A just vindication of the covenant and church-estate of children of church-members as also of their right unto bastisme : wherein such things as have been brought by divers to the contrary, especially by Ioh. Spilsbury, A.R. Ch. Blackwood, and H. Den are revised and answered : hereunto is annexed a refutation of a certain pamphlet styled The plain and wel-grounded treatise touching baptism
Cobbet, Thomas, 1608-1685.
Page 1323. THat Federall ordinances, such as are the seales, are as well priviledges as precepts; hence circumcision is reckoned as the fathers priviledge, Acts 7. 2. 8. hence Rom. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4. see more Acts 2. 38, 39. this some which oppose us acknowledge when such speeches as these are used:
SECT. IIII.
that it is certaine the Jewes had by Gods appointment the priviledge of circumcision, and the covenant made with Abraham did belong to them in speciall manner, and that children of parents not matrimonially sancti∣fied, as Zara and Pharez, were in the covenant of saving grace, and Church-priviledges; surely then circumcision was one, which these babes did partake of. [And] the Jewes had this priviledge, to bee reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the Olive:
and one of the wayes of that administra∣tion was circumcision, was it not? [And] the priviledges in re∣spect of the administration of the covenant are now many wayes inlarged, and made more honorable; and a little before, the promises of the covenant of grace being of the substance, not of the administrations, are priviledges and the same now to belee∣vers, and as large and honorable as then.
These speeches in∣deed seeme not so consonant to some passages before, and some after: that it is no priviledge to us, to have any thing in lieu of that administration, but Christ already come, who is in stead of all.
But let mee reason of these things a little, the covenant of A∣braham in speciall wise belonged to the Jewes, and that was a co∣venant of grace, scil. to bee a God to them and theirs, as I have proved; was this no priviledge to them? or was that, Deut. 29. 14. with 30. 6. no priviledge? was it no priviledge for this name∣sake of God to have such ingagements, not meerely for temporalls but spiritualls, even when they had provoked him? Ezek. 36. from the 17. to the end. Were they with theirs so peculiar a peo∣ple in these respects, and yet were these no priviledges? Deut. 14. 2. see more Chap. 7. 6, 7, 8. it's reckoned as a choyce fruit of his love: And were even sundry Infants of theirs base borne, in the covenant of saving grace, and Church priviledges, and was this no priviledge to them, if so? since the promises of the covenant of grace, are priviledges, and the same now to beleevers, and as large and honorable as then, either these promises to their chil∣dren mentioned, Deut. 30. 6, &c. were not of the substance of the
Page 133 covenant of grace; and then how could even base borne children bee in the covenant of saving grace? or they are no priviledge; neither of which I suppose will bee affirmed: if these promises to Church children bee not barely of the administration of the co∣venant: for so are the Church priviledges rather, which are be∣fore made distinct from their inbeing in the covenant of grace, but of the substance. Then why not now the same and larger rather? Why are beleevers children then excluded the covenant? And are the priviledges in respect of administration of the covenant now inlarged, &c. Then either that administration of the covenant ini∣tiatory seale, as such, to their children, was no priviledge: or there must be such a like priviledge and not straitned, at least not wholly excluded, as that of a like, I say not the same, but a like admini∣stration of the initiatory covenant seale to inchurched beleevers children now. And suppose it bee no priviledge to have any thing in lieu of circumcision of Infants, but Christ; yet is it no priviledge to have any other thing then Christ to beleevers them∣selves? Circumcision is confessed to bee an appointed seale of initiation to them that entered into covenant with God before Christs incarnation, and baptisme such a seale since; and that it signified sanctification by the Spirit, justification and salvation by Christ, and faith in him, but as to come, and baptisme as come, &c. and is this no priviledge to beleevers, that now they have not that manner of initiation by circumcision; yea but in a better way they have, scil. by baptisme? Christ indeed was then to the Saints, and so hee is now all in all ordinances and priviledges; the Chief∣taine, that first, or principall one, Esay 41. Cant. 5. Psal. 73. 25. but it was not therefore no priviledge, nor is now the like, to have together with Christ many pretious ordinances dispensed to them and us: and verily the Scripture in old and new Testament, accounteth it no small priviledge, to have Gods Tabernacle and Sanctuary, Church and Church ordinances with us; and persons to bee in and under the same; hence promised as a reward and a fruit, yea part of the ratification of his covenant with them, Levit. 26. 9. 11. and therefore in the choyse times of the Gospel, it's so reckoned, Revel. 21. 3. yea and as of old the childrens Church estate and priviledge was therein included as of that nature: so in refe∣rence to the other times mentioned, was the same of the same ac∣count, as wee have shewed from Ezek. 37. 25, 26, 27.
