mr. Bls. second argument, Vindic. foed. chap. 43. sect. 1. s •• w.
Mr. Geree calls denying infant-baptism, A defalking the Covenant, and Mr. Bl. himself maintains the third speech, that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in covenant, when he saith, p. 335. every disciple is in covenant, and everyone in covenant is a disciple And for his Arguments asserting that infants are of Christ's disciples what I have met with either are answered already in the second part of this Review, or will be answered in this part (i • God permit) my conceit being still more confirmed by fuller examination of them, that they are very frivolous.
SECT. XX. The exceptions which in the first part of my Review, sect. 5. are made against the proof of connection between the covenant and initial seal, are confirmed against Mr. Blake, vindic. foed. 42. ch. sect. 3.
Mr. Bl. proceeds to vindicate the proofs for the reality of connection between the Covenant and initial seal from Gen. 17. and Acts 2.38, 39. from my Answers.
And to my answer that the particle rendered [therefore Gen. 17.9.] may be rendered [and, or, but thou] he saith, 1. we have no reason but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative; and being an illative particle, he hath no exception against the strength of it.
Whereto I reply: There need be no reason given, why it should be read [and or but] and not [therefore] but this, that either of those are the usual acceptions of the particle, that [and] is the most frequent use of it, that it may well be so in that place, and that learned interpreters do so render it. Which being not denied, there is no strength in that proof which is made barely from the term [therefore Gen. 17.9.] to infer that to them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace. For he that will prove from it, must assert that it must be rendered [therefore] for a certain conclusion cannot be inferred from an uncertain medium.
Whereas Mr: Bl. only asserts, it may be an illative as well as a copulative particle, and not that it must be, he intimates a grant of what I answer, that it may be a copulative as well as an illative particle,
What he adds, that it being an illative particle, I have no exception against the strength of it, is manifestly untrue, since I added three more exceptions against the proof of that proposition from thence.
But Master Blake proves the same from verse 10. taking in Acts 7.8. and would have me at more leisure find answer to this argument. That which God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it: but God calls circumcision by the name of a covenant; Ergo they ought not to be separated.
To which I answer, First, if the Conclusion be good, then circumcision and the Covenant ought not to be separated; but the covenant according to Master Marshall, Master Blake, &c. remains the same; therefore according to Master Blake circumcision ought to remain still to our children, they being in covenant.
Secondly, If the Conclusion were good, then the females and males afore the eight day being in covenant must be circumcised:
Thirdly, The conclusion is neither of those propositions, which were to be proved, to wit, 1. That the reason why Abraham's infants were to be circumcised, was their interest in the Covenant▪ For though it were granted that circumcision and the covenant ought not to be separated, yet it proves not the reason of this conjunction to be from interest in the covenant, since it may be, yea, is indeed to be deduced from the command.
2. To them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish or Christian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace. For the Conclusion of Mr. Bl. doth not say anything at all concerning the initial seal of the Christian Church, but only of circumcision.
Fourthly, To his Syllogism I answer, 1. That God calls circumcision the Covenant only by a metonymia of the thing signified for the sign.
2. That [ought not to be separated from it] may be understood of every person that hath interest in the covenant, or of every person to whom it is commanded, and when it is not dispensed with: in the former sense I deny the major, it is not true, that what God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it, or that God's calling any sign the Covenant, proves that all in covenant are to have that sign on them. For neither was it true of circumcision, since neither were males afore the eight day or females in covenant, nor any in the wilderness to be circumcised, God either not commanding it, or dispensing with the observation of it; nor is it true of any other sign called the Covenant (if there be any) without God's command undispensed with.
Mr. Blake saith further, 2. Let him consider the relation in which the Apostle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant Rom. 4.11. an instituted appointed sign and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies, and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seals; circumcision was an instituted appointed sign and seal of the covenant; therefore it is not to be divided from it.
Answ. 1. Neither doth the Apostle, Rom. 4.11. make circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. nor of any covenant to be kept for the time to come, but of a benefit Abraham had before obtained Gen. 15.6. to wit, righteousness by faith, being yet uncircumcised, nor is any ones circumcision besides Abraham's, on his own person, called, the seal of the righteousness of faith.
2. The Conclusion is, neither of the Propositions to be proved, that the reason why Abraham's infants were to be circumcised, was their interest in the covenant, that to them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish, or the Christian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace.
3. The Major proposition is true in this sense, an instituted appointed sign and seal, is not to be divided in our conceit of it, from that object or thing which it signifies or seals. But in this sense the Conclusion would be true only of an intellectual division from the object, which is nothing to the purpose. That sense in which it would be to his purpose is this, An instituted appointed sign and seal, is not to be divided, that is, not to be withheld or denied to any person or subject, who hath by promise or possession interest in the thing signified and sealed by that sign. But in this sense it is false, for circumcision was not to be to any female, to whom yet the promise of Canaan signified by it, belonged; Nor indeed doth any such sign belong to any person merely from interest in the thing signified, but from the command and will of the Appointer.
I said if [therefore Gen. 17.9.] were allowed to be the best reading, yet that the inference, v. 9. should be made from the promise only, v. 7. and not as well, if not rather from the promise, verse 8. I find no sufficient reason given.
To this Master Blake replies, This reference engageth me, 1. in a contradiction to myself, Exercit. page 3. the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of Circumcision, and that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was a mixed covenant. 2. In a contradiction to the Apostle, who makes circumcision a sign and seal, not alone of the land of Canaan, but of the righteousness of faith.
Answ. Either I have lost all my skill in Logic, or else there is not the least color of this charge, but Mr. Blake writes as one that scribles anything that comes first into his fancy. A contradiction is of two propositions opposite in quantity and quality, the one universal, the other particular; the one affirmative, the other negative, my propositions are. If it were granted that [therefore Gen. 17.9.] is the best reading; yet that the inference verse 9. should be made from the promise only, verse 7. and not as well, if not rather from the promise verse 8. I find no sufficient reason given; the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of Circumcision, the Covenant Gen. 17. was a mixed covenant made up of spiritual and temporal mercies: The Apostle Rom. 4.11. saith Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised. If Master Blake show in these propositions I will not say contradiction only the greatest of oppositions, but any contrariety at all, let me be taken for a heedless Scribler; if not, let Master Blake bear the blame.
His other words [all that know the nature of Covenants, and use of seals know that the seal ratifies all that the Covenant contains. But the Covenant (Master Tombs being judge) contained not barely the promise of the land of Canaan, and therefore the reference must carry it further than the Land of Canaan ] what are they but a grant of my exception, that the reference Gen. 17.9. must be not only to the promise verse 7. as if infants were circumcised merely because of the promise, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed, but also to the promise verse 8. and that they were circumcised also because of that promise of the Land of Canaan, which belongs not to us, and therefore the reason of circumcision of infants from the Covenant Gen. 17. can be no rule to us to whom some of those promises belong not. If the seal ratifies all that the covenant contains, then it ratifies the promise of the Land of Canaan, and in respect of that it was to Abraham's infants, which not belonging to our infants the reason of circumcising infants, if it be taken from the covenant, it will not pertain to our infants to whom that promise belongs not.
I said, if it were yielded that the inference were made peculiarly from the promise, verse 7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed; it must be proved, that every believers infant-child is Abraham's seed, afore it be proved the promise belongs to them.
To this Master Blake saith, It must either be proved that they are Abraham's children, or • ave the privilege of the children of Abraham, which from Genesis 9.27. Rom. 11.17. is sufficiently proved, especially being confirmed by those texts that carry the covenant in Gospel times to the issue.
Answ. What privilege of the children of Abraham he should mean, except the promise, I will be a God to them, which should belong to every believers infant child, I understand not. The privilege of circumcision, or visible Church-membership in the Christian Church is neither inferred from the promise Gen. 17.7. nor from Genesis 9.27. Rom. 11.17. nor is there one text that carries the Covenant in Gospel times, I mean that covenant of which Christ is Mediator, mentioned Heb. 8.10. Heb. 10.16. (besides which I know no covenant in Gospel times) to the issue, that is, all the natural infant-issue of every believer, and that neither those texts mentioned, nor any other produced by Mr. Bl. Mr. M. Mr. Cobbet, or any other prove it, will be shown in that which follows. For present my speech is right, the promise is not, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed, and to him that hath the privilege of thy children. This is Master Blake's addition to the Text. And therefore no man can prove the promise belongs to the infant-child of a believer, till he be proved to be Abraham's seed: Whatsoever privilege of Abraham's children, any child may have, yet from that promise none can claim privilege, but Abraham and his seed, since the promise is made to no other, and therefore no child of ours can claim an interest in that promise till he be Abraham's seed, which Master Blake's shift doth no whit avoid.
To my exception, that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham, he saith, Though it were true, yet it would nor serve my purpose, provided, that we in Gospel times are under the same covenant as was Isaac ; if some of Abraham's children were left out, that concerns not us, so that we are taken in.
But I reply, sure if it were true, it were much to my purpose to show the insufficiency of the Paedobaptists inference, from Gen. 17.7. that every child of a Gentile believer is not in covenant by virtue of that promise, if it be true that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham. No Paedobaptist hitherto that I know hath had the face to avouch that our children by virtue of that promise are more in covenant than Abraham children; Master Bl. himself saith, To make the inference good from Gen. 17.7. that believers children by virtue of that promise have title to the initial seal, it must either be proved that they are Abraham's children, or have the privilege of Abraham's children; If then the covenant was not made to every child of Abraham, then every child of Abraham had not the privilege by the covenant, and then if it were granted that our children by that covenant had the privilege of Abraham's child, yet it could not be proved thence, that every child of ours hath the privilege of the Covenant, since every child of Abraham had it not. Nor doth Mr. Bls. proviso at all help him.
For 1. it being granted, that we in Gospel-times are under the same covenant as was Isaac, and that we are taken in, (though without the limitations, first of the covenant only, as it contains promises of saving grace; secondly, only of true believers before God, I deny it) yet it follows not that our children are taken in.
2. Nor if it were true, that our children are taken in, doth it follow that all our children are taken in, by virtue of that promise Gen. 17.7. since neither all Abraham's children, nor all Isaac's children were taken in by it, Esau being expressly excluded, Rom. 9 10, 11, 12, 13. and elsewhere, nor doth God style himself the God of Esau as he did of Jacob.
But Mr. Blake saith, my instance from Gen. 17.19. Heb. 11.9. is very weak to prove, that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham, Ishmael himself was in Covenant, though not established in covenant (as God there, and verse 21. promised concerning Isaac ) nor his seed never received, appears not alone by the sign and seal which he received verse. 23. which yet is sufficient (for God to seal to a blank is very strange; to sign a covenant to a man never in Covenant) but also from Gal. 4.30. what saith the Scripture? cast out the bondwoman, and her son, for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman A man cast out of Covenant, was before casting out in Covenant; ejection supposes admission, unless we will give way to Mr Tombs his dream of ejection by non-admission. He was cast out after the time of the solemnity of his admission by circumcision, as may be seen, Gen. 22.
Answ. The Apostle Rom. 9. answering the objection, that if the Jews were rejected from being the children of God then the promise falls, or takes not effect, which God made to Abraham and his seed to be a God to them, answers verse 7, 8, 9, in these express words, neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, That is, they which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, are counted for the seed: For this • is the word of promise, at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a Son. Which words if they do not affirm, that the promise or covenant, Gen. 17.7. was not made to all Abraham's seed, and particularly that it was not made to Ishmael, I cannot perceive any pertinency in the Apostles speech to the answering the objection made, nor know how to understand his words, nor do I remember that I ever met with an interpreter, which did not thence conceive, that the Apostle in those words did assert, that the promise or covenant was not made to Ishmael. Some I have produced Exam. part 3. S. 4. so conceiving, and many more might be alleged if it were necessary. But the words of God to Abraham, Gen. 17.19, 20, 21. do sufficiently prove, that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. was not made to Ishmael, and therefore he was not in Covenant by God's act of promise. For when Abraham upon God's promise concerning Sarah and her son, ver. 15, 16. had laughed verse 17. and petitioned for Ishmael, verse 18. God answers verse 19. by repeating his promise concerning Isaac, and saith, he would establish his Covenant with him for an everlasting Covenant, and with his seed after him, verse 20. Then tells him he heard him concerning Ishmael, and recites what he would do for him; which expresseth how far he had heard his petition. And then follows verse 21. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac, which b • ing adversative hath this plain sense, that he would do that for Ishmael which he had expressed, verse 20. But he would establish his Covenant, that is, confirm and perform what he had promised before verse 7, 8. in Isaac not in Ishmael ; he promised not to be a God to Abraham and his seed, by Ishmael in their generations, nor to give them the Land of Canaan.
As for what Master Blake saith, that Ishmael himself was in Covenant, though not established in Covenant; it seems to intimate that he conceives, that God made the Covenant to him, but did not establish it. But sure God makes no Covenant with any which he doth not establish; if he did, he should not be true. Nor is there any such emphasis in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I will establish, which doth intimate, that the Covenant was made to Ishmael, but established, that is, confirmed, and to be certainly performed only to Isaac, for the phrase used elsewhere, Gen. 9.9, 11. doth express no more than is meant v. 12. this is the token of the Covenant I make between, me and you.
As for Master Blake's proof that Ishmael was in Covenant, because he was circumcised, Gen. 17.23. it rests upon these unproved false suppositions.
1. That circumcision was appointed to men because they were in covenant with God.
2. That God did by circumcision sign the covenant to him that was circumcised·
3. That everyone that was appointed by God to be circumcised was in covenant. As for the speech that God doth not seal to a blank, it is a speech the Scripture useth not, and it having various senses may be true in some sense, in other false. A blank is such a paper as hath no writing in it, or wherein there is some empty space left to write more in, whether persons names, or promises, or other matter. By God's sealing Mr. Bl. means the using of Circumcision, baptism, the Passover, the Lord's Supper, according to God's appointment. That which he conceives to be sealed thereby is the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. which he makes all one with the Covenant of grace, and by proving every Sacrament to be a Seal of the Covenant of grace, from Rom. 4.11. his meaning should be, that God seals in the administrators right use of every Sacrament to every person, that he is in Covenant, that he hath the righteousness of faith, else God should seal to a blank. But in that sense I do aver it to be most true, that God doth seal to a blank, that is, that many thousands had circumcision, the Passover, baptism, and the Lord's supper, according to God's institution and appointment, who were never in Covenant with God, nor did God seal, that is, assure to them their interest in the Covenant, Genesis 17. or the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times, or the righteousness of faith. But in this sense I grant it to be true that God doth not seal to a blank, that is, when he appoints any sign or seal of a Covenant, he doth not appoint it a sign and seal of a Covenant that hath no promises, or wherein the persons to whom, and the promises are not sufficiently expressed, yet he doth command that sign to be used upon persons to whom is no promise in that covenant, as well as those to whom it is made, yea the using it on one person may seal to thousands, who are not to have it on their own persons, as the circumcising of Abraham himself was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers of the Gentiles, who were not to be circumcised. And if every ones Circumcision should seal to him, the righteousness of faith, then circumcision should by God's appointment seal that which is not true, which is not to be said of God.
Nor doth Mr. Blake prove from Galatians 4.30. that Ishmael was first in Covenant, because he was after cast out; for the casting out is not appointed to be out of the Covenant, for that Abraham could not do, to whom this speech is directed, it is God that puts in and out of his Covenant, but the casting out is out of Abraham's family, which was to be done by Abraham. If it be replied, that this was a sign of casting out of Covenant, and therefore supposed he was in Covenant, I answer so it was a sign of casting out of the inheritance, out of the righteousness of faith, out of the Kingdom of heaven, which yet neither he, nor those whom he typified, and so were cast out with him, ever had.
What he calls my dream of ejection by non-admission, doth but show Mr. Blake's own oscitancy.
For Matthew 8.12. it is said, the children of the Kingdom, that is, the Jews shall be cast out, to wit, of the Kingdom of heaven, where Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob sit down, into outer darkness; and yet those children of the Kingdom, were never in the Kingdom of heaven, nor ever should be.
Ishmael's casting out after the time of the Solemnity of his admission by circumcision, doth not prove he was in covenant before. Neither circumcision, nor baptism, doth admit men into covenant with God. If they did, then administrators could put men in and out of Covenant with God; but that is God's prerogative, not in man's power. Even according to Paedobaptists suppositions, persons are first to be in Covenant afore they are to be baptized, therefore baptism doth not admit them into Covenant.
Master Blake adds; For that of Hebrews 11.9. it is a mystery, what he will make of it, unless he will conclude, that because Abraham sojourned in the Land of promise, that therefore none were in Covenant, that were not taken into that Land, so Moses and Aaron will be found out of Covenant.
To which I reply. The mystery might have been unveiled, if Mr. Blake had heeded that the Author of that Epistle calls only Isaac and Jacob of those that dwelt with Abraham in tents, heirs with him of the same promise, therefore Ishmael and Esau were not heirs with him of the same promise, though he dwelt in tents with them, and consequently were not in the Covenant, or had not the Covenant or promise of Abraham made to them.
Upon those words of mine; As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham, that is neither his seed by nature, nor by saving faith, nor by excellency, in whom the nations of the Earth should be blessed, to wit, Christ, I know none such in Scripture, though some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed, as it is called.
Master Blake thus animadverts. I know not how saving faith comes in, when a faith of profession will serve the turn. Abraham's seed had circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith, when their parents had no more than a faith of profession.
To which I reply, a mere faith of profession will not serve turn to make any Gentile to be rightly according to the Scripture termed Abraham's seed. None of them in Scripture are counted Abraham's seed, but either true believers before God, or elect persons. No where doth the Scripture say, that the Circumcision which any of Abraham's seed had was as a seal of the righteousness of faith to them, when their parents were true believers, much less when their parents had no more than a faith of profession. Mr. Blake's talk, that all that which my three former exceptions gainsaid is made good, is but vain, as the rest of his arguing. Let us here see what he adds further.
I had said, Lastly, were all these things yielded, yet the proposition could not be made good from hence, since the inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seal, as if the Covenant or promise of itself, did give that, but the inference is concerning Abraham's duty, that therefore he should be the more engaged to circumcise his posterity.
Hereupon Mr. Blake tells me, I should rather have left this to my adversaries for the strengthening of their proposition, than have made use of it myself for refutation of it. It was Abraham's duty to give them according to God's command the initial seal▪ in this Master Tombs and we are agreed; whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it, or without right, let the Reader determine.
