of the Covenant of Grace made to him and to all his Spiritual Seed as such 3ly That Christ should come out of Abrahams Loins according to the Flesh and of none else was in that Covenant God made with him and a special part it was of the Covenant of circumcision and was that made to the Gentiles that believe or was it not peculiar to Abrahams Seed only according to the Flesh. 4. Also when the Apostle speaks of the Gospel which God preached to Abraham or promise of the Covenant of Grace he doth not mention the Covenant of restipulation in Gen. 17. 7 8 9. But that in Gen. 12. 3. Chap. 18. 18. and Chap. 22. 8. In thy Seed shall all Nations be Blessâ—d Mark it well You say The Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed was never Repealed nor Dissolved nor their Church State taken up by the Roots at the coming in of the Gospel for if it had say you how couâ—d the Blessing of Abraham come upon the Gentiles as promised Gen. 12. 3. 1. Answer Is not the Jewish Church State dissolved and doth not Dr. Owen tell you their Old Covenant is gone Yet 2. Do we say the promise of the New Covenant God made to Abraham is dissolved God forbid for that is unalterable and by the Vertue of which it is that believing Gentiles partake of the Blessings of Abraham But Friend the Gentiles receive not the Blessings of Abraham through the Law nor through the Covenant of Circumcision but by Faith in the Promise of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham viz. in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Nay Abraham himself 't is evident received not that blessedness in the Covenant of circumcision That Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness The Apostle asserts Rom. 4. 9. How was it then reckoned When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision Verse 10. There was no need of this distinction if circumcision appertained to the Covenant of Grace we see how 't is contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith And he received circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith he had yet being uncircumcised That he might be the Father of all that Believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also From hence I argue that circumcision was a Seal to none but Abraham 1. Because it is said to be a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith Abraham had being yet uncircumcised for so it could not be a Seal to others because they were circumcised before they believed 2. Because also it was to assure him of that peculiar Blessing and priviledge of being the Father of all that believe And none had that prerogative but Abraham only 3. Take this Argument If Abraham received the Spiritual Blessing viz. Righteousness and Justification by Faith in the promise of the Covenant of Grace made to him and received not the Blessing of Righteousness and Justification in the Covenant of circumcision then there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant transactions of God with Abraham But the former and latter is true Ergo there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant transactions God made with Abraham In Page 3. Mr. Shute says the Olive Tree or Covenant God made with Abraham was not dissolved For the Jews are to be grafted into their own Olive Tree again but if the Covenant were dissolved and repealed how can they be taken into it again for 't is called their own Olive Tree Rom. 11. 11 12 17. 1. Answer This Man mistakes the Holy Ghost The Apostle speaks not of the Jews as being Abrahams Carnal Seed as such but of thâ—m that belong to the Election of Grace 2. Now who doubts but that the Covenant of Grace was their Covenant or Olive Tree even all of them that shall be taken into it of the Jewish race in the latter days as much as it was their Covenant who were Jews and Elect ones who lived in the Apostles time 3. It might be called their Olive Tree or Covenant because the Covenant of Grace as it was made with Abraham ran first to his natural Seed who were the Children of the promise i. e. the Elect of God hence Christ said he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel That is not first sent they were first to have the offer of all New Covenant Grace and Blessings to them appertained the Covenant and Adoption c. viz. in the first place 4. Do we plead for the dissolution of the Covenant of Grace God made with or promised to Abraham because we say the Legal and external Covenant made with him and his Carnal Seed as such is removed by vertue of which they had their political Church State and visible Church-membership and all other Fleshly and Legal Priviledges Or do we say those Jews that believed or their Elect Infants were cast out of the Covenant of Grace God forbid No for if the Children of unbelieving Jews did believe it shews they are in covenant also In a word All that believe let them be whose Children they will they are all in the Covenant of Grace For there is now no difference Jews and Gentiles Old and young bond and free are all one in Christ Jesus Now no knowing Men after the Flesh i. e. upon the account of Fleshly or external Priviledges by descent from Abraham according to the Flesh Circumcisioa nor uncircumcision availeth nothing but a new Creature old things are past away and all things are become new 2. Cor. 5. 17. Should this Man object and say as to Dr. Owen he speaks of the Sinai Covenant or the Covenant made with the People of Israel after they came out of Egypt and not of the Covenant of circumcision Answer I answer that it is evident where Paul excludes the Law as not being of Faith nor the Covenant of Grace but opposed unit he also excluded upon the same Foot of account circumcision Rom. 4. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Gal. 3. 21. Gal 5. 3. Rom. 2. 25 26 27. Also Mr. Sbute says the Covenant Deut. 29. 11 12 13. is the same Gâ—â— made with Abraham Take his own words â—age 17. note this saith he by the way he hath dropt the 13. verse wherein is the explanation of the Covenant to be the same God made with Abraham and his Seed Which verse doth indeed clearly shew that the Covenant of circumcision was the same and but a farther establishment of it with that given in Horeb thou shalt enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God c. viz. That he may establish thee to day for a People to himself and that he may be unto thee aGod as he hath said unto thee and hath vowed unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. You ask What was the personal actual sin which those young Babes committed at the coming in of the Gospel that provoked God
