Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 23
SECT. XXIII. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38, 39. against the connexion 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.) Abrahams children; for Abraham is considered rather by him as a patern, having the precedential Copy of the Covenant mentioned. And it had been incongruous to have said; It is to your children, that is, to Abrahams children. Concerning which passage I say, that though I conceive it a mistake to understand by [your children] Abrahams 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 it self, and not a precedential Copy of the covenant mentioned. I think Master Cobbet cannot shew 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 shew 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 priviledge 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 Jewes, 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 Christs blood, else the plaister were too narrow for their wounds rising from the guilt of bloud wished upon their children, including, and not excluding their babes; it followes 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 mans children being for present infant… is verifyed 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 Jewes 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 onelyonly an offer, but also an assurance of remission of sins to the called by vertue of the promise fulfilled in Christs 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 Jewes, as Rom. 9, 4. they being the onelyonly 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 shew that it's meant of Church and federal interest in them, as covenant-fathers and dispensers, or to shew that the covenant was as seed, by vertue whereof they considered as foederally and ecclesiastically priviledged, 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 Jewes had a priority of not onelyonly external interest in the covenant, but also internal, though when the Gentiles were called, the priviledges of the covenant were equal to the Gentiles with the Jewes, 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 foreign those afar off, Acts 2.39. to be the same with foreign 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 Jewes 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 whilest afar off, and uncalled, are but conceits arising from the mistakes of Peters speech, Acts 2.39. and Pauls, Ephes. 2.13. It is true, to the Jewes 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 humane 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 Gods 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 Jewes & their children by Gods own appointment, circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it, a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self, and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham, as applyed 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 onelyonly 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 Jewes and their children, nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it, a visible seal of the righteousness of faith, nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith, but Abrahams, which was not a seal as applyed 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 addes, Nor will it suffice to say, that covenant was a mixt covenant. It held forth temporal things indeed, but by vertue 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, and make other promises of temporal things to be onelyonly 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 mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams 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 mixt. 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 vertue 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 Abrahams seed by faith onelyonly, nor doth the Apostle any where 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 onelyonly to the elect, not to all. Nor doth Rom. 9.4. say, the promises pertained to all the Jewes, 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 Jewes, 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 Jewes, nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes, as a seal of their membership therein, but of their owning Johns doctrine, becoming his disciples, and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees, and other Jewish Church-rulers, though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service. Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism, Acts 2.38. because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto, yet being adult members under offence, 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 Jewes were members were in their profession not onelyonly 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 offence 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 Jewes 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, untill their unbelief, or total and final rejection of the covenant as ratified in Jesus as that promised Messiah, Rom. 11.20. to which the Jewes 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 Jewes, Acts 2.37. were of, and those Jewes 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 interessed 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 interessed in the Covenant of grace, who sought righteousness by the works of the law, and they a Christian Church who denyed, persecuted, killed Christ, and avouched themselves Moses his disciples, John 9.27. not Christs. 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 Jewes.
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 Christs 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 Christs passion, the true faith remained in none but onelyonly 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 visibilis, talis scilicet, in qua erant praela…i & subditi, pastores & oves. Nam ecclesia visibilis non erat apud pharisaeos & scribas▪ Illi enim impudenter, & sceleratè 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 Christs 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 Christs Ministery, many baptized by John and Christs Disciples, John 4.1, 2. In the time of Christs 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 denyed 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 professione 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 intitle to baptism, without repentance and faith, sith even of those Jewes 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 Jewes, 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 Gods onelyonly visible Church, in the time of Christs 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 Jewes.