Answ. The Adversaries propositions to be refuted were, first, That the reason why Abraham's infants were to be circumcised, was their interest in the Covenant, which they would gather from Gen. 17.7, and 9. put together; secondly, That to them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish or Christian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace. But if the inference be not of title or right in the persons to be circumcised, but of duty in the administrator, and the propositions be of title or right from the Covenant, and not of duty, the adversaries propositions are not rightly gathered from that inference, which is not concerning right or title but duty. As for Master Blake's jeer rather than answer, it is unworthy a serious sober man. For my speech did not intimate that the infants were circumcised without right or title, but that the inference, Gen. 17.9. was of duty, not of title or right, and that what title the infants had to circumcision it was not, as Paedobaptists suppose, from the interest in the Covenant which the circumcised had, but the command of God to the circumciser, and therefore there is not any connection between interest in the Covenant and title or right to the initial seal without the command, nor this proposition true. All they who are in Covenant are to be sealed with the initial seal, unless this limitation be added, when it is commanded. Now if this limitation be put, then, though the infants of believers were granted to be in Covenant, yet they are not to be baptized, till over and besides their being in Covenant a command for their baptism be shown, which hath not been yet, nor I think ever will be.
There are some more of Mr. Blake's jeers or flirts rather than sober and serlous answers yet remaining. To what I said, that Abraham was engaged to circumcise only those that are males, and not afore eight days, and not only those that were from himself, but also all in his house, whose children soever they were, which apparently shows that the giving circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant, but it was to be given to persons as well out of Covenant as in, if of Abraham's house, and not to all that were in the Covenant, to wit, females: which doth clearly prove that right to the initial seal, as it is called, of circumcision did not belong to persons by virtue of the Covenant, but by force of the command, Mr. Blake in his flirting fashion thus speaks. If he can prove that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house, professedly worshipping a false God, and gave Circumcision to them in that faith and way of worship; it would prove that a man might have the seal, and not be in Covenant. And it will prove a man might have the seal, and not be in covenant, though I cannot prove any Idolater in Abraham's house, if I can prove there were or might be infants or young persons who were children of Idolaters, for such were not in covenant as the seed of believers, or by their own profession.
But, saith he, it would not prove that he might be in covenant, and be denied the seal. True, but this that infant-males under eight days old, and females in covenant might be denied the seal, would prove it.
And then, saith Mr. Bl. infant-baptism might be of easier proof. Though they were not in Covenant, though they were not holy, yet they might be baptized. I reply, I grant that persons in Covenant might be denied Circumcision, but think infant-baptism never a whit the easier proved. I ft-circumcision is commanded of all in Abraham's house, whether in covenant or no, but baptism to none because he is in covenant, or holy, but because a disciple, which is not true of any infant ordinarily.
But, saith Master Blake, I will not yield so much; I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision beyond the line of the Covenant, and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God; seeing I find that testimony of the Lord concerning him, Genesis chap. 18. verse 19. and find that resolution of Joshua, Joshua chap. 24. verse 14, 15. I believe Abraham catechized all he took in as Heathens, and did not circumcise them as Heathens.
Answ. I believe he did not circumcise them as Heathens, but as his own bought with his money, and of his house, and if he bought any infants, or young children (which was then, and hath been since usual, where men and women are sold as slaves) he did circumcise infant or young males of heathen Idolaters. For the command of God was he should, and yet those infant or young males of heathen Idolaters could not be catechized, nor were in Covenant, either by their own profession, or their parents right, or any promise of God to them; and therefore circumcision in that case must be carried beyond the line of the Covenant.
To what I added of Master Marshalls Confession, That he granted the formal reason of the Jews, being circumcised, was the command, and the covenant he makes only a motive, Defense page 182. Master Blake speaks thus. I wonder what need there is of an argument to force such a Confession. The reason I say, why Jews were circumcised, and Christians baptized, is the command; were there a thousand Covenants and no institution of a sign or seal, such a sign or seal, there could have been no circumcision, no baptism. The command is the ground, and the Covenant is the Directory to whom application is to be made: we say, all in Covenant are entitled to the seal for admission; but we presuppose an institution.
I reply, If the formal reason why the Jews were circumcised were the Command, and the Covenant only the motive, then the command was the differencing reason; for the form distinguisheth, and the formal reason is the reason which differenceth. Motives are not directions what to do, but commands, the same motive may be to contrary commands. The Command is the Directory to whom application is to be made both of circumcision and baptism. The command doth express not only the act to be done, but also the persons to whom. The Covenant is no Directory to whom circumcision, or baptism is to be applied. The whole Covenant of Circumcision is expressed, Genesis 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But there is not a word who are to be circumcised, but after. There is not the least hint in the institution of baptism, Matthew chap. 28. verse 19. Mark chap. 16. verse 15. of any Covenant God makes to man. To imagine God commanded circumcision and baptism, and yet not to tell who are to be baptized or circumcised but from the Covenant, which no man knoweth to whom it belongs, is to imagine God gives a blind command, which no wise Master would do. It is not true, all in covenant are entitled to the seal for admission, for then females, males under eight days old, believers out of Abraham's house, Proselytes of the gate had been entitled to Circumcision, for they were in Covenant as well as those who were to be circumcised.
And it is as certain on the other side that Ishmael, Esau, the infants of strangers bought by Abraham, with his money, were to be circumcised, though they were not in Covenant, and therefore I infer it as certain, that being in covenant or interest in the covenant, or having the promises of the Covenant, Genesis 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. or the new Covenant in Christ's blood Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. and 10.16, 17. or any other Evangelical Covenant, all, or some of them made to a person did not entitle a person to circumcision, nor doth now to baptism, nor can be without the command or institution of Christ, or primitive example, a rule, Directory or sufficient warrant for any to baptize a person, nor acquit him from profaning and abusing baptism, and therefore there is no such reality of connection between the Covenant and seal, that this proposition is thereby proved true, All in Covenant are intitled to the seal for admission: or this false, some of those who are not in covenant are intitled to the seal (as they call it) for admission: and Master Blake's censure of my exceptions as frivolous trifles shows his weakness in disputes, there being very little in his arguings or answers but flirts, quips, dictates and impertinencies.
What he adds of my grants discovers the like vanity; For though I say that believers, and disciples are to be baptized, not barely on their faith and knowledge, but upon the Command to baptize such, yet how it follows which Mr. Blake saith, so that the command is with reference to the Covenant, with reference to the interest in the Covenant, is to me a mere inconsequence, unless he imagine the command and Covenant all one, which to assert were ridiculous. And who will believe that I attribute as much to the Covenant respective to this seal, when I say Examen page the seventieth eight, That the common privilege of Circumcision belonging to the Jews, did not arise from the Covenant of grace, according to the substance of it, but according to the administration that then was, as Master Marshall to the Command, when he said, The Command was the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised.
When I do not at all make circumcision to arise from the Covenant as any reason of the duty, much less the formal reason of it, but as from the occasion of it, whereas Master M. makes the command, the very formal reason of the existence of the duty.
SECT. XXI. The ten Exceptions of the first part of my Review against Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38, 39. for the connection between Covenant and seal are vindicated from Master Blake's answer, Vindic. Foederis, ch. 37, 43.
MR. Blake adds some snatches against my ten exceptions to Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38, 39. To the first which was, that the promise is not proved to be that Genesis 17.7. and Acts 3.25. Acts 2.30. lead us to some other, he saith, when a promise is mentioned and a seal, any man but he will presently understand that promise, which is ratified by such a Seal.
To which I reply. Where is there mention of a seal? or of a promise sealed or to be sealed as he speaks? If there were, is there no other promise to be ratified by such a Seal but that? Did circumcision seal no other promise but that? Doth the Scripture give the least hint of sealing that promise, Gen. 17.7. understood as Paedobaptists expound it, that God would be a God to every believer, and to his seed, in respect at least of visible Church-membership, yea though he be a believer only by profession? They use to tell us that Circumcision seals the righteousness of faith, from Rom. 4.11. But to seal this and to seal the promise, Gen. 17.7. (as Paedobaptists do rack rather than expound the words) are as much different as are the payment of Gold, and lead. Have not learned men expounded the promise, some of that mentioned, ver. 38. of the gift of the holy Ghost, some of other promises? why then doth Master Blake so ineptly intimate me to be singular in my conceit? why doth he so falsely insinuate that no more than bare words can be found for my exposition; when I bring two texts to confirm it, and Mr. Bl. saith not a word to infirm my alleging them? what he refers me to in his 37. ch. and Mr. Cobbet shall be examined in its place.
To the second, which was that [the promise is Acts 2.39] is expounded,
1. of a promise of a thing to come, whereas it may seem rather from Acts 13.32, 33. to be meant of a promise already fulfilled.
2. That the thing to come promised was some outward privilege to be conferred on them and their children.
Mr. Blake saith, yet he quotes no man for this exposition of a thing to come, but on the contrary quotes Mr. Cobbet in the margin against it. It is meant of a present right; for as yet they were not broken off from the olive, nor Gentiles graffed in.
Answ. 1. That Paedobaptists do understand the words Acts 2.39. of a promise of something to come appears, 1. in that many of them make it the same with this, I will be a God to a believer, and his seed.
So Master Marshall Defense page 126. Mr. Drew ubi supra, Mr. Blake out of Calvin, Vindic. foederis page 270. and others. Now a promise that he will be a God to them is a promise of a thing to come. 2. In that they disclaim the supplement [is fulfilled] as Mr. Cobbet Just. Vindic. part 1. ch. 2. sect. 3. and usually, as Beza, the English Directory, Mr. Blake and others expound it, the promise is made, which proves it is, according to them, meant of something to come, not of a thing past, for if it were it should be a promise fulfilled. Mr. Cobbet, it is true, saith, the promise in praesenti is to you in respect of external right; but then he must needs mean it, that the promise was in praesenti made of external right to come, or else he must mean it of a promise fulfilled, which he denies.
And for the other, that Paedobaptists do expound it of outward privilege to be conferred on them, and their children, besides Mr. Cobbets words cited, and other in the same section; Mr. Hudson Vindic. page 223. saith, This promise Acts 2.39. is that external covenant to which baptism doth belong, and the Ashford Disputants for Infants-baptism, grant, That the promise of the eternal inheritance, life and salvation is not made, much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith, but upon our own personal belief, and obedience, but the promise of outward privileges, and of right to participation of Ordinances as to be baptized, and inchurcht, this belongs to children upon their parents faith, and in this last sense it is, that Peter says the promise is to you and your children, &c. i. e. you and yours have the privilege of right to baptism.
To my third exception, that [to you] is taken, as if it were meant of those persons to whom he spake, as then believers, and under that formal consideration, Mr. Blake saith, I do not interpret it of any present explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah; but now this conviction, that so evidently appeared, did evidence them to be in an hopeful way, and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdom of God, and therefore he takes his opportunity, and presseth it on to come into the way of believers in Christ Jesus.
Answ. This grant is sufficient, first, to justify my exception, secondly, to overthrow Mr. Blake's, and other Paedobaptists inference from this text,
1. That in this text the Covenant in New Testament times is held out in this latitude to believers and their seed, Vindic. foed. chap. 37. For if they had not any present, explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah, then they were not believers.
2. That this speech [the promise is to you, and to your children] is equipollent to this promise [I will be a God to believers and their seed] for if they were not then believers, it had been false if the Apostle had said as they would have him, the promise that God will be a God to believers and their seed, is in praesenti to you and your children, when they were not believers.
To my fourth Exception, that [your children] is expounded of their infant-children; yea it is carried as if of them only, he saith, to this is sufficient spoken, ch. 37. I shall therefore look back to that chapter, page 270. he saith, Acts 2.39. an effectual call cannot be mean • (which the Apostle calls a call according to purpose) proper only to the elect, so the visible seal would be limited to invisible members. But this is not true, for then the being of the promise would be limited to them, not baptism.
It is false which Master Blake supposeth, that baptism is limited to them to whom the promise is, and that the being of the promise to a person entitles to his baptism. He saith; it is a call unto such a Church-state as the whole •• tion of the Jews did then enjoy as the first-born in the family. To which I reply, The whole Nation of the Jews enjoyed a Church-state, by which they were joined in one national society under an high Priest, and other Priest offering sacrifice; at the Temple, whither the Church-members were to bring their gifts, and to observe the Levitical rites. It is a dotage with a witness to conceive that Peter meant Acts 2.39. that the promise was to them or those afar off, whom God should call to this Church-state. It is certain that the calling of the Jews and Gentiles, by the Gospel was to remove them out of that society, and Church-state, as appears by v. 40. nor did the Apostles ever associate the Christians to the Jews as Proselytes to them, nor did they ever draw them into any such Church-state, as the Jews had to take in a whole Nation, City, or Family, comprehending Infants into the Christian church, but only so many as believed as v. 41.42, &c. show: yea to call them to such a Church-state as the Jews had, had been to call them not to baptism, but to circumcision and the observation of Moses Law. The call of God, Acts 2.39. is no other then what is mentioned in the New Testament to be Saints, to his Kingdom and Glory, to the fellowship of his son by his word and spirit, or one of them at least, yea the promise being meant of Christ, which Master Blake doth not deny, as will appear in that which follows, it can be expounded only of those that are effectually called, since to them only Christ belongs: on the other side to understand it of a call unto such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jews did then enjoy, is to limit the promise to Jewish proselytes, or to national Christian Churches, which is a wild conceit, unfit for a serious and sober Divine. But Master Blake goeth on from whence this Argument may be drawn, those to whom the Covenant of Promise appertains have a right to baptism, But the Covenant of Promise appertains to men in a Church-state and Condition and to their Children. The Major cannot be denied by any that will not make themselves the Apostles opposites. The Minor proposition is now only to be considered, that the Covenant of promise to men in a Church-state and Condition is in that latitude as to comprize their Children, For which the words of the Apostle are full and clear. To you is the promise made, and to your Children, on which Calvin rightly comments. Peter observes (saith he) a due order when he assigns the first place of honor to the Jews, that it takes in Children, it depends on the word of promise Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, where God joins children with their parents in the privilege of Adoption, where Adoption is taken in the Apostles sense, Rom. 9.5. to the inheritance of privileges belonging to all Church-members, as he after explains himself.
Ans. The Major is ambiguous, and in some sense it is true, and in some sense false. It is true in this sense, Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by their believing, and Covenanting to be Christ's Disciples, appertains, have a right to baptism. But in this sense (in which Master Blake seems to understand it, for he comprehends Infants in the Covenant) Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by God's Acts of Promise, whether of saving Grace or Church-privileges, appertains without their personal believing or covenanting, have a right to baptism, it is false. Nor is the Contradictory thereto opposit to anything the Apostle saith, who doth indeed exhort to repentance and baptism, but doth not from the promise without each persons repentance ascribe a right to baptism to any parent or child, the promise is not urged by him to declare a right to baptism of itself without repentance, but to encourage to repentance and baptism into the Name of Christ as their duty. The Minor also is ambiguous, it being uncertain what he means by the Covenant of Promise, whether the Covenant whereby the persons promise to God, or God to them; and if of this latter, whether the Covenant wherein God promiseth to them, be of saving-graces, or of Church-privileges; if he mean it of the former, & understand it universally, it is manifestly false, contrary to Scripture and experience; whether the Church-state be in respect of the visible or invisible Church, there is no such promise of God, that if the Parent be in a Church-state or condition, so as to be elect, or true believer, much less if he be only in the visible Church, that his child, as his child, shall be in the Covenant of saving grace, have Christ, his Spirit, remission of sins, and life everlasting by him. Nor is it true of the promise of Church-privileges, that God will take the child of him who is in a Church-state and condition for a visible Church-member, capable of the initial seat, (because he is his child) without the child's personal faith and repentance. Nor do I know of any Covenant of Promise now under the Gospel of such outward Church-privileges, but take it to be a faction of Paedobaptists; nor is there in the Apostles words anything to prove the Minor. For neither doth the text say, the promise is that, Gen. 17.7. nor that it is made, but only [is] nor doth say, it is to you as in a Church-state and condition, and to your children as the children of men in a Church-state and condition. And for Calvin's words neither are they plain for Mr. Bls. purpose, nor if they were, should I take them for an oracle, but should expect better proof then his or Master Bls. sayings. As for the Adoption, Rom. 9.5. it is clear from the text, and confessed by Master Rutherford, Due right of Presbytery ch. 4. Sect. 4. pag. 192. to have been a prerogative of the Jews, as was the giving of the Law, the descent of Christ, &c. and therefore it is untruly suggested by Master Blake to be an inheritance of privileges belonging to all Church-members, or that the Apostle doth after so explain himself; and Master Blake continues his want of dictating without proof. He next takes on him to answer objections. One is, that the children are the same with sons and daughters mentioned, v. 17. from Joel 2.28. and consequently the promise is of the spirit of prophecy, and appertaining to none but those of age and capacity for prophecy. To which he answers, 1. That the promise cannot be that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost in that visibie way, because it is enlarged to all the Lord shall call: but all these have not the Holy Ghost in that extraordinary way, nor any promise of it. I confess, this answer is good against those that expound the words thus, the promise of the gift of prophecy, Joel 2.28. is to you and your children, and to all afar off, as the subjects to whom this gift is promised; for then it would not be true, since all had not that gift, 1 Cor. 12.28. yet it may be true in this sense. The promise of the gift of the Spirit in that visible way, is fulfilled to you and your children, and all afar off called by God, as the persons who had benefit by it, and so were the Finis cui of those gifts promised as having the benefit of them, though not the subjects in whom they were. 2. Saith Master Blake, however the promise be extended, yet that promise is on condition of their baptism, and is an encouragement to baptism, and in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of circumcision. To which I say, 1. If the promise be interpreted so as to belong to all that are believers, and call on the Name of the Lord, as here follows, then the promise is to the elect only, and the call into the visible Church, which Master Blake before denied. 2. Though extraordinary gifts were given after baptism often, yet they were given also before, Acts 10.44, &c. and therefore I doubt it is not true which Master Blake saith, that promise of extraordinary gifts is on condition of their baptism, nor doth the text assert it. 3, As the promise is an encouragement to baptism, so it is to repentance, which is first required afore baptism by the Apostle. 4. There is not a word in the text, Acts 2.38, 39. which yields a proof of any of those positions which Master Bl. so importunely obtrudes, 1. That baptism is there urged as a sign and seal of the promise. 2. That they were encouraged to baptism in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision. 3, That the Scripture delivereth, and the Apostle urgeth the promise as to men and their posterity, to them and theirs, so as that God promiseth to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed. 4. That the Apostle holds this out to draw them on to this seal of the Covenant, to accept baptism on the same terms that Abraham did circumcision.