Church-state by his opinion continues still He may say the invisible Church is the same now as then but not the visible the matter as well as the form is changed Ye also as living Stones are built up a Spiritual House c. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Was not the Gospel Church gathered out of the Jewish and Heathenish Nations consisting only of such Men and Women who made a profession of their Faith let him prove any one Infant was ever received into the Gospel Church if he can In Page 167. he inquires whether a Farmer destroys his Barn or hurts the Floor when he takes a great keap of Corn and Chaff and Winnows the Corn and Fans away the Chaff c. Answer I ask whether or no Christ did not remove by the Gospel Dispensation all the Wheat out of the old Barn nay and pull down that Barn viz. the Jewish Church and Fan quit away the Carnal Seed as such and all the Chaff And erect a new Garner or Gospel Church into which he put his Wheat i. e. Believing Men and Women whether Jews or Gentiles In Page 136. he intimates that the essential part of circumcision is Baptism and that the essential part thereof remaineth in the Flesh still Answer Then say I circumcision could not be circumcision without Baptism nor Baptism be Baptism without circumcision which is such a piece of Stuff and Impertinences as I never met with all can a thing be where the Essence or the Essential Part of it is wanting In Page 130. he intimates because I deny Infants to have right to Baptism or that they can believe that I assert two ways to be saved He also there says viz. there is no saving any Person old or young without the Grace of Faith he Cites Mark 16. 16. Joh. 3. 16. Thus you see saith he there is but one way to Eternal Life either for old or young that is through Faith in the righteousness and merits of Christ. Wo be to poor Infants then say I if they cannot believe as the Adult do if it be thus we say there 's no way to be saved but by Christ's merrits and righteousness imputed and that Infants must be sanctified that are saved also but yet we dare not say they do or can be said to believe as the Adult and if they do not they must be damned according to his notion because that is true of all the Adult that believe not One while he seems to say that the Infants of believers as such have habitual Faith At another time confesses he cannot prove that this or that Infant of believers hath Faith or the habit of it without he had a new Bible Page 45. Doubtless the Tree is known by the Fruit if we speak of the Adult we may know who do believe though I deny not but we may be mistaken in some how did Paul know that the Saints at Thessalonica were Elected 1 Thes. 1. 4 5. Knowing beloved your Election of God He shews how he came to know they had true Faith and were Elected for our Gospel came not to you in Word only but in power c. Mr. Shute says in Page 1. 90 that the Anabaptists Congregations be hath proved no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their opinion Sacrilegious Yet he hath Communion at the Lords Table with some of them who have this counterfeit Baptism and deny Infants to be the Subjects of that Ordinance and Sprinkling to be Baptizing and so are guilty of like Sacrilege with us there being divers Baptists in that Church to whom he belongs AN APPENDIX BEING A Reply to Mr. Shute's last single Sheet in Answer to Mr. Collins's half Sheet wherein the Covenant of Circumcision c. and free Promise of Grace God made to Abraham are further and distinctly opened shewing how they differ from each other SInce I wrote this reply to Mr. Shutes last Book I have met with a single Sheet which he calls an Answer to Mr. Hercules Collins last Shift c. Which discovers more of his bitter Spirit and what ill Influences he is under I thought it not amiss to make some remarks upon this Sheet tho' I suppose Mr. Collins will think himself concerned to vindicate his innocency from his undue Unchristian and false charges This Paper of Mr. Shutes manifesteth very great confidence touching his notions of the Covenant God made with Abraham and as much ignorance As will quickly appear to all discerning Men who shall read it In Page 1st he says I have cleared and vindicated the aforesaid Antidote from that foul Aspersion and totally confuted all the Aspersors in my last Book in the Judgment of all wise Judicious and Impartial Persons that have read it Answer Let those wise persons he speak of first read this precedent answer to his Book and then let them impartially Judg of it In Page 2. he speaks of Mr. Collins his five Arguments to prove the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham To this Mr. Shute says pray where do you find this distinction concerning the everlasting Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed Answer You shall see Friend that there is such a distinction found in the Scripture and that your reverend Ministers confirm the same thing viz. That God made a Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such which is removed and also a Covenant with Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such which runs to Christ and all that are his elect ones See Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made He saith not and to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ. Compared with verse 29. and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and heirs according to the promise Now Friend if you say this promise which the Apostle speaks of which is the everlasting Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham was made with many i. e. both with Abrahams natural and Spiritual Seed as such you contradict the Holy Ghost Paul says And not to Seeds as of many But you say to Seeds i. e. all his natural and Spiritual Seed Page 5. See also Rom. 9. 5 6 7 8. They are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children But in Isaac shall thy Seed be called That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God But the Children of the promise Mark it are accounted for the Seed Is not that distinction Mr. Collins speaks of clearly laid down in these Scripture doth not the Apostle exclude the Carnal Seed of Abraham as such from being included in the Covenant of Grace 2. I need not go about to prove there was a Covenant made with Abraham and all his natural Seed as such since that is so clearly and fully spoken of in the Scripture viz. That the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children were taken into the legal
Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the External ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watry Grave a new creature Moreover unto these let me add what Dr. Tillotson the present Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote see his Book stiled Sermons on several occasions 5th Edit Page 188 189. Speaking also of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were Baptised put off their garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signifie their entrance upon a new Life And to these customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death c. Dr Duveil on Act. 8. Page 292 293. cites a most learned Anonimous French Protestant Writer in his answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux speaking thus viz. 't is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been Administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this sprinkling is an abuse thus custom which without any accurate examination saith he they retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its institution and ancient use and that nearness of similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith repentance and resurrection This reflection of Mr. Bâ—ssuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Romish Church Calvin also saith l. 4. c. 16. that Baptism is a form or way of burial and none but such as are already dead to sin or have repented from dead works are to be buried But now say we sprinkling and pouring is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial nor can Infants be the subjects of it because as the learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future regeneration 't is an outward sign of that Death unto sin which the party Baptised passed under then or ought to have had before Baptis'd they then professed themselves to be Dead to sin i. e. when they were Buried with Christ in their Baptism for the argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are Dead to sin live any longer therein know you not that so many of us who were Baptized into Christ were Baptized into his Death both in sign and signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says they rise out of that watry Grave as new born Creatures it denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and arguments drawn there from utterly condemn sprinkling and pouring as that which is not Christs true Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the true subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that Watry Grave as new born Creatures I will only quote one Author more and proceed and that is learned Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. There are saith he two parts in regeneration i. e. Mortification and Vivification that is called a burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ the Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are Baptised that they are buried wich Christ and raised with him but only of such who have true faith Thus Zanchy Now Sir see what a stir and pudder as you call it these Pedo-Paptists make on this Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. to prove Baptism is Dipping or a figure of a burial Would you not have us give the true sense of the Word wherein we concur with all learned Men I hope by this time Reader thou art fully satisfied that this Man hath said nothing to weaken our Arguments or Grounds for Dipping tho' ' twice as much we have said on this Account in that Treatise called The Rector Rectified but this shall suffice here as to the Mode of Baptizing CHAP. II. Wherein Mr. Shutes Reply to Mr. Hercules Collins Answer about habitual Faith is considered detected and clearly refuted proving that Infants are not required to believe nor are they without a miracle capable so to do nor are they intended in those places of Scripture that Enjoyns Faith on the Adult BEfore I proceed to take notice of what this Man hath said about Infants having habitual Faith I shall note two or three things by the Way 1. 'T is very remarkable and worthy the Readers observation to see how the asserters of Infant Baptism differ among themselves about that Faith they suppose to be in Infants for as I noted in by Answer to Mr. Smythies Cold resined Page 144 some of them as Thomas Aquinas asserts They have the Faith of the Church that being intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof others say they have the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties thus the Church of England c. Musculus seems to assert they have an Imputed Faith Mr. Blake intimates They have a Dogmatical Faith only Mr. Baxter would have it be a saving Faith but does not tell us how it agrees or differs from the Faith of the Adult some as Mr. Danvers observes say 'T is a Physical some a Metaphysical Faith some a hyperphysical Faith Some say They are born Believers which proceeds from their Patents being in the Covenant and being Believers but this is to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation nay and to assert all are not Children of Wrath by nature or as they are born and come into the World others say They are made Believers by Baptism that Ordinance conveying grace as Mr. Rothwell This Man asserts they have habitual Faith the like do the Athenian Society seem to intimate But which of all these shall we give credit to The Truth is they all speak without Book having no ground from Gods word to say what they do 2. We desire it may be considered and carefully heeded lest we still are abused as Mr. Collins hath been that we stedfastly believe and readlly grant it as an Article of our Faith That all Infants are under the Guilt and stain of original Sin as they come into the World and that no Infant can be saved but through the Blood and Imputation of Christs righteousness And also we do believe That all those dying Infants who are â—aved God doth in some way or