Ans. The true reason, why we conceive Peter required repentance of the adult Jewes 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 Christs minde. 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 Jewes, I know not who assignes them as the cause why Peter required of adult Jewes 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, sith his writing hath been crackt 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 needfull 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 needfull 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 needfull 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 Jaylour 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 joyning 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 Jewes, Acts 2.37. were members was a true Evangelical Church. 1. Because so in the time of Christs incornation. But this followeth not, it might be so at Christs incarnation, and yet not be so at the time of Peters speech, Acts 2.38, 39. they having expresly denyed Christ. 2. Because he lived and dyed 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 & dyed the head of the Evangelical church of Jewes 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 Jewes, Acts 2.37. were a part, is not true, he being an out-cast 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 Jewes, he intimates that this objectour conceived it necessary that baptism be administred in or by or to a church, such as the Jewes 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 administred 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 Jewes, that he may maintain a title to baptism, though suspended by reason of their sin in the Jewes 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 Jewes 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 administred onelyonly 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 Christs time interessed, Matth. 3.11, 12. this was then the onelyonly floor, or visible church of Christ (for in the invisible church is no chaffe) [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 Jewes were Christs floor, and that in that floor or people were chaffe 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 Jewes, as a seal of their membership therein. For what consequence is there in this, God sent John to the Jewes, he had his authority to baptize those of the Jewes, who repented, therefore he sealed their membership in the church of the Jewes, and baptism was administrable in, or by, or to that church of the Jewes? It seems to me that the contrary followes, 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 chaffe and wheat; therefore he was not given by God in reference to that church of the Jewes 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 Jewes, 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 administred onelyonly in and by a church of Christ, but conceive it a ministerial ordinance to be administred 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 setling 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 com in locum saith, Dominus areae suae, h. e. ecclesiae. imo totius mundi) Christs floor, yet from hence it followes not they were Christs visible Church, there being other reason why they are called Christs floor, because Christ imployed his fanne, to wit, his preaching among them, being Minister of the circumcision, Rom. 15.8. though they were not Christs visible church, that is, a company or people professing themselves to be his Disciples. Nor is it true that in John Baptists and Christs time, all sorts which John baptized, hypocrites, or upright ones, were interessed in the Jewish church as Christs floor, nor any such thing proved from Matth. 3.11, 12. the being in the floor importing onelyonly their position, no benefit or interest accruing to them thereby. But Master Cobbet goes on.
Into this Church-fellowship also did Christs 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, untill 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 Jewes according to their place: yet in respect of profession of Doctrine they were by baptism separated from the Jewes, 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 Churchmembership gave title to baptism, or baptism visibly sealed persons into Jewish Church-fellowship.
Master Cobbet having cashiered the spurious reasons (as he imagins) why Peter required of the Jews, to whom he said, The promise is repentance afore baptism, he takes on him to assigne the genuine reasons thus.
But the reason rather was, partly because (as was said) they were under such offence. Ans. He required repentance, because they had sinned in crucifying Christ, but repentance was not required to take away the offence of the church the Jewes 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 Jewes by any church-act, tending to their correction for that sin, yea, the rulers of the Jewes with the people did generally avow that act as well done: nor was any thing 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 soules needed. Master Cobbet addes: 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 likelyhood that Peter ever intended to urge repentance by reason of these things, sith 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 Jewes 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, sith it did not give title to these Jewes, even then when notwithstanding their offence, 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 offence and corrupt mixtures. But let's hear Master Cobbet a little further.
And partly, saith he, because it was now requisite, not onelyonly to acknowledg the promised M…ssiah of Abrahams loynes, to be he alone, which by his bloud should come actually, as well as virtually, to ratifie 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 Abrahams loynes, 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 Jewes 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 shewes a manif…st difference between ci…cumcision and baptism in their use; and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism, yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet ▪ sith 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 Jewes, then of their unripe children, onelyonly he tels of their practice in New England, that when any are received to fellowship with them, though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches, are admitted upon their former church-ingagement, 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 Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes 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 Jewes 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-priviledges, 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 Jewes 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 intitle to baptism of it self 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 intitle the Father to baptism without repentance: Idem qua idem semper facit idem, so that after so many shifts, absurdities, unproved dictates, vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes 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 Jewes afore baptism, against the connexion 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 cleer 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 Jewes, therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day, and that addition. For what is addition to a company but a joyning 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, sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done. Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly (of which there is no cause to doubt, sith the particles foreign then v. 41. shew 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 onelyonly 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 Gods promise to him, and in church-estate, that is, so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it.