But Master Blake his chiefest opposition about this text is against me, and therefore he bends himself against the fourth Section of my Exercit. And first. he excepts against my words, that the promise made (which reading I then followed, but since like rather the supplement [fulfilled] is the sending of Jesus Christ and blessing by him, as is expounded, Acts 3.25, 26. Acts 13.32. Rom. 15.8, 9. Thus I answer, it is true that Jesus Christ is the most eminent mercy promised, and may be called the promise virtualiter, being the ground of all promises, and therefore some Interpreters have mentioned the gift of Christ on this occasion. But it is plain that God's Covenant and this gift are to be distinguished; Christ is promised in priority to the Jew, before the Gentile; The Jew then is taken into Covenant before this gift of Christ can be of them expected: It is therefore the covenant itself (entered with parent and child, root and branch) that is here meant, as Calvin in the words before observes, from which the giving of Christ in the flesh follows. And therefore Diodati fully pitches upon the true sense of it, seeing as you are Abraham's children, you are within the Covenant, you ought to acknowledge Christ to be the head and foundation of the covenant. The covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is here meant, which from Abraham had been the Jews privilege, Rom. 9.
To which I reply, If Christ may be called the promise virtually, then it is no obscuring the text, to interpret the being of the promise to them of the sending of Jesus Christ and blessing by him, nor doth this hinder the distinguishing of God's covenant and this gift, or the promising of Christ to the Jew before the Gentile, or the Jews taking into covenant before this gift of Christ can be expected of them, or that the giving of Christ in the flesh followed the covenant itself entered with parent and child, root and branch, meaning Abraham and his seed, as the Apostle, Gal. 3.16. understands it; and therefore in all this there is nothing brought by Master Blake, which makes void my interpretation, but confirms it rather. But for such a covenant as Master Blake imagines of God's being God to every believer and his infant child, in respect of Church-membership in the Church visible of Christians, and other outward Church-privileges, I find no word in all the Scripture. And for Diodati his words, if he so meant what he speaks of their being in covenant, because they were Abraham's children by natural descent, he answered from the sense of the place; but Master Blake hath more to say to me.
I had said, the limitation, as many as the Lord our God shall call, shows that the promise belongs to them, not simply as Jews, but as called of God, which is more expressly affirmed, Acts 3.26. To this Master Blake answers, I wonder how it came into Master T. his head to call this application a limitation; it plainly enough speaks his boldness in dealing with the Scriptures; had the Apostle said, to you is the promise made, and to your seed, in case God shall give you a call, he had spoke to Master T. his purpose: but saying, to you and to as many as the Lord your God shall call, it plainly shows that he does not limit, but amplify the mercy, extending it not barely to the Jews (who in present by reason of fruition of ordinances were a people near to the Lord, Psal. 148.14. but also to the Gentiles, who, Ephes. 2.17. were afar off.
To which I reply, A limitation of a proposition is the determining of it according to what the predicate agrees to the subject, or doth not agree, as Keckerm. syst. Log. l. 2. sect. 1. c. 4. And thus do the words [as many as the Lord (not as Master Blake, your, but) our God shall call] limit the copulative proposition [the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off] determining to which of each of these, and in what respect the promise is to them. And to take away Master Blake's wonderment (the fruit of ignorance, and often of folly) which he and his brother Baxter do often express about me, that they may describe me as some strange example of God's judgment in blasting my intellectuals, I will tell him how it came into my head to call those words a limitation of the proposition. First, the placing of the words at the end of the proposition, did give me occasion to take them for a limitation. Secondly, the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as many as] is a limitting term, appropriating the thing said to those subjects forenamed, who were so qualified as to be called by the Lord. Thirdly, (which was the prime inducement) I conceived the speech of Peter had not been true without that limitation, And this I long since told Master M. in my Exam. part. 3. Sect. 6. pag. 60. If the promise be of saving graces, if of Christ sent, if of the outward ordinances of baptism, &c. if of the Holy Ghost in extraordinary gifts, it is none of these ways true without that limitation. For neither God promised saving graces, nor outward ordinances, nor extraordinary gifts, nor sent Christ to them, their children, or all that are afar off without calling them, and every of them. And but that Master Bls. Master Bs. and such like wonderers heedlessness and peevishness are no strange thing to me, I should wonder that Master Blake should no better heed my words in my Examen, nor Diodati his words (who, he saith, fully pitches upon the true sense of it) which in his Annot. on Acts. 2.39. are these, shall call, namely by his Gospel. So he doth restrain the Israelites to whom the promises are directed only to those, who by God's gift believe in Christ; see Rom. 9.8. Gal. 4.28. which had Master Blake faithfully set down instead of some other words I find in him, his Reader might have discerned how false it is, that the promise is to an infant child of a believer, as his child, without calling; and have discerned that it is not my device only, but that which others before me apprehended, and so no more boldness in my dealing with the Scriptures then was meet, and the Apostles words to have this plain sense, the promise is to you, being called of God; and to your children, being called of God; and to all afar off, being called of God; and to no other, And to requite Master Blake, I may more truly say, It's a wonder how it came into Master Blake's head to call this limitation an amplification. For though the words [to all that are afar off] contain an amplification of the mercy either to the posterity of the Jews, or to those in the dispersion, or to the Gentiles (of which I will not now dispute) yet the words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] are a plain limitation of his speech, as I have proved. But Master Blake adds of me, 2. In that he saith, this promise belongs to them not simply as Jews, but as called, is a full contradiction; A Jew uncalled (at this time before the Kingdom was taken from them) is as much as a convert unconverted, or a Gentile disciple undiscipled: In case he think to come off by limiting it to an effectual call, the Scripture by himself quoted doth evidently contradict it; Christ came to give them that effectual calling, and not only to those that were thus called.
Ans. Master Blake's charge of contradictions is as frivolous as his wonderment. Master Blake's conceit of a calling into such a Church-state, as the whole nation of the Jews did then enjoy, is but a dream of his own, for which he hath not one Scripture nor other proof. The calling is to communion with Christ, and an effectual calling, else the proposition were not true; nor is there any contradiction in any of the places by me quoted, to this exposition, the promise of Christ is fulfilled for the remission of your sins, and your children's, and all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall effectually call, and no other; nor hath Master Blake shown any. For though Christ came to give effectual calling, yet it is true also, he came to give remission only to those that were thus called; nor is there any opposition, much less contradiction in those speeches.
Master Blake goes on. He yet said, Peter doth exhort to repentance and baptism together, and in the first place persuades to repentance, then to baptism, which shows repentance to be in order before baptism. To which he answers, not by denying it, but by giving a reason of it, because they had crucified Christ, &c. To which I reply, this grant shows that they had not right to baptism without repentance, though the promise were to them, they were in the Church-state of the Jews, &c. and consequently Master Blake's proposition false. Those to whom the Covenant of promise appertains (in his sense) have a right to baptism. What he adds, And yet he shows that they and their seed are under the promise of God, and puts them into a way in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender, in his present way of administration, to be continued his people still in Covenant, and that (as is plainly enough signified) that they might enjoy it in their former latitude to them and to their children; that the Jews (even those that had not yet embraced Christ) were not yet dispossessed of the promise, but stood as a people of God in visible covenant, and their children, in the sense in which Master Blake means is false; and yet were it true, it is against Master Blake's proposition, since notwithstanding this being in covenant, yet were they not admitted or to be admitted to baptism without repentance. He adds, Master T. hath yet this evasion, and saith, the text speak • not expressly of infants, but of children indefinitely; and if infants be not children, we will be content that they be cast out of covenant, and will hold no plea for their Church-membership and baptism.
Ans. As infants are children, so are men and women of twenty, or more years old, and therefore the term (children) unless it be proved to be taken universally or particularly of infants, the Covenant-state (as they call it) though we should grant such an estate there meant, would not be thence concluded. And yet infants were to be circumcised not simply because they were Abraham's seed, nor because in Covenant, but by reason of God's command. And though a woman and disciple be not Synonyma, yet women being numbered among disciples, it is an express example of women's coming together to break bread, which mentions the disciples breaking bread; nor was I at all put to it, much less hard put to it, when this came in for an answer. For without this an answer was given before to the Argument, and this was added as an over-plus, and so was that which Master Blake nibbles at in that which follows.
I had said the text speaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all, (of whom we are) but of the children of the Jews; and therefore if that promise be extended to infants, which doth not appear, the promise is to be expounded so as to note something peculiar to the Jews infants. To this Master Blake thus saith, If the Gospel held out any such transcending privileges appertaining to the seed of the Jews above the Gentiles, Master T. may do well to produce a text for it, otherwise we shall take it for granted from Saint Paul, that there is none at all, that there is neither Greek, nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free.
To which I reply, there is no need I should show any such privilege held out in the Gospel to the Jews seed above the Gentiles, but that Master Blake should show such privilege as he speaks of, to the Jews seed held out in the Gospel. But this I say, if he will have the text, Acts. 2.39. to be for his purpose, he must show that the children of the Gentiles (of whom there is not a word) are mentioned as those to whom the promise is as well as the children of the Jews, which he thus attempts.
And when the Apostle adds, to those that are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call, he plainly means the Gentiles, as appears, comparing Ephes. 2. And though I take not the boldness to add to the words, and to their children, as Master T. challenges Doctor H. yet it is clear, that the same is understood there in reference to the children of the Gentiles, that is expressed before to the children of the Jews. If any shall grant an inheritance to Titius and his heirs forever, and to Gaius, everyone will understand that the heirs of Gaius are meant as well as the heirs of Titius, especially if it can be proved out of the grant itself, that the privilege conveyed to Gaius, is as ample as that to Titius. We can prove the privileges granted to the Gentiles in the Gospel to be equal to those granted to the Jews; when the Jews children are under the promise with their Parents, the children of believing Gentiles cannot be excluded.
To which I reply, that it appeared not plainly to Beza, Annot. in locum, that by those afar off, Acts 2.39. are meant the Gentiles, but rather the posterity of the Jews, which should be in after Generations, or those in the dispersion, among the Gentiles. For it seems unlikely that Peter did then consider or declare the calling of the Gentiles, who was so averse from preaching to Cornelius, Asts 10. or that it would have been born with them, when even the brethren expostulated with him for that fact, Acts. 11.3. nor do I think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acts. 2.39. the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephes. 2.13. this latter noting manifestly remoteness from God in respect of knowledge and communion, the former remoteness from them to whom he spake, either in descent or distance of place. However were it resolved that the Gentiles are meant, Acts. 2.39. as many Interpreters conceive, yet it is too much boldness to add to the text [and to their children] and not much less in Master Bl. that it is understood, when there is neither word in the text, nor defect of sense without it, nor any ancient copy, which necessitate that addition or supplement. And for Master Blake's case in law, it is not opposite. For, Acts 2.39. there is no mention of a grant to them and their heirs forever, but only a promise to them and their children, which there is no necessity, nor I think intention in Peter in those words to extend to any other then were then existent. But if it were opposite, yet so far as I know their minds, either by such experience in law-cases, o • converse with Lawyers, (with whom I sometimes lived) I presume they would say otherwise then Master Blake, that a grant of an inheritance to Titius and his heirs forever, and to Gaius, without mentioning his heirs, is not a grant to the heirs of Gaius, no not though it could be proved the privilege conveyed to Gaius is as ample as that to Titius. As for what Master Blake tells us, he and others can prove of the privileges of the Gentiles granted in the Gospel equal to the Jews, I yield it, if meant of believing Jews and Gentiles, and saving spititual blessings in Christ, according to that, Ephes. 3.6. But meant (as Master Blake would have it) of visible Church-membership, and the initial seal, I take it to be a vain brag, neither he nor any other having yet proved it, or that the Jews or Gentiles children are or were universally under the pronise of the Covenant of Grace, which is Evangelical, with their believing Parents, and by reason of their faith, I know no more about Acts 2.38, 39. in that ch. to be answered. I return to his answer to my exceptions ch. 43. pag. 393. he thus dictates after his fashion, Children as theirs whether they be called or no, is (he knows with us) a contradiction; children are called in their Parents call, and we say they are in covenant, the promise is made to them, they are visible Church-members till they reject the covenant, and deny their membership.
To which I say, I know many things to be taken for truths and contradictions with Paedobaptists, which were neither truths, nor contradictions: but this conceit that [Jews children uncalled, as calling is meant, Acts 2.39.] is a contradiction. I had not so mean an opinion of Master Blake's and other Paedobaptists intellectuals, as to imagine they would own it, till Master Blake vented this foppery, which how vain it is was shown above. In like manner I was secure of ever meeting with such a foolery as this of Master Blake, children are called in their Parents call, till I read the like in his brother Baxter's vain-mocktitled-book plain Script. proof, &c. ch. 3. that he that converteth the Parent, maketh both him and his infants disciples: to which I have said somewhat in my Review, part. 2. sect. 12. And for the other speech that they are in covenant, the promise is made to them, they are visible Church-members till they reject the Covenant, and deny their membership, it contains sundry inconsistencies with Paedobaptists hypotheses. For first, they say, the children of believers are in covenant, and visible Church-members as theirs▪ children as theirs, whether they be called or no is (he knows with us) a contradiction, saith Master Blake here. If so, then they are in • ovenant, and visible Church-members while theirs, Quatenus ipsum includes de omni & semper. But they are so when they reject the covenant, the relation to their parents ceaseth not then; therefore neither their Church-membership, if the hypothesis be true. Secondly, they suppose the visible Church-membership of believers children, is by virtue of God's promise to be their God, Gen. 17.7. and this promise requires no other condition but the parents faith, no condition from the 〈◊〉 for then it could not agree to infants; therefore if the parent be a believer 〈◊〉 the Child be not a visible Church-member, God keeps not his promise which he hath made, according to their hypotheses, and so they do make God a liar, which is blasphemy. Thirdly, they magnify the privilege of infants visible Church membership, they inveigh against anti-Paedobaptists, as robbing them thereof, and parents of their comforts, though they grant the Parents as much ground of hope for them, as the Paedobaptists grounds can truly give them; and for reality of privilege, setting aside an empty title and rite as to them in infancy, they grant them visible Church-membership, when they profess the faith, which in respect of Church-communion Paedobaptists themselves grant them, not before; but mock both Parents and children, telling them they are in covenant, and visible Church-members by their parents faith without their own, yet denying them Church-communion, which is due to every visible Church-member, without their own personal avouching the faith; besides, their injurious dealing with them in their mock-baptism of them, when it is not due, nor does them any good, and denying baptism to them, yea, persecuting them for seeking it after when it is due, and might do them much good by engaging them to Christ, and thereupon assure Christ to be theirs.
My fifth exception Master Blake passeth over as fore-spoken to, ch. 37. which hath answer before, and my sixth as falling in with my tenth, where I shall overtake him. To my seventh, wherein I excepted against Master Stephens for holding the command [Be baptized everyone of you] in a covenant-sense as he calls it to be, as if he had said, Be baptized you and your children, which I said to be a new devised non-sense, such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by. To this saith Master Blake, I am sure here is a non-sense device, to talk of Dictionaries; does Calepin or Scapula, Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seal, promises and Sacraments?
I reply, that speech is non-sense, in which the words used to signify that which the speaker would signify by them, do not in the use of them so signify. But this speech [Be baptized everyone of you] doth not in the use of the words signify [be baptized you and your children] therefore that speech so used in that which Master Stephens calls Covenant-sense is non-sense. This appears by Dictionaries, in none of which [everyone of you] is as much as [you and your children] Therefore that speech in that sense is a new devised non-sense. As for Master Blake's words, either they are non-sense, or as bad. For first, to talk of Dictionaries is not a device, an action of the mind; but a speech, an action of the tongue or hand; and therefore it is non-sense to call it so. Secondly, to talk of Dictionaries is not non-sense; for then all speech of Dictionaries should be non-sense, and so all the verses before. R • ders and others Dictionaries should be non-sense. But to speak of Dictonaries otherwise then the words signify, so as the meaning cannot be perceived by them, which he cannot say of my speech of Dictionaries. As for Master Blake's question, it is frivolous, as much of the rest of his writing here is. For though Dictionaries do not help us to compare covenant and seal, promises and Sacraments, yet they do help us to know the sense of words, and discover to us the non-sense of words used otherwise then their signification is. Master Blake himself in the 43. ch. sect. 2. refers me to the Dictionary about the word Pax. To my eighth exception that there is not a word of any scruple in the text, as some have imagined, if we be baptized ourselves, and not our children, they will be in worse case then in the former dispensation, in which they had the seal of the covenant; nor is it likely that they were solicitous about such an imaginary poor privilege of their children. He saith, I am of his mind, that there was no such scruple in their heads. Master T. his unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of the Covenant was not then in being, though I think the reason he gives is little to purpose, yet I say, this scruple raised by Anti-paedobaptists, and heightened by Master T. as in many other, so in this text is removed.
Ans. My exception then stands good against those who make that scruple the occasion of Peters mentioning their children. And for my reason, Master Blake had done better to give a reason of his censure, then barely to say he thinks it to little purpose. It is his calumny that I have any conceit of casting the seed out of the covenant, and his conceit that the scruple mentioned is in this text removed, hath been shown to be but his dream.
My ninth exception was that Paedobaptists make [for v. 39.] to infer a right to baptism, whereas it infers only a duty, which is proved in that [v. 38. baptized] is in the Imperative Mood. To this saith Master Blake, Master T. does grossly abuse his judgment in this way of refutation, as though the right in which they stood, could be no Topic, from which in a moral way the Apostle might persuade them to baptism; when Shecaniah persuaded Ezra to the reformation of the marriage of strange wives in these words: Arise, for the matter belongeth to thee, Ezra 10.4. here was a motive in the moral way to call upon him to do it, and an argument inferred, that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to set upon it. And to my reason he saith, he hath quite forgotten, that the words holding out their right are in the Indicative Mood. For the promise is to you and your children. And here is a notable correction of the Apostle, he should have said, if this had been his meaning, you must be baptized; and he sai • s, Arise, and be baptized.
Ans. Sure I am Master Blake doth most grossly abuse me, in insinuating as if by my refutation, the right in which they stood could be no Topic, from which in a moral way the Apostle might persuade them to baptism, when I proved that the Apostle did not from v. 39. infer a right to baptism, which in a legal way they might claim, but a duty, to which in a moral way he persuades. And therefore he shoots wide from the mark, when he goes about to prove that a right may be a motive in a moral way to a duty. And yet as if he could write nothing to the point, his own allegation, Ezra 10.4. is not to his own purpose, the motive as himself alledgeth, it being not a right to a privilege; but a command from God. The like roving talk is in his answer to my reason. For whereas I alleged that verse 38. a right is not inferred from verse 39. but a duty, because [be baptized, v. 38.] is not in the Indicative, but the Imperative Mood, tells me the term [is v. 39.] is in the Indicative Mood, which is nothing to my objection, but like as in the contention between two deaf men in Sir Thomas Mores epigram, he that was charged with theft answered, his mother was at home. The like random talk is in his insinuation of my notable correction of the Apostle, who corrected not the Apostle, but shown the Paedobaptists conceit incongruous to the Apostles words; He himself seems (I think out of heedlessness) to correct the Apostle, when he speaks thus, And he • aies, Arise and be baptized, which are not Peters words, Acts. 2.38. but the words of Ananias to Saul, Acts. 22.16.