some things in one peculiar to his Spiritual Seed that no ways related to his Carnal Seed as such which proved the Covenant contained in promise to be distinct page 15 16. and some things in the other that belonged to his Natural Seed that appertains not to his Spiritual Seed as such of which this Man takes no notice I begin there with those things that belonged to Abrahams Natural Seed as such as peculiar to them 1. The first that I Name is That of Gods multiplying his Seed by Isaac 2. The Birth of Isaac by Sarah Abraham s Wife Gen. 17. 16 19. 3. The continuation of his Covenant with all that should proceed from Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 17. 6. 4. The coming of Christ out of Isaac according to the Flesh. 5. The bringing the Natural Seed of Abraham by Isaac out of Egypt 6. The promise of giving his Natural Seed the Land of Canaan for their Possession Now can any of these things concern or belong to Abrahamâ— Spiritual Seed as such that is do they concern us Gentiles who do believe Observe also that as these things peculiarly appertained to his Natural Seed as such so Circumcision is expresly called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. Thou shalt keep my Covenant every Man Child among you shall be Circumcised verse 10. And ye shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore Skins and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you verse 8. And I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan c. so Gen. 15. 8. Now this Covenant and these promises I affirmed cannot belong to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as such page 16. therefore a Covenant of peculiarity to which he hath given no answer Secondly I have shewed also what those things are that are Peculiar to the Covenant of Grace and so to Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such which Covenant only was by promise not a formal Covenant like the other viz. that of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7. 1. See Gen. 15. 5. Look towards Heaven tell the Stars if thou art able to Number them and he said unto him so shall thy Seed be and he believed in the Lord and it was counted to him for Righteousness This was not in the Covenant of Circumcision and referrs to Abrahamâ— numerous Spiritual Seed 2. So again I have made thee a Father of many Nations meaning Gentile Believers as divers Expositors shew 3. In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed Gen. 12. 3. Gen. 18. 18. Gen. 22. 18. I cited the Apostles words Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached the Gospel to Abraham saying in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed 'T is remarkable the Holy Ghost does not here refer to the Covenant of Circumcision Gen 17. 7 8 9 10. But to the free promise of the Covenant of Grace which Paul says positively Abraham received not in Circumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Now I desire it may be well considered by all Christians that the Covenant of Grace was only by promise and no Formal Covenant with any of the Saints under the Old Testament thus the Covenant of Grace run to Adam to Abraham to David c. 11 12. only by promise not a Covenant where there was a mutual restipulation between God and his Elect ones As in the Covenant of Circumcision there was between God and Abraham in respect of his Carnal Seed this Dr. Owen asserts also on Heb. 8. 6. page 227. When God renewed saith he the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his Loyns but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise 1. It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged to it 2. This was wanting saith he the Spring Rule and Measure of all the Worship of the Church this does belong to every Covenant properly so called that God makes with his Church that it be the entire Rule of all the Worship that God requires of it which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament thus Dr. Owen This is further confirmed by those expressions Jer. 31. 31. I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel c. clearly intimating he had not so made it before with any except it was with Christ as our Head Representive and Mediator with whom it was made for us and in him with us before the Foundation of the World Tit. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 9. Object Does not David say God had made with him an everlasting Covenant c. Answer I answer David was a Type of Christ Psalm 89 28 34 35. with whom the Covenant of Grace was made before the World began this therefore refers to the true David who was only able to answer the Condition agreed upon between the Father and himself as Mediator For the Covenant of Peace was between them both Zech. 6. 13. For unto us the Covenant of Grace is not a Conditional but an Absolute Covenant I will be their God and they shall be my People c. To Adam the promise runs The Seed of the Woman shall Bruise the Sepents Head c. To Abraham In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed In both places it contained only a gracious promise To Abraham and to his Seed the promise was made it is not said Covenant therefore when I say God made a Twofold Covenant with Abraham I mean that there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant Transactings of God with him one a Formal Covenant with him and his Carnal Seed which contained a Covenant upon mutual restipulation which was the Covenant of Circumcision which Abraham and his Carnal Seed subscribed to the other a free promise or Covenant of Grace to him and all is true Spiritual Seed which is confirmed by Christs Blood and which believers consent to and enter into when Baptized upon the profession of their Faith in Gospel days tho' I deny not but that they have actual interest in it as soon as they have Union with Christ or do believe in him Moreover it was through Faith only in the free promise of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace that all the faithful were justified and saved who lived under the old Testament tho' the Covenant it self was not then formerly a Covenant with them it being not Ratified nor confirmed by the Blood of Christ or Death of the Testator nor could it so be till the