Master Cobbet proceeds thus. Nor is that cogent, which is urged against the childrens right in the promise, and unto baptism, that they should be so priviledged, when they came to be effectually called, and to be turned from their sins, as if this were quoad homines, their onelyonly rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace, or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof: or at least the onelyonly 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 Gods 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 chaffe 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 drawes from the objection as thus interpreted [The promise is in respect of external right and administration, to none but the effectually called] that the onelyonly rule to judg a persons visible right to baptism, and the onelyonly 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 Gods promise or covenant, and have asserted; that is onelyonly 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 chaffe 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 alledge 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. OnelyOnly 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, sith 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 addes 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 saies.
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 vertue of Abrahams 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 Gods own appointment of circumcision, to be the initiatory seal, not to a blanck, but to his covenant of being a God to them whilest babes, and before circumcised in heart, so as actually to repent, Deut. 30.6. this their babes had external right unto whilest 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 priviledge which they had before this of their childrens federal in…erest, and priviledge of Abrahams 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 priviledge in lieu hereof. How such doctrine might well stumble, and trouble such Parents, let any sober and judicious mind judg; 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 wayes 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 blanck, childrens federal interest, precious parental priviledge, 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 priviledge 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 Jewes 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 imagins 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 likelyhood 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 weare is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the collick. 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 priviledge for them and their children, which as it was to them before, was painfull in the use, so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation, to be continued in an other rite which of it self 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 disswade them from it, as might fill their mindes with high conceits of their and their childrens covenant-right, even by vertue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ, or joyning 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 childrens 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 shewed 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 meer 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 Christs bloud, and sanctification by his Spirit, which is effectual calling, and they can in trueth 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 alledging the Scriptures impertinently, sith it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong, that they may heare 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 Jewes, Acts 21.20, 22, 23, 24. would not give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham it self, 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, sith babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election: nor doth my exposition exclude the Jewes 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 shewed 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 Pauls doctrine, Rom. 15.8. who makes it Christs 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 childrens federal interest in the daies of the Gospel? and he answers, 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension, this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace is of divine authority, and i… no humane invention.
Ans. 1. In the objection, the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denyed to be visibly in Abrahams covenant, which Master Cobbet alters, thus [are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace] now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abrahams covenant, and yet denyed, that they are visibly interessed 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 interessed 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 humane invention notwithstanding this text and the concession of the objectour.
2. Saith Master Cobbet, these Jewes are eyed by the Apostles, as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians, as was baptism; and therefore what extent of federal right and priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way. Ans. the Jewes were not tyed 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 priviledge, 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 priviledge 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 allowes to children of Jewish parents the priviledge Master Cobbet means. 2. the Jewes, Acts 2.39. were not considered as coming on to Christ, but as guilty of crucifying him, and under horrour of conscience for it. 3. The priviledge of baptism or the promise in respect of external right and administration (as Master Cobbets phrase is) could not belong to the Jewes 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 priviledge then the Gentiles in the first offer of the Gospel, as they had larger priviledges before, Rom. 9.3, 4, 5. and they shall have larger priviledges 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, lawes, by which he hath bound himself; would argue unjust prosopolepsy, his declarations, promises, and lawes 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 Jewes 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 colour from the words that, Acts 2.39. the promise is meant to be actually to those Jewes, 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 Jewes 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 Jewes then, nor to any afar off afterwards that can be shewed. 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 Jewes 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 Jewes then present, then to those afar off. Nor is it true that the Jewes 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 vertue of Gods call, and it is true the promise is to Gentiles child…en and Jewes when called of God, and no otherwise, and consequently no Birth-priviledge to either intitling to baptism. And thus is that magnified chapter of Master Cobbet abundantly answered.