My tenth exception was, usually Paedobaptists in their paraphrases put not in anything to answer [repent, v. 38.] which is true, though Master Stephens be alleged in my sixth exception, as paraphrasing it by covenant, for yourselves and your children, Master Blake grants the Apostle presseth to a duty, and such as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers: If so, then he doth not infer a right to bap • ism barely from their interest in the promise. What he saith, right and duty very well stand together, and that the Apostle fitly makes use of their interest as a motive, I deny not. It is true, the Apostle mentioned more to whom the promise was then, he then persuaded to repent, for he mentions the promise as pertaining to the absent, or unborn; but he persuades none to be baptized but the penitent, nor mentions any to whom the promise was, but the called of God.
To my Argument from the precedency of repentance to baptism, Acts. 2.38. against infant-baptism, he answers as before, ch. 37. to which I have replied before. As for Master Stephens his paraphrase avowed by Master Blake as the Apostles meaning, that if the Jews who had crucified Christ, would receive him as the particular Messiah, the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation, it is far from the Apostles mind. For the Apostle doth not make the eontinuance of the promise as the benefit consequent on their receiving Christ, and the receiving of Christ the condition of continuance of the promise: but the being of the promise is alleged as a thing already existent, nor is there any likelihood that the Apostle Peter would urge them to so hard duties as repentance, receiving Christ by so slender a reason as the continuance of the promise of visible Church-membership and baptism to them and their infant children, yea, the text itself shows that the things by which he would persuade them to receive Christ, were the assurance of remission of sins, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and the alleging the promise, v 39 is to take away the great objection against these great benefits from their crucifying of Christ▪ and their imprecation on them and their children, Matth. 27.25. If then Master Stephens build his word of command to baptize father and child, on that paraphrase, he builds on a foundation which will not hold. Master Blake adds; To this the word repent refers, as may be made plain. But what he means by this assertion I do not well understand, it being ambiguous, what he means by [this] whether the paraphrase of Master Stephens, that the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation, if they would receive Jesus as the particular Messiah, or the word of command to baptize father and child, and in like manner what kind of reference he means, whether as a medium to prove it, or as a motive to it. If he mean the same with that which his allegations seem to tend to, his meaning is, that the promise of visible Church-state, was to the Jews as they had been formerly, if they did receive Christ, and the term [repent] refers to it as the motive. Now though I grant that the promise, Acts. 2.39. is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v▪ 38. yet I deny such a promise to be meant, v. 39. as Mr. Bl. and Mr. Stephens fancy. Nor do any of Mr. Blake's allegatione prove it. For Acts 3.25. doth not speak of such a covenant as Master Blake means, but of that Evangelical covenant wherein God promised Christ and saving blessings by him. Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant only, but also of the Prophets. Now the Prophets there are the same with all the Prophets, v. 24. and those Jews to whom, Peter spake, were no otherwise their children, then in that they had been raised up of, and sent to that nation in their predecessors times, and they are in like manner called children of the Covenant, because they were the posterity of those ancestors, specially Abraham, to whom that Covenant was made. But this doth not prove that they were then God's visible people, that the Covenant of visible Church-state did belong to them and their children, or that such a covenant is meant, Acts 2.39. What Master Blake allegeth from Matth. 8.12. Matth. 21.43. that they were in danger to be cast off, doth prove rather the contrary, thet the nation or body of the Jewish people who had rejected Christ, were not in covenant with God; and although those particular persons, Acts 2.37. to whom Peter spake, v. 38, 39. were more awakened then others, yet they could not be then said to be in the covenant of visible Church-state, being not then believers in Christ. What Master Blake allegeth and infers from Matth. 21.31, 32. Luke 7.29, 30. I assent to, but know not what it make • for his purpose. Yea, me thinks his calling baptism to which Peter exhorted, entrance into a new covenant-way, crosseth Master Stephens paraphrase of continuing the same promise to them and their children. In his third allegation he misreports me, as if I excluded all consideration of right in the Jews and their children from those words which are, Acts 2.39. Whereas that which I said was this, that from the promise, Acts 2.39. (what ever right be imported by it) Peter doth not infer their being baptized as a right or privilege, accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim, but as a duty to which he persuades in a moral way. What good interpretation I give of those words, v. 39. suitable to Peters exhortation; I have set down, Exam. pag. 61. Review part. 1. pag. 41. and elsewhere Master Blake, if he could, should have overthrown it. Master Cobbets exception is answered in the next section. Mr. Bl. hath been oft told that the children are mentioned Acts 2.39. because of the imprecation, Matth. 27.25. That the words, Acts 2.38, 39. are carried in that way, that interest in Covenant and Covenant-Seals in Mr. Bls sense formerly ran, is supposed, but not proved by him. That the Jews yet persisting in their adherence to Moses, not embracing Christ, should be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptism, is such a dotage as me thinks Master Blake should disclaim. That the words of the text, Acts 2.39. hold out such a covenant-right, as Master Blake imagines, in Scripture-language, according to the grand charter of heaven, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, is said, but not proved by Master Blake. Whether my exceptions against the Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38, 39. or Master Blake's answers are frivolous shifts the intelligent Reader will perceive. My Antipaedobaptism is enough to refute Master John Goodwin's charge, and my censure of his interpretations others have made good. As for the text Master Blake minds me of, Job 38.2. it may appear from my writings to be more pertinently appliable to himself, then me. Had ever any man shown me so much confused scribbling, so many irrational unproved dictates, so many impertinent allegations in my w • itings as I and Master Blake have shown in his, I would have silenced myself from writing anymore, except a retractation of my former books.
SECT. XXII. Animadversions on ch. 2. part. 1. of Master Thomas Cobbet his just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38, 39. in which his exposition is shown to be vain and mine justified.
TWo points the Paedobaptists do endeavor to confirm from Acts 2.38, 39. 1. That the children of believers are in the Covenant. 2. That this being in covenant gives them right to baptism. This latter point is that which I am yet upon, for which how insufficient that text is hath been shown in answer to Master Blake. My intent was in this place to have said no more of this text till I came to examine Master Ms. 2. Concl. But since Master Blake tells me Master Cobbet hath, p. 23. said that which utterly overthrows my exposition, I shall examine what he saith, Just vindic. ch. 2., part. 1.
Sect. 3. He argues thus against my exposition. First, the promise is to you, that is, fulfilled to you accordingly as made to Abraham, for sending of Christ, &c. there wants Scripture-proof, to make this sense of the promise, is to you, ( i. e. ) is fulfilled to you, nor yet doth that in Acts 3.25, 26. ye are the children of the promise, &c. prove this sense.
Ans▪ My sense of the words is this. The promise of raising up of Christ is now fulfilled to you, that is, for your benefit in the remission of your sins and blessing you, being called of God, and in like manner to your childeen, and to all that are afar off This to be the sense I gather, 1. From Scriptures which seem to me to speak suitably thereto. The first is Peters speech in the same ch. v. 30. of David. Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, &c. Hence I argue. It is most likely that Peter ; v. 39. meant a promise mentioned before, and known to them to whom he spake. Not the promise of the miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost, for reasons to be presently expressed; therefore the promise mentioned, v. 30, 31, 32. The second is Acts 3.18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. whence I argue. It is most likely that sense is best which hath most consonancy with the speech of the same Author to the same persons, to the same purpose, on the like occasion. But the words, Acts 3.18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. are such, and my sense of Acts 2.38, 39. hath most consonancy with those words. For in that speech he exhorts to repentance, v. 19. because that was fulfilled which was foretold by the Prophets, to wit, Christ's resurrection; and v. 25. the covenant mentioned is that of blessing all the kindreds of the earth in Abraham's seed, that is, Christ. And that this was fulfilled, v. 26. in raising up Christ, and this was first to them, to wit, for their benefit, by blessing and converting them: which hath much consonancy with my sense of Acts 2.38, 39. therefore my sense is most likely. A third is Acts 13.32, 33, &c. which though it were spoken by another, to wit, Paul, and to other company, yet by one endued by the same Spirit, to persons in respect of their nation, and estate like, alleging v. 35.36, 37. the same text and almost in the same words which Peter used, Acts 2.27, 31, 32. Now in that place Paul makes the promise to the Fathers to be the raising up of Christ, and speaks of it as to them, in that it was fulfilled, and that for their benefit, the forgiveness of sins, v. 38. and thereupon exhorteth to repentance and embracing of Christ v. 40. Somewhat to like purpose might be alleged from Rom. 15.8, &c. But this is enough to show that my exposition doth not want Scripture-proof. 2. I gather my sense thus. The term [ is ] is in the present tense. This Master Cobbet takes notice of when he saith, that the Apostle doth not say, the promise was to you. The proposition must be understood either as a proposition secundi adjecti, as Logicians speak, the promise is to you, that is, the promise exists to you, so as that the Verb substantive should note mere existence: But this construction [the promise existes or hath existence to you] seems to me to be defective in sense or truth. For the promise being a trans • unt act, was not then existent. Nor were it true, do I conceive to what purpose he should mention the bare existence of the promise, which could be neither comfort to them, nor motive to the duty he pressed. Or else the proposition must be tertii adjecti ; and if so, there must be a supplement either of the term [made] or the term [fulfilled] For I know no third. But not the term [made] For then the sense should be [the promise is now made to you, &c.] but this is not true, the promise was not then made to them, but to their fathers, Acts 13.32. therefore the supplement [fulf • illed] is most probable, it being the term used, Acts 3.18. and 13.33. 3. This exposition of mine seems to me to be right, because it is opposite to the Apostles scope, which was to direct ane erect those affrighted Jews to whom he spake. Now the sense that I give is very proper to comfort them against the horror of their fact in crucifying Christ, and wishing his blood to be on them and their children, Matth. 27.25. by telling them as Peter did, Acts 3.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. that though they did unwittingly kill Christ, yet God had thereby fulfilled his promise, even for their good and their children, even as Joseph when he told his brethren, Gen. 45.5. Gen. 50.19, 20, that though they thought evil against him▪ yet God meant it unto good, to bring to pass; as it is this day to save much people alive. And this sense is a very fit motive to move them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Christ for remission of sins, by testifying that the promise of sending Christ was fulfilled in the raising of Christ from the dead▪ 4. My exposition is confirmed, because all other expositions have less evidence, and are more liable to exceptions. The most likely exposition after that which I give, seems to be that which expounds the promise to be that of giving the holy Ghost in the miraculous gifts, which is called, v. 33. the promise, Luke 24.49. and was mentioned in the next words before, Acts 2.38. And of this I confess the sense may be good thus understood. The promise of giving the holy Ghost, Joel 2.28. is fulfilled in that which ye see and hear, Acts 2.33. to you, and your children, and all that are afar off, that is, for their benefit, by moving them to own Christ. But me thinks if the promise were meant of that gift, it should be meant thus, The promise is to you, that is, God hath promised to give to each of you, &c. this gift of the holy Ghost, because the words immediately before, v. 38. are, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. But thus the proposition should not be true; For all afar off who were called of God, had not that gift, and therefore it was not promised them. Nor had this sense been so fit as to comfort them since that gift might be given▪ and was to persons whom God rejected. As for the other exposition, that the promise is, that God will be a God to them and their children, as to Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. it cannot be the promise meant, Acts 2.39. For, 1. there is not the least intimation in the text of that promise. 2. There was no such promise in all the Scripture, that God would be a God to those to whom Peter then spake, and to their children as their children, no nor such a promise as this, I will be a God to a believer and his seed. For if this promise were made to the seed of every believer, then either God keeps it, or not. If not, then he breaks his word; if he do, then he is a God to them. But that is not true: For neither in saving graces, nor in Ecclesiastical privileges, v.g. Church-membership and baptism, is God a God to everyone that is the seed or natural child of a believer. Yet if it were true, it had been false, being spoken to those Jews, who were not then believers, nor perhaps many of them evet believers in Christ. And it is most false, that the Christian Church-membership and baptism did belong to the Jews as Jews, by virtue of any covenant made with that nation. For then John Baptist did ill to expostulate with them for coming to his baptism, Matth. 3.7. and to dissuade them from alleging they had Abraham to their father, v. 9. and to tell them of another sort of children of Abraham that had more right to it then they. Yea, John the Baptist and the Apostles did ill to require personal repentance and believing, if they had right to such privileges by a promise without them. Nor is the promise said to be to any children, but those that are called of God, and therefore not to infants uncalled, and consequently this Scripture is very ill applied to prove federal holiness of believers infants. Master Cobbet adds, Secondly, it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent. But let it be considered, 1. That the Apostle doth not say, the promise was to you, as in reference to the time of making it to the Fathers, with respect unto them, or in reference to Christ, who was not now to come, but already come, as the Apostle proveth from v. 3, to 37. Nor is it the use of the Scripture, when mentioning promises as fulfilled, to express it thus in the present tense: the promise is to you, or to such and such, but rather to annex some expression that way, which evinceth the same, for which let Rom. 15.8. 1 John 2.25. Ephes. 3.6. Nehe. 9.8, 23. 2 Chron. 6.15. 1 Kings 8.56. Acts 2.16, 17, 33. and 13.32, 33. Josh. 21.45. and 23.14. Matth. 1.22, 23. and 21.4. Luke 1.54, 55, 68, 69. and Psal. 111.9. Rom. 11.26, 27. be considered.
Ans. 1. How the verb substantive [is] in the present tense, and the promise referred to Christ, who was now come, agrees with the words and scope of the Apostle, is already shown. And my sense is like or the same with Master Ms. when he said in his Sermon, pa. 17. The plain strength of the argument, is God hath now remembered his covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed, and the new Annot. in Locum ; The promise is to you, Christ is promised both to Jews and Gentiles: But the Jews had the first place. Which is agreeable to the speeches of, Mary, Luke 1.54, 55. and of Zacharias, v. 68, 69, 71▪ 72, 73, 74, 75. 2. It is true, that the expression in that manner is not usual, and it is confessed that in the places cited and many more the fulfilling of a promise is otherwise expressed. But what then? doth it follow that is not the meaning which I give? If it did, by the same reason, neither Master Cobbets is right. For it is usual to express a promise belonging to some of a thing yet to be done in some other expressions, as 1 John 2.25. 2 Pet. 1.4. yea, in the place Rom. 9.4. of which Master Cobbet pa. 31. saith, for the promise i • to you or belongs to you, as Rom. 9.4. hath it, the expression is not in the Dative case, as Acts 2.39. but in the Genitive. But it is needful to consider how Master Cobbet himself expounds the words, Sect. 1. He saith thus, The promise is to your children: not, was to you, &c. as intending any legal blessing, but, a promise then in force after Christ's ascension, to effect some promised blessing [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] used to signify the free promise, or covenant of grace, to which they had visible right. Sect. 3. remission of sins may not be excluded, but must be one principal thing intended. It is that promise to which baptism the seal is annexed. Sect. 4. Nor was Abraham's charter less then what here avowed by the Apostle, Scil. that the promise even of sins, did belong to the Jews, and to their children in respect of external right and administration, and no more is pleaded for. But repent and be baptized de futuro ; for the promise in praesenti is to you, Scil. in respect of external right. Sect. 7. And this promise here mentioned, Acts 2.38, 39. containing in it remission of sins, and so the righteousness of faith. The promise of remission of sins is or belongeth to you; Scil. in the external right and administration of it. So then according to Master Cobbets exposition the promise meant is remission of sins, and of this it is said that it is, not, it was to them, and the manner how is, that it is to them, or it belongs to them in • he external right and administration of it. The promise or covenant he means here belonging to them to be Abraham's charter, Gen. 17.7. Jerem. 31.33▪ 34. holding out at least an external interest therein to them being Jews, not yet believing Fathers, or repenting: for that is rather mentioned as exerted after many words besides, v. 40, 41. yea, rather they were offensive members of the Jewish Church (which was then a true visible Gospel-Church) they were as persons under censure, though they had jus ad baptismum, yet not jus in baptismo without repentance, yet they were covenant-Fathers, and dispensers of the external right of it to their children, though their children were not called. And herein is the difference between them and those afar off; the Gentiles; it is to the Jews actually, to the Gentiles de praesenti, only intentionally, till they be called of God, which he understands not of an effectual saving call, but calling into visible covenant and church-estate, and then it belongs to their children as to the Jews. This I gather to be his meaning out of scattered passages, Sect. 4, 5, 7. I shall, 1. observe some things concerning the exposition in general. 2. Clear my own exposition from objections. 3. Make some animadversions on several passages in the latter Sections of this ch. of Master Cobbet.
I observe that he brings no proof but his own saying, that the promise is that, Gen. 17.7. or that it belongs to any in external right or administration, or that the Apostle meant the belonging of the promise to them in respect of external right and administration. For to say, it is the promise to which baptism seals, is to prove an unknown thing by a more unknown, since baptism neither there nor elsewhere is termed the seal of the promise or covenant, nor doth the Apostle mention baptism as sealing or administering the promise, nor do I understand that there is any such thing as an external right and administration of the promise, or by virtue of the promise, but by virtue of the command. And therefore I judge all this talk to be a parcel of gibberish, which the Scripture yields no hint of, but Paedobaptists have formed it from those leading errors, that the nature of Sacraments is to be Seals of the covenant, that the reason of a person being circumcised, was interest in the covenant, Gen. 17.7. that there is the same reason of baptism as of circumcision Besides, I would know to what the right is, and of what the administration is which he calls external, and in what sense it is called external. External he seems to make all one with quoad homines, & in foro Ecclesiae, and the promise is of remission of sins; the sense then is, you have a right and administration of remission of sins in respect of men, and in the Court of the Church. A right is a title to a thing which a man may claim, an administration is a serving or bringing in, as when a Deacon gives money to the poor, G • hazi reacheth water to Elishah. If there be sense in Master Cobbets exposition, this should be the meaning. You Jews who crucified Christ, and your children, though neither yet believers, nor repenting persons, have a right and administration of the promise of remission of sins, Gen. 17.7. though not in respect of God or the Court of heaven or your own consciences, yet before or by men or in the Court of the Church, so that you may claim absolu • ion from them, and they do or ought to administer it to you by a sentence or baptism or some other way. Which were to make the Apostles speak non-sense, and impious falsehood: Non-sense, the words bearing no such meaning according to the Scripture-use or other approved authors: Falsehood, in that he should tell them they had such a right and administration as they had not, and this impious, since it tends to harden them in impenitency and unbelief, and to justify Preachers or Churches in an unrighteous sentence, wherein remission of sins is pronounced to belong to persons impenitent and unbelieving in sensu composito while such. The like may be said if the right be meant to visible Church-membership, and baptism and administration of them, the speech would be non-sense; neither Scripture, nor any Author at that time expressing these things by that which Peter spake, Acts 2.39. and the speech were false, they then having no right or administration of either, and it had been impious to say so to them; for it had tended to move them to assume that to them, and to justify the yielding it to them, which had been injuriously and profanely both arrogated and yielded to them. Yet further, what a ridiculous salve had this been to consciences so tortured with the sense of that most horrid act of killing Christ, to tell them, the promise of remission of sins was to them in respect of external right and administration before men or in the face of the Church, though not before God or in their own consciences, or that they had outward right and administration of visible Church-membership and baptism, I may use his own words, mutatis mutandis? Sect. 6. They were not troubled for want of external right and administration, and to tell them of such right and administration was both impertinent and unsatisfactory, and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick souls to promise them such things, which they might have, and yet die in their sins, Matth. 7.23. Besides, it seems to be a contradiction to say, the promise is to you de praesenti, in respect of external right and administration, and yet you have not jus in re, and in like manner to say that the promise is to all afar off de praesenti, in respect of external right and administration, and yet it belongs not to them actually, but intentionaly. And whence hath Master Cobbet warrant to say that the promise belongs one way to the Jews, and another way to the Gentiles? or that the promise belonged to the Jew and his child in respect of external right and administ • ation, though uncalled? Lastly, that I not grate any further on this soar, where doth Master Cobbet find in Scripture any mention of God's calling into visible covenant, and Church-estate? or how can it be true that the Church to which those Jews who crucified Christ joined, containing the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees and High Priests, and the people of the Jews consenting with them, was a Gospel-Church, visibly interested in the covenant o • grace, the Subject of the Gospel, and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church, and that there was no other visible Church, then that of the Jews▪ Credat Judaeus apella, non ego. But of these somewhat in the animadversions following.