or first Testament and not of the Gospel or second Testament See Rom. 3. 29. 7. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for righteousness was not the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant but Faith was not reckoned to Abraham in circumcision ergo See Rom 4. 9 10. See more Page 22. 1 Part. Arg. 8. That Law or Covenant that is contra-distinguished or opposed to the Covenant of Faith or Gospel Covenant could not be one and the same in nature and quality with it But the Apostle lays down the Covenant of circumcision as contra-distinct or opposed to Faith or the Covenant of Grace ergo 9. That Covenant or precept that could profit none unless they keep the whole Law perfectly it could not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but so 't is said of circumcision Sâ—e Rom. 2 25. 10. That Law or Covenant that obliged those that conformed to it to keep the whole Law could not belong to the Covenant of Grace but so did circumcision oblige See Gal. 5. 3. See our last Annotators on that Text. 11. That Covenant that is called a Yoke of Bondage could not be the Covenant of Grace But circumcision is called a Yoke of Bondage ergo See Act. 15 Gal. 5. 1 2. 12. All those that are in the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham have an undoubted right to all the saving Blessings of the said Covenant but all those that were in the Covenant of circumcision had not an undoubted right to all the saving Blessings of the Covenant of Grace ergo c. 13. All those that are in the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham have a sure and strong ground of consolation that is Spiritual Consolation and they should be saved Heb. 6. 13 14 15. But many of them that were in the Covenant of circumcision had no sure ground of consolation that is Spiritual nor have many of our Children who are Believers any such ground of consolation but some of them may perish ergo Sir why did you not answer these arguments you have said nothing that is worth regard to me Also shew if you writ again what profit your Infants receive by Baptism and in what sense they are in the Covenant of Grace and how they can be Members of your Churches and yet are not Members nor received as such until they actually believe and repent But remember if you could prove them in the Covenant of Grace yet that doth not prove you ought to Baptise them Baptism is of mere positive right You must have authority from Christ to Baptise them or you sin if you do it In Page 136. You tell us That the form of circumcision was transient and is ceased Yet the Essential part thereof remaineth in the Flesh for nothing could be more a Type of Baptism than Circumcision c. Answer I promised to forbear hard words but a Man that argues thus should be severely dealt with one way or another i. e. either by writing or rather in a Church way be severely reproved Does the Essential part of circumcision remain in the Flesh then the mark it made in the Flesh doth no doubt remain for I know not what was else the essential part of it remaining in the Flesh save that the form was the cutting off the fore-skin If you had said the essential thing signified by it doth remain in the Heart of true believers you had said some thing to the purpose But. Did ever any Man before now intimate that Baptism is the essential part of circumcision If this were so circumcision could not be circumcision in the Flesh without Baptism because a thing cannot be where the essential part of it is wanting He proceeds to give a reason why the essential part of circumcision remains in the Flesh Page 136. viz. how saith he could this token of the Covenant be everlasting if the Essence thereof was dissolved upon the coming in of the Gospel This cannot be for it is a contradiction in it self for everlasting and dissolution are opposites 1. Answer This Man by this argument gives cause to fear he may erelong plead for circumcision and turn Jew for he is for the essential part of it and that in the Flesh too already I am sorry he understands no better the difference between a Type and the Antitype for there can no part of the Type remain much less the essential part of it when the Antitype is come But he runs into this error from his ignorance of the word Everlasting which as I have shewed is sometimes to be taken with restriction and refers to a long period of time He may as well say Aarons Priesthood remains or the essential part of it because called an Everlasting Priesthood Numb 25. 13. 2. We deny Baptism was the Antytipe of circumcision To prove it was not I have given many reasons which he answers not 1. Both Circumcision and Baptism were in full force together for some time even from the time John Baptized until the Death of Christ. 2. Because one thing that is a figure or shadow cannot come in the room of as the Antitype of another thing that is a figure See 12 Reasons more in Rector Rectifiea Page 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 c. One of them Mr. Shute takes notice of which is this viz. Circumcision belonged only to Male Children Baptism belongs to Males and Females who believe To this he answers that the Females was included in the Males because Man is the head and representative of the Woman and Woman is a part of Man Answer Why then let your Females be Baptized in your Males for from hence it will follow when your Males are Baptized your Females are Baptized also as much as the Jews Females were circumcised Neither need your Wives eat the Lords Supper for when you receive they receive it But sure Sir you mistake your learning fails you Will the food you eat feed your Wife or will your Faith serve her Doth she believe when you believe because she is part of you as here you intimate In page 12. 