Repent and bring forth good Fruits as the Adult must if they are saved how is it possible any Infant can be saved 2. I did not contradict my self I spoke not there of Infants but of Adult Persons And why did you before only plead for habitual Faith to be in dying Infants that go to Heaven since row you here intimate that they must believe For you cite Mark 16. 16. He that believes and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believes not shall be damned If our Saviour in these words refers to Infants as well as to Men and Women I am mistaken and all Learned Men I ever met with Friend it wiâ— not help you to say Christ performed these conditions for them viz. Faith and Repentance page 123. Nor doth the Meritorious death of Christ without the infusing divine Faith into the Soul render any Man a Believer Besides tho' 't is by the Grace and power of Christs Spirit that we Believe Repent and bring forth good Fruit Yet 't is we that Believe and Repent the act is ours tho' inabled by Divine Power to do it Now prove that God gives any Infant such power to Believe and Repent c. who know not the object of Faith nor have any understanding Friend they are more excusable who say God may have many ways to apply the Blood and Merits of Christ and so Save and Sanctifie dying Infants which we know not of than you who assert that not one of them can be saved unless they Believe c. and if they do not do so they shall be Damned For you positively affirm there is no way of Gods saving Elect dying Infants differing in any point from that of his saving Adult persons 't is well you may Err for should what you say be true 't is enough to bring sorrow and amazement upon Godly Parents about the State of their dying Infants CHAP. IV. Wherein Mr. Shutes arguments to prove our Churches no Churches and our Baptism a counterfeit are examined and answered 1. IN page 186. he asserts That Adult believers have nothing to do with the Ordinance after the first institution or Plantation of the Gospel in a Family unless it be such whose Parents deprived them of it in their Infancy But Baptism of Right is devolved upon the Infant Seed of Believers 1. Answer If this be true then the Children of unbelievers have no right to Baptism neither as Infants nor when Adult believers it the right be devolted upon the Infants of believers This in the first place is enough to convince him of his great error and mistake 〈◊〉 he will not say that unbelievers Children have any right thereto in their Infancy Tho' his evidence that Abrahams natural Seed tho' ungodly persons were required to Circumcise their Children and their Children had the same right to it for were none but godly Jews to circumcise their Male infants Pray observe this 2. Besides did not God expresly command Abraham as well to circumcise his Male Infants as himself and so his offspring their Children after him in their generations And now did our Saviour give such a Commission about Gospel Baptism viz. that first those that believed should be Baptized and then their Infants or was there not the same purity of reason for Christs Commission about Baptism to have run thus as there was for Gods Commission so to run to Abraham about circumcision If what you say was true but we will come to his reasons to prove our Baptism a counterfeit and our Churches no Churches of Christ. In Page 186. first because saith he they disown the Covenant God made with Abraham in which the very foundation for Baptism was laid let them find another foundation for it if they can for that Covenant is founded upon Christ himself c. 1. Answer This in the first place is not that he charges us with viz. that we disown 〈◊〉 Covenant God made with Abraham for the Covenant of Grace God promised to him 〈…〉 contend for it as far forth as any can But we do say the Covenant of circumcision is disannuled that we do disown to be in force now 2. Could he prove that Baptism is founded upon the Covenant made with Abraham he would seem to say some thing But we deny that utterly for had not Christ Instituted or given it forth in the New Testament none could have known that Baptism had been an Ordinance it was not Imprinted on the Hearts of Men but it is a mere positive precept 3. I will shew you therefore another foundation for it and not the Covenant God made with Abraham viz. the great Commission of Jesus Christ Mat. 28. 18 19 20. Mark 16. 16. If we have it not here saith Mr. Richard Baxter where have it we But you are wiser it appears than that Pedo-Baptist Now Friend since our Baptism is founded on Christs Commission both as to subject and mode of Baptising our Baptism is no counterfeit and so you will know one day 2. Your second reason is because we Baptise the Adult Seed of Believers thâ—â— were Baptised in their Infancy as they ought not Answer You do but beg the question We 'tis true do Baptise the Adult Seed of some Believers but we deny they were Baptized in their Infancy they were but Rantized but had they been in their Infancy Baptized i e. Dipped yet not having the prerequisites of Baptism viz. Faith and Repentance they were not the true subjects of that Gospel ordinance But Friend do we do well to Baptise the off-spring of unbelievers since by your argument they in their Infancy could not have true right to it it being intayled on Believers Seed only is that Branch of our Baptism a counterfeit also 3. You say their Baptism cannot be good because they deny it to their own Seed and off-spring when as the Covenant is made to Believers and their Seed So that either they are no believers themselves or else they Reprobate their own Children 1. Answer Our Baptism may be good in your own opinion I suppose if our parents were unbelievers But Friend whose authority renders any Ordinance good If we act according to the authority of Christ in Baptism is not our Baptism good We deny Baptism to our Children because all are required to believe repent c. before Baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16 Act. 2. 