Master Cobbet against my exposition writes further thus. 2. They knew already to their cost, that Christ indeed was sent amongst them, and to be that Jesus or Savior of his people from their sins, Acts 2.36, 37. compared with Matth 1.21. And this was cold comfort to them, to tell them of that which wounded them, unless there be withal some promise annexed and supposed in his being come. The promise merely of Christ's coming could not comfort them, unless also in and by Christ come in the flesh, there be some promise made to them touching the removal of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them 3. The blessing principally propounded to them, for their reviving, healing, succor, and support, it was not Christ's sending, nor his being sent, but emission of sins, v. 38. wherefore unless the Apostle argue impertinently, this may not be excluded, but must be one principal thing intended. 4. It is that promise to which baptism the seal is annexed, now the seal is ever to the covenant, which is not barely to Christ's being sent in the flesh, but to benefits contained in promises by his coming.
Ans. Had Master Cobbet heeded my words in my Exam. pag. 60. And was it not a comfortable Argument for men in that case to be told, that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sins by him, was yet to them and their children, &c. And pag. 61. The promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children, and to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call, that they might be turned from their iniquity, and baptized in his Name for the remission of their sins, these objections had been spared, they proceeding all against me upon this mistake (which my words heeded might have rectifyed) as if I had expounded the promise, Acts 2.39. of Christ's being sent and coming without some promise annexed, and particularly that of remission of sins by Christ▪ Whereas I did expressly include it in my paraphrase (as my words recited show) gathering it from the mention of it, v. 38. and conceiving it to be implied in the expression [to you, v. 39.] that is, for your benefit by remission of your sins. And therefore these three objections are answered by showing how according to my exposition the promise of Christ sent includes also the benefit of remission of sins. But on the contrary all these objections are against Master Cobbets own exposition. For, 1. It had been but cold comfort to tell them of a promise of remission of sins only in external right and administration. 2. It had not been available for their reviving, healing, succor, and support. 3. According to Paedobaptists suppositions, baptism is not a seal of that covenant in which remission of sins in external right and administration only is promised, but, as it is in the Directory, it is a Seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration; adoption, and life eternal. Therefore the promise, Acts 2.39. according to Master Cobbets own arguments, and Paedobaptists hypotheses is not of remission of sins only in ex •• rnal right and administration. Master Cobbets third exception, Sect. 3. about those afar off, whether Israelites in the disp • rsion, or in after ages, or the Gentiles be meant, hath been considered before. But whereas he saith, The Apostles afore Peter ▪ Sermon, Acts 10. knew by Christ's declaration of his mind to all his Apostles touching the discipling and inchu • ching of the Gentiles the conversion of them, only they knew not whether it might be by joining them first by way of addition, as proselytes to the Jews, rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches; his speech is not right. For, 1. Though it is true, Christ had declared his mind, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15. about conversion of the Gentiles, yet either Peter understood not Christ's mind, or did not remember it afore the vision, Acts 10.2. It is apparent from Acts 11.3. that the exception against Peter was not for that he had gathered Cornelius and his company into a distinct Church, and not joined them as Proselytes to the Jews, but that he went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them, which sh • wes they held it unlawful so much as to preach and converse with any uncircumcised, though he were a proselyte of the gate, as Cornelius appears to have been. As for not joining the Gentiles as proselytes to the Jews, they knew that well enough, that they were not to be so joined, since neither John the Baptist, nor Christ or his Disciples did ever by baptism join any as proselytes to the Jews, but did take even the Jews themselves (who embraced their Doctrine) into distinct Churches or Schools, though they did not erect any new political States or Common-wealths, as the nation of the Jews was.
Master Cobbet further excepts against me in these words. 4. It's affirmed, that this promised of sending Christ was to them, their children, and those afar off, as many as our God should call, that they may be turned from their iniquity, and be baptized for remission of sins, and yet also that the promise, what ever it be supposed to be, was to them all, with that limitation, that they repent, or that they be called. What? is it to as many as the Lord shall call, or convert, or cause to repent? and yet is it, that they may be turned from their iniquity? is it to persons called, and yet also to uncalled persons? is it to them that they may be called, yet the persons to whom the promise is, are as many as are supposed to be called? how can these two be right? yea, it is to them all, upon condition that they be called, and yet also, that it is to them, that they may be called. Why, if it be to them, that by Christ they may be called, then is that promise to persons as yet uncalled, and their calling is an effect following their interest in that promise as a cause, and not preceding their interest in the promise as a condition.
Ans. the promise is of sending of Christ for remission of sins, their calling is a consequent of Christ's being sent, who was sent to turn them from iniquity, that is, to call them; and this calling was for a further benefit, remission of sins through Christ sent, and so their calling is a condition of the remission of sins by Christ sent, nor is the promise of remission of sins by Christ sent to any but those who are called. The calling is a consequent to Christ's sending as a prior benefit, and an antecedent to remission of sins as a subsequent. And thus the knot Master Cobbet conceives is easily loosed.
SECT. XXIII. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38, 39. against the connection between covenant-interest and baptism-right, and infant-baptism are vindicated from Master Cobbets answers.
THere are other passages in the following Sections, on which I animadvert, Sect. 4. he saith, Acts 2. he doth not intend it thus, your children (i. e.) Abraham's children ; for Abraham is considered rather by him as a pattern, having the precedential Copy of the Covenant mentioned. And it had been incongruous to have said; It is to your children, that is, to Abraham's children. Concerning which passage I say, that though I conceive it a mistake to understand by [your children] Abraham's children, yet Master Cobbets words intimate sundry things which are liable to animadversions. 1. The promise, Acts 2.39. is supposed by others, and by Master Cobbet, Sect. 7. to be that, Gen 17.7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee, but this was the covenant itself, and not a precedential Copy of the covenant mentioned. I think Master Cobbet cannot show any other after Copy, in which God promised to be the God of a believer and his seed, which it is confessed he did to Abraham. 2. That Abraham should be considered rather as a pattern to fathers, then as a particular person is said without any proof; nor is it true, 1. Because it is understood in Scripture as meant of Abraham as a particular person, Gal. 3.16, &c. 2. Because if he were considered as a pattern, the promise should be to others as to him, Gen. 17, 7. but that is not true, the promise is made to none besides as to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. And whereas Master Cobbet observes that the promise to them and their children cannot be meant of the children as their children after the Spirit, because they could not be such spiritual fathers to any children of theirs, themselves being not yet such relates, as believing fathers, nor having such correlates as children after the Spirit; this doth plainly show that the promise to them and their children is not all one with a promise to believers and their children, and the mention of the children, Acts 2.39. is not to intimate any privilege arising to the child from the faith of the parent. For, as Master Cobbet saith truly, as yet they acted not faith and repentance, nor doth Peter say, The promise is or belongs to you, for you have repented, and consequently believed. As for Master Cobbets inference that if th • imprecation of the Jews, Matth. 27.25. were the occasion of Peters words Acts 2.39. then the promise must be also to their babes, on whom they wished Christ's blood, else the plaster were too narrow for their wounds rising from the guilt of blood wished upon their children, including, and not excluding their babes; it follows not. For, 1. Though babes be children, yet children indefinitely put without any universal sign may be meant of others then babes or infants. 2. The wish may be meant of infants, and the promise also, yet not to take place or to be accomplished on them or to them in their infancy. That curse and that promise which is made to a man's children being for present infant • is verified if it happen to them at twenty years old, they being then th • •• me persons, which they were when they were but a day old. 3. Will Master Cobbet assert, the promise must be as large as the curse? If so, then the promise must belong to their children, elder or younger, whether believing or unbelieving▪ p • nitent or impenitent, for the wish was on all absolutely. But Master Cobbet (I presume) will not assert the promise of remission of sins was in praesenti to all the children of the Jews to whom Peter spake, elder and younger, believing and unbelieving, penitent and impenitent in respect of external right and administration. Therefore he must limit the term [your children] if he will have his own exposition to hold good, and consequently the children, Acts 2.39. must be fewer then those the imprecation lighted on, Mat. 27.25.
Sect. 5. That which Master Cobbet saith, that those who say the promise made to Abraham of sending Christ and now fulfilled, is to them, in effect say as those that expound [the promise is to you] that is, is offered to you, is not right. For the fulfilling notes something past, the offer is of something to be yet done or attained, yet it is true that the speech of Peter did contain not only an offer, but also an assurance of remission of sins to the called by virtue of the promise fulfilled in Christ's coming.
Of the sense of the words, Acts 3.25. I have spoken somewhat before. The terms [children of the prophets and of the covenant] are appropriated to the Jews, as Rom. 9, 4. they being the only people to whom the prophets were sent, as Beza annot▪ in locum, id est, • i • stis quibus peculiariter destinati fuerunt prophetae, & quibuscum foedus est sancitum, ex Hebraeorum idiotismo, qu • m supra aliquoties annotavimus. Huc pertinet quod ait Paulus, Rom. 9.4. And when he saith, they were children of the covenant made with the fathers, and not of the fathers with whom the covenant is made, the intent is not to show that it's meant of Church and federal interest in them, as covenant-fathers and dispensers, or to show that the covenant was as seed, by virtue whereof they considered as foederally and ecclesiastically privileged, did spring in Master Cobbets sense of outward Church-membership and initiating ordinance: but the plain meaning is, that they were the people to whom the first exhibition and tender of the Gospel did belong, in that they were the posterity of the Fathers with whom the covenant was made: and so the Jews had a priority of not only external interest in the covenant, but also internal, though when the Gentiles were called, the privileges of the covenant were equal to the Gentiles with the Jews, and the condition of the promise, that is, the obtaining remission of sins by the fulfilling of the promise, is equally to Jew and Gentile savingly believing,
Sect. 7. Master Cobbets conceit of the term [afar off, Acts 2.39.] that it is, meant of their being strangers from actual interests in the covenants of promise, and Common-wealth of Israel, or the visible political Church, Ephes. 2.11, 12, 13. supposeth, 1. The terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those afar off, Acts 2.39. to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who were sometimes afar off, Ephes. 2.13. But the phrases are not the same, and it is for reasons formerly given more likely that the remoteness, Acts 2.39. is meant of place or descent. 2. that the remoteness, Ephes. 2.13. was in respect of external Church interest, and so in like manner, Acts 2.39. But Ephes. 2.13. the remoteness was such as was taken away by the blood of Christ, which is more then external Church-interest, and the nearness such as [you and your children, Acts 2.39.] had not then attained to, but were then afar off from God, or as it is, v. 18. had not access by one Spirit unto the Father. And therefore Master Cobbets sayings that the Jews and their children, Acts 2.39. were not then when Peter spake afar off, as the t • rm is meant, Ephes. 2, 13. but rather nigh in that sense, and that the promise is to them actually, & quoad hominem, and to the other, that is, the Genteles, afar off intentionally, & quoad Deum, even whilst afar off, and uncalled, are but conceits arising from the mistakes of Peters speech, Acts 2.39. and Paul's, Ephes. 2.13. It is true, to the Jews indefinitely, that is, to that nation or people did the Adoption and promises belong, yet not to every particular person of that nation; For as it is said, Rom. 9.4. To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the promises; so it is said. v. 4, 5. To whom pertain the service of God, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: and yet these things not true of every Israelite.
It is true, Moses made a covenant, Deut. 29.15. with the unborn which were not actually existent in Church-estate and human being, but that this was a covenant wherein Covenant-grace is expressed, and that it is verified intentionally, & quoad Deum, is besides the text, which speaks not of God's making a covenant, but of Moses, v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty, not expressing covenant-grace. That which Master Cobbet saith, that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant, Gen. 17.7. which containeth the promise of justification, was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jews & their children by God's own appointment, circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it, a visible seal of the righteousness of faith itself, and not merely in a personal respect to Abraham, as applied by his faith to justification, hath either none or very little truth. For though it be true that the promise, Gen. 17.7. was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words, yet it was so only to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith, Rom. 4.12, 16. Gal. 3.7, 9, 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jews and their children, nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it, a visible seal of the righteousness of faith, nor is any man's circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith, but Abraham's, which was not a seal as applied by his faith to his justification, but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised, and that all that believe as he did shall be justified, as he was, Rom. 4.11, 12. Master Cobbet adds, Nor will it suffice to say, that covenant was a mixed covenant. It held forth temporal things indeed, but by virtue of a covenant of grace, Psal. 111.5. as doth the promise now, 1 Tim. 4.8. But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all, albeit in the internal operation, as to some. The promises are to them all, Rom. 9.4. Scil. in the former sense; and yet, ver. 8. some only are the children of the promise, and the choice seed in that general covenant, Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them, v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort, amongst persons in Church-estate.
Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant, Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace only, and make other promises of temporal things to be only administrations of it, and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace, because it was the t • ken of that covenant, to say, that 〈◊〉 covenant, Gen. 17.7. was a mixed covenant containing promises proper to Abraham's natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual, and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former, which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter, and that the reason why circumcision was appointed, was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter, and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical, but national or proper to the people of Abraham. Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity, that because there is a promise of the life that now is, 1 Tim. 4.8. therefore the covenant now is mixed. For the promise of the life that now is, is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children, as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his, but of fatherly care, and sanctified use of outward things. Nor doth Psal. 111.5. prove that the inheriting Canaan, being great and prosperous, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. were by virtue of a covenant of grace, but it rather appears from many places, Deut. 28. &c. Heb. 8.6. that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses, unto which circumcision did oblige, Gal. 5.3. The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abraham's seed by faith only, nor doth the Apostle anywhere interpret that promise, Gen. 17.7. as holding forth spiritual things in the external▪ right and administration of it, and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined, Rom. 9.8. to belong only to the elect, not to all. Nor doth Rom. 9.4. say, the promises pertained to all the Jews, nor to any in respect of external right and administration. And though I deny▪ not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to m • n, when they make a profession of faith, though not in reality, yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect & true believers, nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other. Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right, or that the Jews, Acts 2.38, 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism, jus ad r • m, though not jus in re, afore they were believers on Christ, nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jews, nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jews, as a seal of their membership therein, but of their owning Johns doctrine, becoming his disciples, and joined into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees, and other Jewish Church-rulers, though they adhered till after Christ's death to the law of Moses and temple-service. Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jews repentance afore baptism, Acts 2.38. because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto, yet being adult members under offense, and admonished thereof by Peter : they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal. For, 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jews were members were in their profession not only distinct, but also opposite; therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other. 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter, they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members, that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin, and being baptized into the Name of Christ, John 9.22. 3. Peter doth not act in his speech, Acts 2. 38, • 9. as an Elder in the Jewish Church, for he was none, but as an Apostle of Christ: nor was their fact objected to them as an offense to the Church of which •• ey were, but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience: nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal, but to ease their consciences, and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted.
But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith, those Jews were offensive members of that Jewish Church, which was a true visible Church, and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord; they were then in the Church of the Gospel, and so externally in covenant and Church-estate also, as being yet in the Olive and Kingdom of God, and not cast out, until their unbelief, or total and final rejection of the covenant as ratified in Jesus as that promised Messiah, Rom. 11.20. to which the Jews had not as yet come.
Ans. A Church of the Gospel is such a company as avoucheth the Gospel, the Gospel was that Jesus was the Christ; to the being in the Church of the Gospel, it is not sufficient that there hath not been a total or final rejection of the covenant, but it is necessary there be an explicit believing and owning of Christ, John 8.24. To be a people so cast off as to have the offer of grace taken from them, presupposeth such a rejection, Acts 13.46. Mat. 21.43. But to be a Gospel-Church or member of a Gospel-Church, requires more then a non-rejection, to wit, an express avouching of the Gospel. Non-rejection doth not make a Gospel-Church or Church-member; if it did, the salvage Americans that never heard of the Gospel, and so have not rejected it, should be a Gospel-Church and Church-members. Yet that Jewish Church of which the Jews, Acts 2.37. were of, and those Jews themselves had rejected Christ with much violence, John 9.22. Acts 3.13, 14, 15. and therefore they could have no covenant or Church-right, no not externally quoad homines from their standing in that Church, by which they might have claimed admission into the Christian Church by baptism without repentance, and faith in Christ, no not though they were supposed to have been without any scandalous sin deserving excommunication or suspense from the seal.
But Master Cobbet is bold to avouch, that this Church was a Gospel-Church visibly interested in the covenant of grace, the subject of the Gospel, and the same essentially with that Gospel, or Christian Church: which to me is such a paradox, as is by no means to be received. For then that Church should be a Gospel-Church, which did obstinately adhere to the law, and they interested in the Covenant of grace, who sought righteousness by the works of the law, and they a Christian Church who denied, persecuted, killed Christ, and avouched themselves Moses his disciples, John 9.27. not Christ's. And if that Church and the Christian be the same essentially▪ he that was admitted to the Jewish Church was admitted to the Christian, then baptism was needless, yea, irrigular for the entering and admission of a believing Jew into the Christian Church, contrary to that, 1 Cor. 12.13. for they were in the Christian Church before, in that they were in the Jewish Church essentially the same, then did Peter ill to exhort them to save themselves from them, Acts 2.40. then was Luke mistaken in saying v. 47. The Lord added them daily to the Church after they were converted and baptized, for they were in the same Church before; all which are in my apprehension palpable absurdities.