7. he reflects on me for saying God may have many ways to save dying Infants which we know not He can apply the Benefits and Merits of Christ's Blood to them in ways we are wholly ignorant of c. For this I Quoted Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down Take his answer viz. Pray take notice this Man contradicts himself for in page 21. he saith They must believe and repent and bring forth good Fruits c. Yet here â—e saith God hath many ways to save dying Infants And in page 30. for this Mr. Shute says There is no saving of any Person Old or Young without the Grace of Faith Thâ— you see there is saith he but one way to eternal Life 1. Answer I cannot see but that you have by your arguing thus excluded all Infants that dye out of the Kingdom of Heaven for if no Infant can be saved unless they Believe
Original Covenant of works made with Alam and all Mankind in him is not intended for this is undoubtedly a Covenant different in the Essence and Substance of it from the New In Page 219. He saith but it is evident that the Covenant intended was a Covenant wherein the Church of Israel walked with God until such time as this better Covenant was solemnly introduced this is plainly declared in the ensuing context he says it was becâ—me old and ready to disappear Wherefore it is not the Covenant of works made with Adam that is intended when this other is said to be a better Covenant Thus the Doctor Friend doth not he hereby clearly lay down a Covenant of peculiarity made with Abrahams natural Seed as such or a Covenant that only and peculiarly belonged to them and 't is as plain this began in that Covenant God made with Abraham In Page 288. he saith we must grant two distinct Covenants to be intended rather than a twofold Administration of the same Covenant meerly to be intended He also shews that the old Covenant which God made with the natural Seed of Abraham could not be the Covenant of Grace because there was no reconciliation with God nor Salvation to be obtained by vertue of that Covenant Observe the Doctor speaks not of Adams Covenant but of that Covenant God gave to the whole House of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham He further shews that the Covenant of Grace untill Christ came was only contained in promise by which Covenant all that lived under the Old Testament who had Faith in it were saved to Abraham and his Seed was the promise made Gal. 3. 16. That was the Covenant of Grace therefore say we the Covenant of circumcision and Sinai Covenant where there was mutual stipulation betwixt God and the whole House of Israel could not be the Covenant of Grace besides 't is said that that Covenant they broke and by so doing lost all the external blessings of it as the Prophet Zach. Chap. 11. 10 14. shws because of the Jews unbelief and putting the Messiah to Death God broke his Covenant with that People Zech. 11. 10. And I took my Staff even beauty and cut it asunder That I might break my Covenant which I made with all the People What is become now of your everlasting Covenant God made with all the People of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham Is it not gone are his Carnal Seed as such still in Covenant with God or are they not with their external legal Covenant cast out Sir the everlasting Covenant of Grace that stands firm 't is true that is confirmed by the Oath of God and Blood of Christ but the Covenant in which was contained circumcision and all the Legal Rites and Jewish Church and Church-membership is gone and taken away The New Covenant is not according to that Old Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel or Carnal Seed of Abraham if it be not according to it then it was not the same in Essence nature or quality See Jer. 31. 32. 1. This saith the Doctor is the nature and substance of that Covenant which God made with that People viz. a peculiar temporary Covenant c. Page 235. Mark it Reader He adds and concurs with the Lutherans who deny that by the two Covenants is meant only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant but that two Covenants substantially distinct are intended `1 Because in the Scripture they are often so called and compared with one another and some times opposed to one another the first and the last the new and the old 2. Because the Covenant of Grace in Christ is eternal immutable always the same obnoxious unto no alteration no change or abrogation neither can these things be spoken of it with respect unto any Administration of it as they are spoken of the Old Page 226 227. 1. He shews again that by the Old Covenant is not intended the Covenant of Works made with Adam Page 227. When 2. We speak of the New Covenant saith he we do not intend the Covenant of Grace absolutely as though that were not in being and efficacy before the Introduction of that which is promised in this place For it was always the same as to the substance of it From the beginning it passed through the whole Dispensation of times before the Law and under the Law of the same nature and Efficacy unalterable everlasting ordered in all things and sure Again he saith when God renewed the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things Mark it especially the proceedings of the promised Seed from his Loins but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise And as such only is proposed in the Scripture Page 227. it appears that the Doctor understands the Covenant God made with Abraham as we do viz. the promise to Abrahams Seed viz. Christ and all Eternal blessings with him to intend the Covenant of Grace but whereas it is said God made a Covenant with Abraham c. that has respect to other things that which concerned his natural Seed and out of whose Loins Christ was to come That 's the Covenant of peculiarity he proceeds and gives three reasons why the Covenant of Grace could not absolutely in it self but in the promise of it only be called a formal Covenant Page 227. 