Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 22
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 shewed to be vain and mine justified.
TWo points the Paedobaptists do endeavour 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 shewed 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 sith Master Blake tels me Master Cobbet hath, p. 23. said that which utterly overthrowes 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 loynes 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, Christs resurrection; and v. 25. the covenant mentioned is that of blessing all the kinreds of the earth in Abrahams 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 shew 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 meer 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 Jewes to whom he spake. Now the sense that I give is very proper to comfort them against the horrour 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 heare, 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 sith 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 keepes 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 priviledges, v.g. Church-membership and baptism, is God a God to every one that is the seed or natural child of a believer. Yet if it were true, it had been false, being spoken to those Jewes, 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 vertue 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 disswade 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 priviledges 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 applyed to prove federall holyness of believers infants. Master Cobbet addes, 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 shewed. 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 remembred 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 Jewes and Gentiles: But the Jewes 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 needfull 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 Christs ascension, to effect some promised blessing [foreign] 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 Abrahams charter less then what here avowed by the Apostle, Scil. that the promise even of sins, did belong to the Jewes, 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 Abrahams charter, Gen. 17.7. Jerem. 31.33▪ 34. holding out at least an external interest therein to them being Jewes, 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, onelyonly 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 Jewes. 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, sith baptism neither there nor elsewhere is termed the seal of the promise or covenant, nor doth the Apostle mention baptism as sealing or administring the promise, nor do I understand that there is any such thing as an external right and administration of the promise, or by vertue of the promise, but by vertue 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 cals 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 Jewes 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 falshood: Non-sense, the words bearing no such meaning according to the Scripture-use or other approved authors: Falshood, in that he should tell them they had such a right and administration as they had not, and this impious, sith 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 externall 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 soules 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 Jewes, 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 soare, where doth Master Cobbet find in Scripture any mention of Gods calling into visible covenant, and Church-estate? or how can it be true that the Church to which those Jewes who crucifyed Christ joyned, containing the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees and High Priests, and the people of the Jewes 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 Jewes▪ 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 Saviour 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 withall some promise annexed and supposed in his being come. The promise meerly of Christs coming could not comfort them, unless also in and by Christ come in the flesh, there be some promise made to them touching the removall of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them 3. The blessing principally propounded to them, for their reviving, healing, succour, and support, it was not Christs 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 principall 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 Christs 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 Christs being sent and coming without some promise annexed, and particularly that of remission of sins by Christ▪ Whereas I did expresly include it in my paraphrase (as my words recited shew) gathering it from the mention of it, v. 38. and conceiving it to be implyed 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 shewing 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 onelyonly in external right and administration. 2. It had not been available for their reviving, healing, succour, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Christs declaration of his minde to all his Apostles touching the discipling and inchu…ching of the Gentiles the conversion of them, onelyonly they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition, as proselytes to the Jewes, rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches; his speech is not right. For, 1. Though it is true, Christ had declared his minde, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15. about conversion of the Gentiles, yet either Peter understood not Christs minde, 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 joyned them as Proselytes to the Jewes, but that he went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them, which sh…wes they held it unlawfull 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 joyning the Gentiles as proselytes to the Jewes, they knew that well enough, that they were not to be so joyned, sith neither John the Baptist, nor Christ or his Disciples did ever by baptism joyn any as proselytes to the Jewes, but did take even the Jewes themselves (who embraced their Doctrine) into distinct Churches or Schooles, though they did not erect any new political States or Common-wealths, as the nation of the Jewes 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 Christs 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 Christs 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.