But Master Cobbet thus backs his assertion; Unless, whilst the Jewish church stood, any will say, there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world, but a legal Church; for there was no other visible Church, then that of the Jews.
Ans. the perpetual visibility of the true Church is a point in which Papists and Protestants differ. The Papists assert a perpetual visibility of the Church in Pastors and people, as sensible as any other society of men; so that at any time one may point with his finger and say, this is the Church, the Protestants, that though it abide always upon the earth, holding the whole faith without change, and containing a certain number that constantly profess it, yet this number may be very small, and their profession so secret among themselves, that the world and such as love not the truth, shall not see them, they remaining so hidden as if they were not at all. Thus Doctor John White in his Way to the true Church, sect. 17. digress. 17. sets down the difference. If Master Cobbet mean (as he seems to do) a visible political Church in the former sense, then it is no absurdity to say, at some time while the Jewish Church stood there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world. For at the time of Christ's passion when the Disciples were scattered, the shepherd being smitten, Matth. 26.31. there was no such visible Evangelical Church; yea, some of the Papists themselves quoted by Doctor White in the same place, hold that about the time of Christ's passion, the true faith remained in none but only the Virgin Mary. Alsted. suppl. panstr. cath. Chami. de eccl. l. 2. c. 16. s. 10. D • in • e tempore passionis Christi ecclesia non erat visibles, talis scilicet, in qua erant praela • i & subditi, pastores & oves. Nam ecclesia visibles non erat apud pharisaeos & scribas▪ Illi enim impudenter, & scelerate errarunt. But in the latter sense which the Protestants follow, we can assign an Evangelical visible Church in the world, distinct from the Jewish, while the Jewish Church stood. Alsted. ubi supra. Ergo ecclesia externa etiam tota deficere potest, remanentibus occultis fidelibus; quales tum temporis erant Simeon, Anna, Nicodemus, &c. At the time of Christ's incarnation and before there was in the Protestant sense a true visible Evangelical Church in Simeon, Anna, and those to whom she spake, who looked for redemption in Jerusalem, Luke 2.38. In the time of John Baptists and Christ's Ministry, many baptized by John and Christ's Disciples, John 4.1, 2. In the time of Christ's passion, besides the Apostles, and those women who professed, Joseph of Ari •• th • a and Nicodemus are expressed, John 19.38, 39. to have owned Christ. And these were a distinct Church from the J • wish, I mean the Priests, Scribes, Pharisees and people who denied Christ, though not in their political government, yet in their profession of faith, which is necessary according to Protestants to make a company to be a visible Evangelical Church, and essentially the same with the Church Christian, Ames. medul. Th. l. 1. c. 32. Ecalesia est societus fidelium; quia idem illud in profession constituit ecclesiam visibilem, quod interna & reali sua natura constituit ecclesiam mystica •• , id est, fides.
But Master Cobbet from his erroneous dictates would frame an answer to the argument brought from Peters words, Acts 2.38, 39. to prove that the imagined covenant-right is not sufficient to entitle to baptism, without repentance and faith, since even of those Jews to whom he said the promise is, he prerequired repentance to baptism, and thus he writes. That then something further was required by Peter, of the adult Jews, to actual participation of baptism, and it was not because their Church of which they were members was no true visible Evangelical Church, since it was God's only visible Church, in the time of Christ's incarnation, of which he lived and died a member; and none will say, he was no member of any Evangelical Church, but of a legal; nor was it because the seal of baptism was not administrable, in, or by, or to that Church of the Jews.
Ans. The true reason, why we conceive Peter required repentance of the adult Jews to baptism, is because Christ appointed none to be baptized, but his disciples▪ such as did repent & believe in him as the Messiah, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.16. and so Peter here, and Philip, Acts 8.36, 37. understood Christ's mind. The other reasons that the Jewish Church was no true visible Evangelical Church, and that the seal of baptism was not administrable, in, or by, o • to that Church of the Jews, I know not who assigns them as the cause why Peter required of adult Jews repentance to baptism, so that if Master Cobbet did make void these reasons, and not the genuine reason assigned by us, his answer is insufficient to the argument. However I shall examine what he saith, since his writing hath been cracked of as unanswerable. 1. By removing the first reason, he intimates that the objectour conceived it necessary that a person to be baptized be a member of a true visible Evangelical Church and this he denies not, yea he seems to conceive that it is needful he be a member of such a particular Church visible in respect of outward order, and government by Elders and People united in covenant. But this I conceive not true. 1. Because no more is needful then is required in the institution. But in the institution to be a disciple of Christ, a penitent believer on him is required and no more, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.16. Acts 2.38. not to be a member of a particular visible Evangelical Church. Ergo. 2. No more is needful to baptism then what Philip required of the Eunuch, Acts 8.36, 37. Peter of Cornelius, Acts 10.46, 47. Acts 11.17, 18. Paul of the Jailor and others, Acts 16.32. But they required no more but to be a Disciple of Christ, or a penitent believer. Ergo. 3. If it were requisite to be a member of a particular Church, Cornelius was not rightly baptized: but this is not true: Ergo. The consequence of the major is proved, because Cornelius afore his baptism was not a member of any particular Church▪ not of the Jewish, for he was uncircumcised; and counted unclean by them, Acts 11.3. not of the Christian; For they excepted against Peter for going in to him, Acts 11.2, 4. Regularly a man is not a member of a particular Church till he is baptized, baptism going before joining to the Church, Acts 2.41, 47. therefore it is not necessary a person be a member of a particular visible Church afore baptism. 2. Master Cobbet takes on him to prove that the Church of which the adult Jews, Acts 2.37. were members was a true Evangelical Church. 1. Because so in the time of Christ's incornation. But this followeth not, it might be so at Christ's incarnation, and yet not be so at the time of Peters speech, Acts 2.38, 39. they having expressly denied Christ. 2. Because he lived and died a member of that Church, and none will say, he was no member of any Evangelical Church, but of a legal. To which I say, 1. Christ lived & died the head of the Evangelical church of Jews and Gentiles, but not as a subordinate member in it, though he were subject to the law of Moses, and did yield obedience to it while it was his Fathers will it should stand in force. 2. But that he died as a member of the Jewish church, to wit, that party of which the Jews, Acts 2.37. were a part, is not true, he being an outcast from them, and made a curse for us. 3. If it should be granted he were a member of that church, he had been a member not of an Evangelical church, but legal, or rather manifestly Antichristian. 2. by removing the second reason of Peters requiring repentance afore baptism of the adult Jews, he intimates that this objectour conceived it necessary that baptism be administered in or by or to a church, such as the Jews was not, and he grants the former, and denies the latter. But how or whence it is deduced that baptism must be administrable in or by or to a church I understand not. Baptism hath been and may be lawfully administered without the presence of any church, as in the baptism of the Eunuch by Philip, Acts 8.38. to a person who is member of no particular church, as in Cornelius his baptism, and by a Minister without consent of any Church, as in the same cases, and to a single person, though no church were baptized, as in the Eunuchs case. Then he asserts the seal of baptism administrable in, or by, or to the church of the Jews, that he may maintain a title to baptism, though suspended by reason of their sin in the Jews from an imagined covenant-right, and Church-membership antecedent to their repentance, which are wild fancies. But let us view what he writes.
For it's evident (saith Master Cobbet ) that the commission of baptism was first given by God, to John Baptist, in reference to that church of the Jews as a seal of their membership therein; the same God that told him, who should, baptize with the Holy Ghost, he sent him to baptize, John 1.33. the Pharisees themselves could not deny Johns baptism to be from heavens authority, Mat. 21.25, 26. and baptism being a Church-ordinance, to be in ordinary dispensation or administered only in and by a church of Christ, that baptism was at that time the Jewish Church-ordinance, so far forth, there was no other floor, wherein all sorts which John baptized, whether they proved chaffy hypocrites, or solid grain upright ones, were in his and Christ's time interested, Matth. 3.11, 12. this was then the only floor, or visible church of Christ (for in the invisible church is no chaff) [his] floor; he shall purge [his] floor.
Ans. It is granted, John was sent by God to baptize, and that the people or church of the Jews were Christ's floor, and that in that floor or people were chaff and wheat, bad and good, reprobate and elect ones. But this proves not the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that church of the Jews, as a seal of their membership therein. For what consequence is there in this, God sent John to the Jews, he had his authority to baptize those of the Jews, who repented, therefore he sealed their membership in the church of the Jews, and baptism was administrable in, or by, or to that church of the Jews? It seems to me that the contrary follows, John was sent • o baptize, he preacheth repentance, tells them that it availed not them to say Abraham was their father gathers them into a distinct School or society from the Pharisees and Lawyers, Luke 7.29, 30. directs them to Christ, who should sever chaff and wheat; therefore he was not given by God in reference to that church of the Jews as a seal of their membership therein, but severed a people from them by repentance and baptism, and that baptism was not administrable in, or by, or to that church of the Jews, but in a distinct company, by a select officer, to a severed people from that church. Nor do I know it to be true that baptism is a church-ordinance, to be in ordinary dispensation administered only in and by a church of Christ, but conceive it a ministerial ordinance to be administered by one single Minister without the presence or consent of a church of Christ: nor do I think baptism was at that time the Jewish ordinance being neither appointed in their law, nor by Ministers chosen by them, nor by their authority, nor according to their direction▪ nor for the settling of their church-discipline, or authority, but in these and all other respects opposite or distinct from the Jewish church. And although I grant the Jewish people or church (though Pareus come in locum saith, Dominus areae suae, h. e. ecclesiae. imo totius mundi ) Christ's floor, yet from hence it follows not they were Christ's visible Church, there being other reason why they are called Christ's floor, because Christ employed his fan, to wit, his preaching among them, being Minister of the circumcision, Rom. 15.8. though they were not Christ's visible church, that is, a company or people professing themselves to be his Disciples. Nor is it true that in John Baptists and Christ's time, all sorts which John baptized, hypocrites, or upright ones, were interested in the Jewish church as Christ's floor, nor any such thing proved from Matth. 3.11, 12. the being in the floor importing only their position, no benefit or interest accruing to them thereby. But Master Cobbet goes on.
Into this Church-fellowship also did Christ's own Disciples by that new way of initiation, visibly seal persons, which were the reformed part of that Jewish church, continuing still their relation to those officers of the Jewish church, and their fellowship in the Church-ordinances, then dispensed, and not separating from the same, either gathering into distinct churches, or calling to them other ordinary church-officers, which yet were not actually given by Christ, until upon his ascension, Ephes. 4.8, 11, 12.
Ans. The Disciples of Christ did not visibly seal persons by that new way of initiation into the Jewish Church-fellowship; the fellowship they had in the Jewish church, was by their birth and circumcision and the law they were under, which they submitted to, while it was in force, and observed such legal ordinances as were appointed them, acknowledging the Priests and other Officers of the Jews according to their place: yet in respect of profession of Doctrine they were by baptism separated from the Jews, and were gathered into a distinct church, had Christ and his Apostles and the 70. as their Officers in ordinary afore the ascension of Christ: nor is there one jot of Scripture that doth in the least countenance this fond conceit of Master Cobbet, that Jewish Church membership gave title to baptism, or baptism visibly sealed persons into Jewish Church-fellowship.
Master Cobbet having cashiered the spurious reasons (as he imagines) why Peter required of the Jews, to whom he said, The promise is repentance afore baptism, he takes on him to assign the genuine reasons thus.
But the reason rather was, partly because (as was said) they were under such offense. Ans. He required repentance, because they had sinned in crucifying Christ, but repentance was not required to take away the offense of the church the Jews were of, nor for the removing of a suspension from the seal. For Peter was no Jewish Church-officer, neither did any of the Jewish church in way of Discipline deal with those Jews by any church-act, tending to their correction for that sin, yea, the rulers of the Jews with the people did generally avow that act as well done: nor was anything more offensive to them then the profession of Christ, and repentance for the killing of him. But Peter requires repentance as a necessary prerequisite universally to baptism, and as the way to remission of sins, which their perplexed souls needed. Master Cobbet adds: And partly because, albeit their church were a true Evangelical church, yet it was not so pure and perfect, but had many gross mixtures both of ceremonial administrations, which were now to be laid aside, and of most palpably and openly corrupt, and rotten members.
Ans. Neither doth Master Cobbet offer any proof for this his speech, neither is there any likelihood that Peter ever intended to urge repentance by reason of these things, since in none of his speeches he doth take exceptions at their church by reason of them, nor had this been a sufficient reason to urge them to repentance afore baptism, because though they had covenant and Church-right to baptism, yet their right was to be suspended to the seal without repentance, because they had gross ceremonial mixtures, and openly corrupt members, the Jewish church of which they were members being a gospel-church & essentially the same with the Christian, if Master Cobbet say true; for if this were a reason, the New-Engl ••• Elders do ill to admit godly persons to the seal with them, which came from • Pa • ish-church in England, in which were the like mixtures, and corrupt members without like repentance▪ nor doth it appear that those Jews had any hand in those ceremonial administrations; and though they sinned a great sin in crucifying Christ, yet it wa • through ignorance, Acts 3.17. In a word, were it granted Master Cobbet that Peter did require repentance for any of these reasons, yet the argument is no whit infringed thereby, that bare interest in the covenant doth not give title to baptism without repentance, since it did not give title to these Jews, even then when notwithstanding their offense, and the corruptions in their church, yet the promise was asserted to belong to them de praesenti in respect of external right and administration, if Master Cobbets exposition hold good, which is directly opposite to the requiring of repentance to baptism by reason of a suspension of their right to the seal by reason of offense and corrupt mixtures. But let's hear Master Cobbet a little further.
And partly, saith he, because it was now requisite, not only to acknowledge the promised M • ssiah of Abraham's loins, to be he alone, which by his blood should come actually, as well as virtually, to ratify the covenant of grace, visibly made with them, as they did in receiving the seal of circumcision, but that they own the Lord Jesus, who was crucified by, and among them, as he which alone did thus: which amongst other testimonies baptism witnesseth, therefore more was now required of the adult Jews than formerly, which yet was not required of their unripe children.
Ans. I deny not circumcision to have had this use, that it might signify, that the promised Messiah should come out of Abraham's loins, and I take it as certain that baptism was appointed, that thereby the baptized should own the Lord Jesus, and witness that he was the Messiah, and that this was the reason why even the Jews circumcised, what ever their interest in the promise should be, were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come: But this though true, and such as shows a manif • st difference between ci • cumcision and baptism in their use; and confirms the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism, yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet ▪ since thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed, which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance, nor is thereby any reason given of r • pentance being required by Peter afore baptism: Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jews, then of their unripe children, only he tells of their practice in New England, that when any are received to fellowship with them, though they being as transient members by virtue of communion of churches, are admitted upon their former church-engagement, yet desirous to be fixed Members, they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed, not so of their children not sui juris, nor capable of personal satisfaction, so it was with them, Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company, exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way. But setting aside the question, whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient, the defilement being alike in both. 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jews and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jews then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles, but openly opposite to Christ and the Christian church: Nor was that which those Jews perplexed did propound, that they might be of their church as a purer church, but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-privileges, but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences, which was an act of doctrine, not of jurisdiction. 2. If it had been so, yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jews to baptism then formerly, nor that he did it because they were to be inco • porated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way, nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism; nor is the argument infringed, that if covenant-interest entitle to baptism of itself without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child, yea, in priority to the child, who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest, then it should much more entitle the Father to baptism without repentance: Idem qua idem semper facit idem, so that after so many shifts, absurdities, unproved dictates, vain dreams of making the case of the Jews like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church, and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way, there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jews afore baptism, against the connection between covenant-interest and right to baptism.
Master Cobbet goes on thus: nor must that needs follow, that because it's said, they were added to the church, that therefore they were not of the church before, but after Peter spake those words, v. 39. the promise is to you, &c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized, as after that mentioned, of their receiving the Word gladly, and yet will our opposites conclude, that therefore they were not of the church, nor in the covenant before they were baptized, but came into that estate by baptism. If baptism were the form of the church, or that which they so much urge wholly failed, that a person must be first discipled, and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized.
Ans. Either I understand not the force of words. or else it is a clear argument, Acts 2.41. And there were added in that day souls about three thousand, v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church, and these were of the Jews, therefore Jews were not of the church before that day, and that addition. For what is addition to a company but a joining or bringing one more to them then was before? even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned. And this argument seems so plain to me, that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion. That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus, they are not said to be added till after Peters speech, v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before; and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent, since historians do not always relate things in order as they were done. Yet supposing Luke's relation orderly (of which there is no cause to doubt, since the particles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then v. 41. show it) the argument is good, after Peters words it is said, then, and that day were added, therefore they were not before of the church. Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church, it being one means of addition to the church, and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church, but that there may be a church without baptism, nor the only way of adding to the church, for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it, yet this I say, that neither is a church regular, nor the addition as it should be without baptism. And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized, yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate, meaning in covenant by God's promise to him, and in church-estate, that is, so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in complete fellowship of other ordinances with it.
Master Cobbet proceeds thus. Nor is that cogent, which is urged against the children's right in the promise, and unto baptism, that they should be so privileged, when they came to be effectually called, and to be turned from their sins, as if this were quoad homines, their only rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace, or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof: or at least the only way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches cour • . For besides that it was not so of old, in applying of circumcision, as God's appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right: even with us also it is not the rule in foro Ecclesia ; for then none are by the church to be by rule admitted to baptism, but such as are effectually called, and then John which knew, that the most of them, which he baptized, would be as chaff in the floor, he kept not rule in baptizing of them. Or if calling be taken for external inviting in the Word preached; and offer of Christ, that I suppose will not be pleaded; for then every hearer should be forthwith baptized, albeit an Indian or Black • more ; but calling as taken in reference to baptizing unto remission of sins, seemeth to be rather calling into visible covenant, and church-estate; unto which some, whose was the promise intentionally, yet were afar off from that estate actually at present, but when called to it, they were then to be baptized.