1. Because it wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged unto it before this was done in the Death of Christ it had not the formal nature of a Covenant c. 2. This was wanting saith he it was not the Spring rule and measure of all the worship of the Church i e. this doth belong unto every Covenant properly so called that God makes with the Church that is the intire rule of all the worship that God requires of it which is that they are to restipluate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament for God did require of the Church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto but now under the New Testament this Covenant with its own Seals and appointments is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship wherefore the new Covenant promised in the Scripture and here opposed unto the old is not the promise of Grace Mercy and Life and Salvation by Christ absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a Covenant given unto it in its establishment by the Death of Christ c. Page 227. 1. Now pray observe does not the Doctor clearly hint thereby that no Rite Sign or Seal properly of the Old Testament can be a Rite Sign or Seal properly of the New Covenant how then could circumcision be the Seal of the said Covenant of Grace 2. It is evident in the Covenant of circumcision there
now than ever we were and we did and do believe that those who preach the Gospel ought to live of the Gospel He renders Mr. Collins no better than a Jesuite take his words this Man hath confidence and deceit enough to make a swinging Jesuite c. Page 16. Again he says This deceitful Man hides the Sense and meaning of them from the World Doth not this saviour of great malice Page 16. He says Infants have Faith yetin Page 10. of his Book he asketh what personal Faith a Child is capable of acting in an ordinary way or what good Fruit such Children are capable to bring forth 1. In Page 8. he renders those false Teachers who say that the Covenant God made with Abraham is repealed viz. the Covenant of circumcision he may see that we deny that the promise or Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham is repealed tho' we say the Covenant of circumcision God made with him is repealed 2. Such he says are false Teachers who say the Church State under the Law was Carnal 3. Such as deride and Scoff at habitual Faith in dying Infants Mr. Collins owns not such Faith to be in Infants is he therefore a false Teacher But how does he prove he derides or Scoffs c. 4. Such who take upon them the Work of the Ministry without Gods Call or being gifted or qualified he says are false Teachers Such we grant are not true Ministers but doth not he think you refer to such who were not trained up in School Learning I doubt not but our call from God to the Ministry is as good as others have tho' may be not every ways so well qualified as we ought yet humane learning is no qualification left by the Holy Spirit in the Scripture In Page 7. he says In this Authors former Book he hath by excluding Infants from Baptism exclud them from Eternal Life and Salvation dying in their Infancy How false that is let all Men Judg who have read Mr. Collins Book he refers unto Page 41. In Page 10. he says How wilfully blind and dishonest are you thus falsly to quote my words I can see no reason for those Unchristian expressions in Page 11. he says I suppose he means a long White Shift as if we Baptized Persons in a White Shift What sport is here for the Enemies of Religion Tho' I deny that Women were Baptized in that undecent immodest shameful way and manner saith he He means by Dipping the whole Body God saith he never appointed an ordinance to draw out and gratifie Mens lusts Page 11. O see what contempt he doth cast upon that way of Baptising which all Christians used for many hundred of years in the Church and which Christ appointed to the end of the World You represent to the World as if our way of Baptising were immodest and done not as comely or of good Report for this you are to be accountable to the most high God Friend if you please to come and see our Order in the Administration of that Ordinance I doubt not but you will be convinced of your Error and be forc'd to say That the Subject goeth with more Sobriety and Modesty to the Sacrament of Baptism than thousands do to the hearing of Gods Word or to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper In Page 12. Therefore saith he there is no more work for the Club nor the Ax you may lay them by as useless or hang them up in Merchant Taylors Hall You may know what he intends and is not this like those who said is not this the Carpenter c. see what a strange Prayer he makes in Page 15 Where he pleads his Innocency God is a gracious God and I think the Man is acted in Zeal but not according to knowledg in Page 11. he says Our Author hath Coined a brand new Epithet to cover that unseemly Luxurious way of tripping and Dipping Women c. In Page 18. he would suggest that Mr. Collins is possessed with a Devil People say there is a Maid saith he possessed in Wapping for my part I think there is a Man possâ—ssâ—d also hard words In Page 20. he boasts as if Anabaptism it self hath resigned up the Ghost and this may serve for its Funeral Sermon In Page 21. he breaks out I cannot tell what to think of this Man meaning Mr. Collins That should dare to have the confidence as to put out such scuâ—rilous abominable false and scandalous things Friend what shall we think of you and your Papers In Page 23. he renders the answering Books that are put out against Infant Baptism a raking in Dunghils and therefore such a one as he he thinks is fit to do it In Page 191. of this last Book he says that they meaning the Independant Congregations are not true Churches or else we are not I know no reason for this for I doubt not but they are true Churches as well as we they being godly Christians tho' I do believe they may be less compleat Churches Then those who are Baptized upon the profession of Faith or not so orderly in their constitution besides they have received as we Judge a Tradition of Man in the stead of Christs Institution This man says he can have Communion with those of our opinion yet says our Baptism is a counterfeit and we guilty of Sacriledge Page 190. But Friend I see not how they can have Communion with you without repentance considering all the hard words uttered by you You know who saith Men must give an account of all their hard Speeches c. God grant those I have mentioned and these following may not be laid to your charge calling our Baptism a mock Baptism and us diving Anticovenanters preaching without a call suggesting as if under Diabolical possession calling Jesuite swinging Jesuite calling Dipping which was the Apostolical way of Baptising more like a punishment of criminals c. Asserting that we make no better of Infants than Dogs calling our Doctrin Mountebank c. and a Minister a C C by which 't is concluded you intend Coxcomb asserting we have crasty positions uncouth glosses that we mince and limit the fundamental Doctrin of Mans Salvation To conclude let the Reader take notice of this viz. Were it not more for the Honour of God and Love to Truth I had not concerned my self with so linâ—le an Antagoniâ—â— as this is â— and in reproach call some Arminians Sacinians others gone back to Judaism some gormandisers feasting on Legs of Muiton in some places reflecting on Mens honest callings God by his providence called them once unto that our Doctrin damns Infants c. whether these Speeches he ought not publickly to acknowledg as evil Is not this as bad as to call his Brother Raca i. e. a vain person in anger or malice Cant Men write upon controversible points without such bitterness and reviling language I desire Friend you would go to God in Prayer and intreat for pardon
Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive Times were baptized upon the Profession of Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the Profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus also are not Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major These are his very Words â— â— As many as have been baptized â—ivâ— put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promisâ— Gal. 3. 27 28 20. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the Probability grounded on a credible Profession c. Baxter's Confirm Reconcil pag. 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible Profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a saving-Saving-Faith If any object We read of some who were baptized who had no Saving-Faith but were Hypocrites I answer Had they appeared to be such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage-Union with Christ which Marriage-Contract absolutely requires an actual Profession of consent Infants are not capable to enter into a Marriage-Union with Christ noâ— to make a Profession of Consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our Opposits generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is the solemniâ—ing of our Marriage with Christ. These are his Words p. 32. The Minor none can deny No Man sure in his right Mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage-Relation with Christ and to make a Profession of a Consent And the Truth is he in the next Words gives away his Cause viz. And 't is saith he a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent p. 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a nâ—w and strange kind of Marriage Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized or rather rantizeâ— to make a Profession of Consent to be married to Jesus Christ. If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his Words are these ` Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-Baptist say that the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our Opposits are forced sometimes to speak the Truth â—â—ough it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted then they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves to be converted but the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted Ergo No Person ought to be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess they are converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the Substance of this Argument also take his own Words i. e. As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse and non-appareâ—â— is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both these must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. And evident it is say I from hence none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eâ—â—ugh to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare Profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. p. 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mâ—â—k 16. 16. p. 16. He might have added by the Foâ—â—â— of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the Priviledges for â— argue thus 〈…〉 Arg. 2â— If there is but one Baptism of Water leâ—t by Jesus Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. But there is but one Baptism in Water lest by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the Adult and as to any other Condition I am sure the Scripture is silent the Way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Ephes. 4. 4. If Profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter coram Ecclesiâ to Church-Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be consounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Membership c. Ergo 'T is a granted Case among all Christians saith he that Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Ancient Church admitted none without it pag. 2â— And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are capable to make no Profession He adds Yâ—â— Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and tâ—en baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he saith Iâ— as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in Newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this Mortification and a Consent to be buried c. Iâ— our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our