Ans. The objection answered here by Master Cobbet (if this passage here relate to my Examen, as it's likely it doth) was thus formed, Exam. pag. 60, 61, 62. Exercit. sect. 4. the promise, Acts 2.39. is neither to fathers, nor their children, nor those afar off without calling, therefore nor to infants, who are not called by the Lord, and this calling I conceive an effectual calling to the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ, as the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 1.9. Master Cobbet doting on his own frivolous exposition of the being of the promise in respect of external right and administration, propounds the objection as if the objectour agreed with him therein, and then the absurdities I confess would follow, which Master Cobbet draws from the objection as thus interpreted [The promise is in respect of external right and administration, to none but the effectually called] that the only rule to judge a persons visible right to baptism, and the only way of having such a right is effectual calling. But Master Cobbet might have understood that I still disclaimed this, that right to baptism is from interest in God's promise or covenant, and have asserted; that is only from the persons own profession of Christ and covenanting to be his Disciple, and for the promise, Acts 2.39. I understand it of Christ sent for remission of sins, and thus it is most true, that the promise is neither to father nor child uncalled; what therefore Master Cobbet refutes is not owned by me, yet his refutation I count not valid. For that which he allegeth, it was not so in circumcision, therefore it must not be so in baptism, proceeds on this mistake that the rule of circumcision is a rule about baptism. And for that which he saith, that John knew that the most of them which he baptized, would be as chaff in the floor, I conceive not true, nor doth it appear that John did admit to baptism those he knew were hypocrites and reprobates. Pareus, Comm. in Matth. 3.7. non ad baptismum indignos admisi • , and of all others me thinks a New England teacher should not allege that, which, if it were true, would condemn their strictness in admission of members into their churches, excluding them whom they are not satisfied to be truly regenerate, so far as they can discern. For doubtless whom John baptized they may and ought admit to Church-membership. And this plea is made by Master Norton, Resp. ad Apollon. c. 1. propos. 1. for the New England strictness that John Baptist repelled hypocrites from baptism. Now to the objection as I conceive it in the answer is insufficient, Master Cobbet denies that the words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] do circumscribe [to you and your children] as well as [all that are afar off, Acts 2.39.] But then he would have it to be meant of calling into visible covenant, and Church-estate, in which he would have infants included: But the Scripture speaks of no such calling, and both that conceit, and Master Cobbets exposition conformable to it, have been so fully refuted before, that I shall add no more. Only whereas he saith, that if calling were taken for external inviting in the Word preached, and offer of Christ, then every hearer should be baptized forthwith, albeit an Indian or Blackamore. I conceive it will not follow, since they that would have all outwardly called by the offer of Christ baptized, it's likely do mean it of such a calling as is with effect, so as that the person called be brought to outward profession at least of the faith of Christ.
Master Cobbet adds three considerations to prove, that infants not capable of actual repentance. were not in defect of that repentance, excluded from the promise mentioned, Acts 2.38, 39. which I might grant understanding it of the promise of remission of sins before God and of elect infants, and yet no proof thence for infant-baptism. But because Master Cobbet takes the promise to be in respect of external right and administration, and that from it there's a title derived for infant-baptism. I shall consider what he says.
1. Such a supposed exclusion of their babes had been, to lay an occasion, and addition of more cumbers and trouble to the darkened disquieted spirits of his hearers, then to clear and ease them, supposing, as is undeniably evident that their wish against their poor children, pressed them sore, as well as other guilt. It was all along thitherto, a received truth, that God was a God to their seed externally, by virtue of Abraham's covenant they were his adopted children, Ezek. 16.21. and the churches children, which she ba • e to the Lord, v. 20. see Deut. 29.29. and it was evident, by God's own appointment of circumcision, to be the initiatory seal, not to a blank, but to his covenant of being a God to them whilst babes, and before circumcised in heart, so as actually to repent, Deut. 30.6. this their babes had external right unto whilst these their parents were convinced or unwrought upon, remaining uncut off by censures from the church, as of old, Ezek. 16.20, 21. is mentioned of those Idolaters. Now if not so when their Parents are wrought upon by Peters Sermon, as the parents were thus far losers, by Christ and his Gospel, and the efficacy thereof, losing that precious parental privilege which they had before this of their children's federal in • erest, and privilege of Abraham's covenant, so also their children are losers too, by their Parents coming so far on to Christ, coming now thus to be excluded their former Covenant-right and neither Parents nor children to have any Covenant-right and privilege in lieu hereof. How such doctrine might well stumble, and trouble such Parents, let any sober and judicious mind judge; to be sure they have a load of guilt, and given a deadly wound unto their poor Babes, by that curse of theirs: now if they are as Pagans, strangers from the covenant, then there is no hope, in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life, Ephes. 2.11, 12, 13.
Ans, This long tale hath more of childish affection then manly reason, setting aside the new language of initiory seal set to a blank, children's federal interest, precious parental privilege, cavenant right, and such like gibberish according to the Paedobaptists supositions about the imagined covenant to father and child, right of infants to the first seal thereby, and this a great privilege without which no revealed grounds ordinary of hope and life, this is the substance of the tale, that if Peter had told them their infants were not to be baptized, who before were circumcised he had added more grief to the spirits of the Jews pressed with the sense of their wish against their children, Matth. 27.25. and therefore he is to be conceived, Acts 2.39. to have told them of their infants right to baptism. Now surely in my apprehension if Peter had told them such a tale, as Master Cobbet imagines he did; even then when so great perplexity of spirit was upon them by reason of the horrid sin of crucifying Christ, and their imprecation on them and their children, they being then indisposed to laughter, must in all likelihood have been much moved either with grief, or anger against such a Doctor, as would mock them with such a receipt, as was no more to their disease then the promise of a feather to wear is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the colic. For what comfort could this be to them concerning themselves, who expected the heaviest wrath due to them for their sin, or concerning their children on whom they wished a most heavy curse, to be told of a privilege for them and their children, which as it was to them before, was painful in the use, so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation, to be continued in another rite which of itself was but washing with cold water, and in the fruit of it before God yielded no benefit without faith and repentance, and in the church yielded at best but a title of church-membership, by which they had no benefit, but what they might have without it, no • would stand them in any stead for church-communion without their actual believing? It is clear, Acts 2.39. is an encouragement to the duties, and expectation of the good mentioned, v. 38. Now what encouragement is it to repent, to be told that the promise was already to them in external right and administration, and to their infants, though not as yet penitent or believers? such a motive might rather have tended to keep them in impenitency being in so good case already in the estate they were in. And for baptism into the Name of Christ, such a motive tended rather to dissuade them from it, as might fill their minds with high conceits of their and their children's covenant-right, even by virtue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ, or joining to the Christian church. And for the good of remission of sins before God which they needed, what assurance could they have of it by telling them of their and their children's having the promise already as Jews, without personal faith and repentance in external right and administration before men? As for the falsity of the speech as expounded by Master Cobbet, it is shown before, what he would burden his opposites with, as if denyeng infant-baptism, they counted them as Pagans, strangers from the Covenant, without hope, in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life, Ephes. 2.11, 12.13. is a mere Calumny. For setting aside their talk of initiatory seal, and external covenant (which they cannot say assure life to the infants of believers without election) we assure as much by the covenant of grace, justification by Christ's blood, and sanctification by his Spirit, which is effectual calling, and they can in truth assure no more, nor any other way, though to uphold their credit, and to win the affections of credulous parents, they befool them with idle talk of a covenant which the Scripture never mentions, and of sealing that covenant by baptism, which the Scripture is silent of. The texts Ezek. 16.21, 20. Deut: 30.6. will be examined afterwards. Why he bids see Deut. 29.29. I know not. unless it be that we may discern his weakness in alleging the Scriptures impertinently, since it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong, that they may hear them and do them in infancy.
The second consideration is in brief this, that the Apostles who as yet preached not for the abolishing of Mosaical rites, but were indulgent to the Jews, Acts 21.20, 22, 23, 24. would not give such manifest and just offense to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham itself, whereof circumcision was a visible seal, as the places quoted in Gen. 17.11, 13. and Acts 7.8. declare.
To which I answer, By my exposition there is no exclusion of babes from the promise, Acts 2.39. though it be restrained to those who are effectually called, since babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election: nor doth my exposition exclude the Jews infants from the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. or circumcision, or in the least manner meddle with that point. Nor do I think the promise, Gen. 17.7. to be the same with that, Acts 2.39. If it were, yet how it may be understood otherwise then Master Cobbet conceives is shown above.
The third consideration, setting aside his phraseology is this, that if Peter should intend to exclude infants from baptism, it were to be cross to Paul's doctrine, Rom. 15.8. who makes it Christ's end not to evacuate, undermine, or abolish by his coming, [the promises] indefinitely made to the fathers whether in, Gen. 17.7. or Deut. 30.6. or the like, or respecting parents or children, but to confirm the same, Ibid. But how this consequence is made good I cannot conceive, but do deny it, and expect a proof of it ad Graecas Calendas.
Master Cobbet concludes the chapter with an answer to the objection, that if this were granted of those Jewish children, what is this to our children's federal interest in the days of the Gospel? and he answers, 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christ's ascension, this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interested in the covenant of grace is of divine authority, and i • no human invention.
Ans. 1. In the objection, the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denied to be visibly in Abraham's covenant, which Master Cobbet alters, thus [are visibly interested in the covenant of grace] now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abraham's covenant, and yet denied, that they are visibly interested in the covenant of grace, the covenants being not the same every way, and it being certain, as in the case of Saul and others, a person may be visibly interested in the covenant of Abraham, and yet not in the covenant of grace. 2. Infants visible interest in the covenant of Abraham I know no otherwise, then by circumcision, and this sure the Apostles taught of no other then the Jewish children. 3. The text, Acts 2.39. speaks not of visible interest in the covenant of grace by external administration. 4. If it did, yet it speaks of none other children, but Jewish, and so not of ours, and therefore the tenent may be an human invention notwithstanding this text and the concession of the objectour.
2. Saith Master Cobbet, these Jews are eyed by the Apostles, as persons to partake of privileges of a Church of Christians, as was baptism; and therefore what extent of federal right and privilege is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way. Ans. the Jews were not tied by the Apostles to partake of baptism without the repentance of each person to be baptized, nor is it by the Apostle made a federal right and privilege, but a duty to which the promise did encourage, nor is the promise said to be to them or any of their children, but the effectually called, so that were the conclusion granted Master Cobbet, yet his purpose is not gained that the Gentiles infants are to be baptized.
3. Saith he, to suppose God by Apostolical ratification, to allow to children of Jewish parents coming on to Christ, &c. a larger privilege then to Gentile parents, as came on to Christ, &c. is to make God a respector of persons.
Ans. 1. It is not yet proved that the Apostle allows to children of Jewish parents the privilege Master Cobbet means. 2. the Jews, Acts 2.39. were not considered as coming on to Christ, but as guilty of crucifying him, and under horror of conscience for it. 3. The privilege of baptism or the promise in respect of external right and administration (as Master Cobbets phrase is) could not belong to the Jews at that present, & therefore the Apostles speech had been false in Master Cobbets sense. For he cannot assert they were then come to Christ, but coming on to Christ, nor is it certain that many of them ever came to Christ. But [the promise is de praesenti in respect of external right and administration, which is Master Cobbets sense] is false of persons which were not come to Christ, except he will have the Apostle assert a right of baptism to them without faith. 4. The Jewish parents children had then a larger privilege then the Gentiles in the first offer of the Gospel, as they had larger privileges before, Rom. 9.3, 4, 5. and they shall have larger privileges at their calling hereafter if I understand the Apostle, Rom. 11.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. And herein God is not such a respector of persons as Peter, Acts 10.34. denies him to be so, as not to accept a Gentile who feareth him and worketh righteousness as well as a Jew. Acts of special grace undue to some persons, not to others, argue not unjust respect of persons in God, but acts of judgment awarding good to one that fears him and works righteousness, because of such a Nation, and not to another, who doeth the same, because he is not of that nation, contrary to his declarations, promises, laws, by which he hath bound himself; would argue unjust prosopolepsy, his declarations, promises, and laws being general, and so the being of that Nation extirnsecal to the cause.
Saith he, the force of the words seem to carry it, that the same promise which was to those Jews actually in Church and Covenant-estate, was intentionally to these afar off, which were strangers actually from a like estate, whether those of the ten tribes, or rather those of the Gentiles, and should be actually to them, when they came to be called actually into the fellowship of that covenant and Church-estate. Now what promise was that? verily a promise which carried with it a partial reference unto their children: The promise is to you, and to your children: And the same is unto them afar off, whom God shall call, Scil. in reference to their children also.
Ans. There is no color from the words that, Acts 2.39. the promise is meant to be actually to those Jews, and intentionally to those afar off, nor doth this conceit agree with Master Cobbets exposition, who will have it to be de praesenti to belong to the persons recited, and consequently actually to all there named; Nor do I know how to make true sense of this his speech. For the promise is either said to be in respect of the act of the promiser, or of the thing promised. In the former sense the meaning of Master Cobbet should be this, that God had made the promise to the Jews already actually, but he had not made the promise to those afar off, but intended to do it afterwards. But this sense agrees not with Master Cobbets and other Paedobaptists conceit, who would have the promise to be that to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. But that promise was made almost 2000 years before, not made to those Jews then, nor to any afar off afterwards that can be shown. In respect of the thing promised, whether it be (as I say) Christ manifested in the flesh for the remission of sins before God, it is not true that it was actually then to the Jews mentioned, Acts 2.39. For they were not yet repenting believing persons, or it be meant of remission of sins in respect of external right and administration, it is not true that the promise was actually then to them, in external right, they had no right then to claim baptism, being not then believers, neither had they the promise in external administration de praesenti, for they were not actually baptized (which I think is the external administration meant, I cannot imagine Master Cobbet would be so vain as to conceive Peter told them, they were circumcised) but Peter exhorts them to be baptized, and therefore the promise was no more actually to the Jews then present, then to those afar off. Nor is it true that the Jews present were then actually in Church and Covenant-estate, if it be meant of the Christian Church, and Covenant of grace in Christ, for they were not repenting believers; and if it be meant of the Jewish Church, and Covenant-estate which they had as descended from Abraham by natural descent, and by reason of circumcision, so the Gentiles were never ealled or to be called actually into that fellowship of that Covenant, and Church-estate, but rather out of it: Nor if they had been called into it, had that Church and Covenant-estate at all conduced to their interest into the Christian Church and Covenant of grace, but rather to the contrary. And for the promise it is true, there is a reference to their children, but not because they were believers children or their children, but by virtue of God's call, and it is true the promise is to Gentiles child • en and Jews when called of God, and no otherwise, and consequently no Birth-privilege to either intitling to baptism. And thus is that magnified chapter of Master Cobbet abundantly answered.
SECT. XXIII. Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39. in his exercitation ch. 5. are considered.
I Shall add a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39. that I may at once show the impertinency of its allegation for connection between the covenant and baptism, and infants of believe • s covenant-interest upon that consideration▪ I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation. Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised, Gen. 17.7. understanding it not, as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives, as a promise to each believer and his natural seed, but as a promise to Abraham as the • ather of believers, and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large, Jerem. 31.34. Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ, and the Spirit, as, Gal. 3.14. is meant including justification, sanctification, and all graces. And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration, when he saith, it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts, not of spiritual grace, and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaster to a wounded heart, which would hardly heal the skin, this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting, and to give them spirits to believe, and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace, in order to Salvation, can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition. And after, and it must needs have been a mighty low, and disproportionable way of persuasion, to put them upon such high things in the former verse, and to encourage them only by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following, when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins, and salvation by Jesus Christ; and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them. Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise, nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents. But I deny, 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament, when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed, Gen. 17.7. or that, Isai 44.3. and such like, nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it, and there is this reason against it. For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons, and believers▪ but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons, for they were not such, but then charged by Peter, and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ, and admonished to repent of it, and therefore the words have clearly this sense, The promise is to you, and your children as bad as you have been, and the mention of their children is not allusive to God's expressions in the Old Testament, but to their own curse on them and their children, Matth. 27.25. and so cannot note a privilege to them and their children as persons better then others, but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of, by telling them of God's inrent for good according to his promise, though they meant it for evil, as the same Apostle doth, Acts 3.17, 18, 19. and Joseph did, Gen. 45.5. and 50.20. 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of itself, for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty, not as a plea whereby they might claim, nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism, but the consequent on it. For the promise whether it be of remission of sins, or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master. Sidenhams observation that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained, but as attainable, not before, but upon their repentance and baptism, neither to them, nor to their children as their children; but to them and their children, and all afar off as many as the Lord should call. 3. He doth not invite them to baptism, but so as that he first puts them in mind of repentance. Now if the promise had been alleged as giving title of itself to baptism, he had left out repentance: But putting it in first, he plainly shows, that the alleging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism, and first to repentance, then to baptism; nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents, the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both. And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament, that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of God's calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise, he had deceived them, and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jews and their infant males were circumcised by virtue of the promise, so it should be to them in baptism, is but vai • without proof, and without truth.
But Master Sidenham asserts that the words [as many as the Lord shall call] can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse, either to parents or children; which if true, then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts, that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification, sanctification, and all graces, was to them and their children, whether called or no. But let's view his reasons for this audacious assertion. For, saith he, 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse; in the first part unto the Jews, he speaks de praesenti, of the present application of the promise; repent you and be baptized—; for the promise is to you and your children: even now the promise is offered to you; and they were then under the call of God; But when he speaks of the Gentiles, because they were yet afar off, and not at all called, he speak de futuro, as many as God shall call, even of them also; which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles.
Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same ve • b in either part of, v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and neither used above once, so that he might have said, he useth two verbs in two tenses, but neither change • h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense, and had said, the promise is to you and your children whom he now calls, and the promise shall be to all that are afar off as many as God shall call even of them also, did it follow that in no sense the words (as many as the Lord shall call) can be referred to the Former part of the verse, either to parents or children? Surely if I have any understanding, the contrary follows, that if the meaning were▪ the promise even now is offered to you, and they were then under the call of God, but not yet called, the words may be referred to the former part of the verse to parents and children, thus the promise of remission of sins is now offered to you and your children under the call of God to be attained by as many as the Lord our God shall effectually call at this time, and hereafter. But how stands it with other Paedobaptists applications of this Seripture, as if the promise did de praesenti belong to the children in external right and administration, and a covenant-right in them, and title to the initial seal, and yet the promise only offered to them, and they not called, but under the call of God. If the offer of the promise, and a call in fieri which is not in facto esse be sufficient to entitle men to the promise in external right, and to the initial ieal, then had those Jews which believed not, Acts 28.24. and the Athenians, Acts 17.32. such right and title. Master Sidenham will have infants by the words [your children] will he say the promise was then offered to them, and they then under the call of God? If he did, he should tell how that we might understand it. And there is need he should show some reason and proof of that his paraphrase, which is not yet done, ere his Reader (if he be wise) will receive it. And for what he saith that in that verse there is an exact distribution of the world into Jew and Gentile, the Gentiles being usually those afar off, it requires better proof then this, since neither is the term Jew expressed, nor the term [afar off] used of the Gentiles that I know but, Ephes. 2.13. where it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which may be questioned whether it be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the text. But Master Sidenham adds.
2. How unequal would the distribution • e of this verse, not suitable to the laws of expression among rational men? If as many as the Lord shall call, should be a limitation to the former part of the verse, the word children, must needs be redundant and superfluous; for Jews and Gentiles comprehend all the world. Now children must either be one part of the world, or comprehend under one or both names, or be a distinct world by themselves, neither Jews nor Gentiles: And this must needs follow on such a reading of the words; for the design of the Apostle is to hold forth the freeness of the promise to Jew and Gentile, and their children, to these Jews at present, to the Gentiles and their children when God shall call the parents, as he did these Jews.
Ans. Master Sidenham hath printed here such a toy as might please himself, but is fit for nothing but to be slighted. For, 1. He supposeth that [you and those afar off] is as much as Jews and Gentiles, which is not proved. 2. He supposeth consequently [you and those afar off] to comprehend all the world, because Jews and Gantiles comprehend all the world. But this follows not, though the term [you] note Jews, if it note only some Jews, to wit, those to whom Peter then spake. 3. That if [as the Lord shall call] should be a limitation to the former part of the verse, the word children, must needs be redundant and superfluous, for Jews and Gentiles comprehend all the world. Which indeed follows on his conceit that here is an exact distribution of the world into Jew and Genrile. But this is manifestly false, for though [they afar off] should be the Gentiles, yet all the Gentiles are not therein comprehended, but those that are called; and if the term [you] note the Jews, yet in notes not all the Jews, but such as were parents, and therefore the term [children] is necessary being not comprehended under the term [you] and it is alike necessary to express them distinctly, whether the limitation [as many as the Lord shall call] be applied to the former part of the verse or to the latter only, so that I can yet see no reason of Master Sidenhams conceit, that such a referring of the limitation [as many as the Lord our God shall call] to the first part of the v. as I make, would cause the distribution of this v. to be so unequal as not to be suitable to the laws of expression among rational men. And to what he adds further I say [children] were one part of the world, and comprehended under Jews, but how this must needs follow on such a reading of the words as puts [as many as the Lord shall call] to the first part of the verse anymore then to the latter only I see not? nor if it did, do I know any absurdity in it, no nor any opposition to what he makes the Apostles designs. But let's see what he makes of all this to his purpose. He tells us, now put children by themselves a third party, and add, whom the Lord shall call, and you exclude them from being etiher Jews or Gentiles, and so excommunicate them from any hopes of calling, or being saved. To which I say, if I doated like Master Sidenham, making [you and those afar off] synonymous to Jews, and Gentiles in general, when the terms note only some in particular, and put [children] by themselves as a third party, I should exclude them from being Jews or Gentiles, whether I added to the first part of the v. the words [as many as the Lord shall call] or did otherwise. And if I made all that are called and saved to be comprehended under [you and those afar off] as Synonymous to Jews and Gentilas in General, and excluded [children] as neither I should excommunicate them a • he saith. But that either any such thing follows on the limiting of the former part of the v. by those words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] or any other of my sayings, is neither proved by Master Sidenham nor any other, nor ever will.
But Master Sidenham goes on: Now this is, 1. Contrary to that known rule in Logic, That Omnis bona distributio debet esse bimembris ; only of two members, and those opposite one to another; to bring in a third mars all. This then he imagines that if [your children] be a third party, and not either [you or those afar off] a Logic rule would be broken. But whose Logic rule is that he mentions? I confess there have been Logicians who have affected dichotonie, but when they have tied themselves to it, they have been censured as guilty of accurate vanity by Burgersdicius Inst. log. l. 2. c. 5. Keck. Syst. Log. l. 1. part. 2. c. 3. and others. Scheibler Top. c. 29. n. 36. bounds it with sundry cautions. And indeed we must cashier many received divisions if that rule hold as e. g. in morality of good into honest, pleasant and profitable, in divinity of the law into moral, ceremonial and judicial, of the divine persons into the Father, Son and holy Ghost, of the Books of the Old Testament into Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms and so blame Christ himself. What Master Sidenham infers, so that it is most clear the words must be understood, as they are translated, is not denied by me, and yet the words, [ Acts 2.39. as many as the Lord our God shall call] limit the first part of the v. Nor do I deny the promise is to you Jews, and your children at present, to express the Apostles meaning in the sense I have given, nor do I gainsay what he adds, and to those afar off also and their children, when God shall call them, if he mean it of the calling the chileren as well as the parents; though withal it is to be noted, that in the text there is no mention of the children of those afar off. But what he saith further, else (that is, if the promise be not to the children of those afar off when God shall call the parents) calling can with no sense be applied to any tittle of the former part of the verse, without you make it monstrous, and unlike itself, is either false or unintelligible by me. For though the promise should not be to the children of those afar off, when God called the parents, yet this is in my apprehension good sense, The promise is to you being called, and to your children being called, nor is any monstrosity or unlikeness to itself more in this sense then if the term [called] were applied only to the latter part: But there would be non-sense, if the distribution were reduced to dichotomie as Master Sidenham would have it, and the proposition would be false, that the promise (which Master Sidenham makes to be of remission of sins, Christ and his Spirit, justification, sanctification, and all graces) is to them or their children without calling, or though God should not call them.
There is some more of the like stuff in that which follows. 2. It's against another rule about distribution which is, that partes divisionis ambulent equali passu, that the parts of a distribution should be equally set together. Now here will be a mighty inequality, as to the communication of the promise; if the words should be taken in their sense, the Jews will have a greater privilege then the Gentiles, if children be not equally added to both, the Jews had the promise made to them, and their children at present, these afar off shall only have the promise to themselves, but not their children.
Ans. It is one of the vexations that befalls men that write books that they are necessitated to answer such silly scriblings: But so we must do or else the world will be befooled with that which is most vain. The objection to which this Author answers is, that the latter clause, as many as the Lord shall call, is a limitation of the verse, and no more are under the promise, and so children, if God shall call them, shall also enjoy the promise; now that which he contends for is, that [children] is to be added equally to both parts of the v. (which was not in question) but shows not the promise to be to the children if God call them not, which is the thing in question. And as he shoots besides the mark, proving what was not to be proved, so his argument is nothing to that he takes on him to prove. He sets down a rule in Logic, which I find in Scheibler, • op. c. 29. n. 39. with this explication, hoc est, sumantur ex eodem genere. But in this sense it seems this Author meant it, that the thing divided be communicated equally to the parts of the division, it is not true. For then the division of being into substance and accident, God and the Creature, with many more, were not right divisions. But were his rule right, as he means it, (as it is not) yet it is nothing to his purpose. He would prove, if children be not equally added to both parts of the v. Acts 2.39. then the Jews will have a greater privilege then the Gentiles (which might be granted without absurdity) for there would be a mighty inequality, as to the communication of the promise, which is against the rule of Logic he mentions, as if the promise or the communication of the promise were a whole divided into parts, and one part were the Jews and their children, and the other were the Gentiles and their children, which were ridiculous; nor do I know any other way he can understand his arguing from this Logic rule, but that it will appear alike frivolous. But the Reader (I doubt) will think I insist too much in answering such trifles. I go on therefore.
3. Saith he, consider, how comes this word (your children) to be kept in, for what end and use, if it were not to show some spiritual privilege they have with their parents, when God calls or converts the parents? what stands it for but a stone of offense to conscientious hearts?
Ans. 1. he asserts in this passage that (your children) is kept in to show some spiritual privilege they have with their parents, when God calls or converts the parent? but a little before he observed a change in the tense in both parts of the verse; in the first part unto the Jews, he speaks de praeseuti, of the present application of the promise, and supposeth under the call of God already; here (your children) is to show a special privilege, when God calls or converts the parent, which intimates that he had not then called or converted the parent. and therefore the one passage crosseth the other.
2. He had said before, that (as many as the Lord shall call) can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children, and yet here he refers it in a necessary sense, as he conceives, to the parent.
3. If the special privilege to the children doth suppose the parents call, why not also the children's call?
4. Yea the special privilege in the Text to the father and child is the promise, and that Master Sidenham makes to be of justification, sanctification, and all graces, and can he imagine this promise to be to a child barely on the parents call without his own personal calling by God? I think he durst not assert it: If he did, I am sure it is false as being contrary to Rom. 8.30. and therefore of necessity to make his own exposition good, we must limit the former part of the verse, in what is said both of parent and child by the words [ as many as the Lord our God shall call ]. As for his questions, why [ your children ] is in the verse, it hath been answered, because of their imprecation, Matth. 27.25. to which he replies thus:
To see the sad shift of error is wonderful: Can any man imagine, that the parents could doubt more, or so much of their children's being accepted, and saved, when God should call them who were innocent, and only under the sudden rash curse of their parents, when they saw that the promise was to themselves, who were the actual murderers of the Lord Jesus.
Answ. To me who am so well acquainted with the shifts of Paedobaptists, it is not wonderful to see the shifts of error. This very reply what is it but a vain shift? For he supposeth the children were innocent, which he cannot prove, and that the curse was sudden and rash, which seems rather to have been deliberate, and that they saw the promise was to themselves, and Christ offered pardon to themselves, when there was nothing but horror on their consciences for crucifying Christ till after Peters speech to them, and that if the parents were not imagined to doubt more or so much of their children's being accepted and saved as themselves, then there was no reason to insert [your children] by occasion of the imprecation, Matth. 27.25. whereas if they doubted any whit, yea if for the present they did not think on that curse, yet might afterwards as there was cause they should, there was reason enough for Peter to insert those words whether they tended to take away a present, or possible fear in them concerning their children. But there is more of his trifling yet behind.
2. Saith he, Such a consideration would rather sadden them then refresh them, to mention the calling of their children: For they might more doubt of that, then of anything, whether God would call them or no, and be as far to seek as ever they were, that they would have but cold comfort upon this account; this was enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye.
Answ. The phrase [ and be as far to seek as ever they were ] intimates the Jews had attained some comfort before this speech of Peter (which is manifestly false from the Text) and that telling them that the promise was to their children if called by God would rather sadden them then refresh them, it was cold comfort, enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye: which is in effect all one as if a man should say, when a man is in a swoon hot water will rather sadden him then refresh him, or when a man is sad, it is cold comfort enough to break his heart to give him a cup of Sack. But Mr. Sidenham will not be thought sine ration delirare. For, saith he, they might doubt more of that, then of anything, whether God would call them or no. What? was it likely they should doubt more of their children's calling and pardon, if they were called, then of their own pardon, who were then under horror of soul for their own grand crime of killing Christ? or if they did thus doubt, would it break their heart to be told that there was a possibility and hope that the promise was to their children, who might be called? I have heard that if it were not for hope the heart would break: but I never heard that the telling of a person of a thing of which there was hope, though he might doubt of it, would break his heart. But Master Sidenham adds.
The old way of conveying the promise is cut off, no promise but to called ones: our poor children are uncalled, and God knows whether ever they may be called of God: thus might they reason.
Ans. Its true, they might thus reason: But that they did, or by Peters words, as expounded by me, were likely to reason thus, is against reason to imagine. The old way of conveying the promise I imagine he means the giving the initial seal to their infants, that is, Circumcision. Now will any sober man think that in that perplexity they were in through conscience of their guilt, and danger of wrath impending on their children by reason of their impious curse, when Peter tells them to stay them from despair, that yet in Christ sent the promise was fulfilled for remission of sins to them and their children, if each of them were called of God, that is, did repent and believe, that they would repel this comfort by questioning the loss of Circumcision, and bemoaning the want of it to their infants? I know the Jews were zealous after for Circumcision and the Law, even those who became Christians, yet sure in that perplexity there was not the least thought of such a poor privilege as an initial seal, but of the freedom of themselves and children from their guilt and curse. But I would know where this doctrine is, that Circumcision conveys the promises, or is the old way of conveying them, and what Scripture saith the promise (of remission of sins here meant, as Master Sidenham himself expounds it) is to any but called ones. Paul saith, Rom. 8.30. whom he hath called, them he hath justified. Hos & non alios, saith Augustine, and Orthodox Protestants, as from the Text may be evinced, since all these agree to the same persons to be predestinate, called, justified, glorified. Is this such doctrine as were enough to break their hearts? But let's hear him out.
But when he includes them in the same promise with parents, and exhorts the parents to repent upon this ground, that the promise is to them and their children; this savors like a Gospel comforting-exhortation, and could not be but of great efficacy upon their spirits.
Answ. Me thinks it should be comfortable to them, that the promise was to them and their children upon condition of calling, that is, sanctification, repentance, believing: It is Antinomian doctrine, not Gospel, to say, justification is to a person uncalled, that afore he believes he is justified actually before God, even while he lives in the height of sin. It is true the promises of the land of Canaan and other benefits were to Abraham's natural seed: but the Gospel-promises of remission of sins and everlasting life in Christ, were never to Abraham's or any believing parents natural seed as such, but only to Abraham's spiritual seed elect and true believers. Master Sidenham adds.
4. What strange mysterious tautologies would be in this one verse? if that last sentence should refer to all the former expressions, we must read it thus to make out their sense. The promise is to you parents of the Jews, when God shall call you, (and they were then under call) and to your grown children, when God shall call them; and to all which are afar off, when God shall call them: Can any man with his understanding about him think the holy Ghost should faulter so much in common expression of his mind, when there was no need of adding of calling to any part, but to those that are afar off, who never were yet under God's Gospel call?
Answ. There's neither tautology, nor mystery in limiting the promise to the called of the Jew parents and children, nor doth anything make it seem strange, but ignorance. Tautology is not, since the Propositions are three distinct ones in words and sense, it is not the same to say, the promise is to you called, the promise is to your children called, the promise is to all that are afar off called▪ you, your children, all that are afar off being different terms. Mystery is no more, if it be added to the former part of the verse then to the latter. The calling in the latter part of the verse can be understood of no other than effectual calling, whether inward only, or both inward, and outward, for to none other of the Gentiles is the promise of remission of sins. And for the same reason the limitation is necessary to be added to the former part of the verse; nor can any good reason be given why the promise should be to the Jews and their children without calling by God, and not to those afar off without it; The Jews were then under call, but were not then called, nor doth Mr. Sidenham say they were, and therefore Peter might aptly enough say to them, The promise is to • s many of you as the Lord our God shall call. The manner of expression is usual to put after a distribution of persons the limitation in common. There is the like, Acts 3.24, where as many as have spoken limits the Prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after. Had Mr. Sidenham understanding in him of these things, he had not charged my exposition with making the Holy Ghost faulter in common expression of his mind. Such censures ill become such a smattering scribler. But who so bold as blind bayard? It follows
Lastly, saith he, the word, children, may and must he understood of little ones, infants, not of adult and grown persons, for these reasons.
Answ. Boldly said like a young hotspur. Belike then when persons are ten, twelve, or more years old, they cease to be their parents children and seed. But I am willing to hear reason: 1. saith he, the word here ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) properly signifies an offspring, anything brought forth, though it be but of a day, of a moment old: Thus when a woman is said to be in pain, and to bring forth, this word is used, John 16.21. Luke 1.31. Matth. 1.16. Luke 1.57.
Answ. How heedlessly did this Author scribble when he said, this word (which can be no other then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) is used, John 16.21. Luke 1.31. Matth. 1, 26. Luke 1.57. when it is used in none of those places, though the verb whence it comes is used in them. But were it used there, yet the reason is frivolous: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a thing brought forth, ergo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 children, Acts 2.39. may not, must not be understood of adult and grown persons. He might as well have said, it must be understood but of those that are in this moment brought forth, not of an infant of a day old, and that the person brought forth is only the mothers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or child, because she only brought him forth, not the father. I did think till I met with this new Master, that the Holy Ghost spake properly when he called persons grown to ripe age their fathers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or children, Ephes. 6.1. Col. 3.21. &c.
2. Saith he, Its an indefinite word, and therefore may not be restrained to grown children, except God had expressed it in a peculiar phrase.
Answ. Mr. Sidenham alters the conclusion he undertook to prove, and concludes that which he finds not denied: His reason is as well against his own conclusion: Its an indefinite word, and therefore may not be restrained to infant-children except God had expressed it in a peculiar phrase. And indeed the reason is good only thus. Its an indefinite word, therefore its to be restrained as the subject matter directs. But Mr. Sidenham shifts as it may serve his turn. His conclusion set down at first excluded adult children, because he knew the promise had not then been to them without calling, and so his project of drawing thence a privilege for infants intituling them to baptism had failed, but here his proof coming short he alters the conclusion into that which might be granted him without detriment to the cause.
3. Saith he, It must needs be especially meant of little ones, because they are distinguished from themselves, who were men of years. Now when we distinguish between men and children, we suppose the one adult, the other under age, and not grown up; and it is contrary to all ways of expression to think otherwise.
Answ. Belike then we must think that where it is said, Matth. 10.21. the fathers shall deliver the children to death, and the children shall rise up against the parents, and Luke 1.17. to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, it must be especially meant of little ones, because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years, and to think otherwise if the Dr. of New-Castle say true, is contrary to all ways of expression, which you may imagine he knew.
4. Saith he, It cannot be rationally conjectured otherwise, because the Apostle doth join them with their parents in the same promise, and not leave them to stand by themselves, as grown persons must.
Answ. Belike then if any understand the promises to Abraham, and his seed, to David and his seed of any other then infants it is not rationally conjectured. I have done with this Writer about this Text, of which he vainly talks, as he doth in the rest; so that all things weighed, this text of Scripture if there were no more, holds forth (not to be seen) the sameness of the promise to believers of the Gospel, both Jew and Gentile and their children, as ever it was to Abraham and his natural seed.
SECT. XXV. Mr. Marshal 's Reply to my Examen about his first Conclusion is reviewed, and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixed, and that Gentile self justiciaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham 's seed, nor Gal. 4.29. proves it, and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right.
I Now reassume the Review of Mr. Ms. Reply to my Examen of his Sermon; Next, saith he, come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent, which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my Sermon. But I supposed he had intended to prove by his five Conclusions not only his Antecedent, but also his Consequence. If I apprehend him rightly, there are none of his five Conclusions but the two first that are for proving of the Antecedent. But let's view what he writes.
The first whereof is this, That the covenant of grace for substance hath always been one and the same both to Jews and Gentiles. The first Conclusion you grant, and therefore there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it, were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant. If it be in substance the same, though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences, it were nothing to the purpose.
Answer. It is true, I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon, pag. 9, 10. in these words, That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall, and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed, and the Patriarchs faith therein, and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture: But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham ; who because he was the first explicit Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithful; and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families, the one called the Kingdom, City, Household of God, to which all who own the way of life were to join themselves; and th • se were called the children of God, the sons of Abraham, the children of the Kingdom; all the rest of the world, the Kingdom of the Devil, the seed of the Serpent, strangers from the covenant of grace, without God in the world, &c. The substance of this covenant of grace on God's part was to be Abraham