36 37. Act. 8. 12 14 39 c. But do we reprobate our Children because we Baptise them not is that in our power or can Baptism bring into or cast out of Gods election 3. Friend we deny that the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham gives any a right to Baptism No no 't is Christs positive command If the Covenant of Grace gave Lot no right to circumcision as it did not because not commanded of him how can the Covenant of Grace give right to Baptism to any person but to such only that Christ hath commanded to be Baptised 4. And
Seal of the Covenant but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1. 13 14. and cap. 4. 30. as touching Circumcision that was I grant a rite that belonged to the Male Infants of Abraham and his Seed if it was initiating it only let them into that National Church but I doubt not but that the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh were all both Males Females Born Members of that Church 2. We shall prove by and by that Circumcision did not appertain unto the Covenant of Grace read the Arguments in the 1st and 2d Part of the Ax layd to the Root of the Trees And when you write again answer them for you have not touched one of them yet Sir you have a great deal of Work cut out all ready for you before this comes to your Hand But to proceed you in page 26. go on to prove what you have asserted viz. That it is so say you doth clearly appear from our Saviour Christs carriage and department towards those little Children that were brought to him You say those Children were the Children of believers Answ. I deny it se how you are able to prove it there is no such thing recorded of them viz. That they were the Children of believers again page 27. you say Christ did bless them with spiritual blessings Answer Friend may not you be found as far as you know to assert false things of Jesus Christ Is it said he blessed them with spiritual blessings but since you know so well pray what spiritual blessings were they You confess he did not Baptize them did he them give them habitual Faith for that blessing you plead for to be in Infants Reader 'T is evident Christs way of healing the Sick was by putting or laying his Hand on such how do we know but it was the blessing of healing he prayed for and blessed them with but Mr. Shute tells us God out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings hath perfected his praise page 23. Answer Now you have hit it I do not doubt but those Babes out of whose Mouths God hath perfected his praise but that they had more than habitual Faith Friend what Babes were they Peter Speaks of 1 Pet. 2. 1 2. that he calls New-born Babes out of the Mouths of such Babes God hath Ordained Strength no doubt You say Christ prayed for none but for the Elect. page 27. Answer Not for spiritual blessings but how do you know he never prayed for Healing and other Temporal blessings for such that were not of his Elect you lay down strange and bold assertions You say page 28. As soon as adult Heathens were Conversed and Baptized if they had Children they were all Baptized also with them as being part of themselves Answer I deny that likewise shew what Heathens Children after the Parents believed and were Baptized their Children also were Baptized 2. If Children be part of their Parents then certainly if the Parents go to Heaven all their Children must likewise for the Whole of believers shall be saved not a Part of them only Also if the Children be part of their Parents and a part of the Person namely the Face only is sufficient to be Baptized then say I the Parents Baptism may serve for the Child And the truth is as the Bishop of Down noted viz. Since as some affirm the Parents Faith serves for the Child why may not the Parents Baptism serves for the Child alsoâ— You say That little Children by the Cooperation of the Holy Spirit may have Faith and the heart of an Adult Person is no more capable of changing himself than aâ— Infant and Quote Luther in the case Answer 'T is true little Children may have Faith if God please to work a Miracle and Inspire them with his Spirit But doth God do this to the Infants of Believers â— I ask also Whether the Infants of 〈◊〉 not as capable of this Faith nay Iâ—rffirm that as many of the Children of Infidels and unbelievers may have the Cooperation of the Spirit in them as the Infants of believers Disprove it if you can 2. Doth not God work ordinarily upon such Subjects as have the exercise of Reason and understanding Tho' the grace is given by which we do believe yet is not the act ours Can God be said to believe for us or can there be faith in any subject and yet no knowledg of the object no nor one rational act exerted But if this be so that the Infant believes himself why do you hint in the Text words That a Man is as truly bound to lay hold of the promise for his Children as for him himself There 's no need for the Parents to believe for their Children if they can believe for themselves Sir pâ—ay resolve the doubt say what faith ' t is Infants have is it their own do they believe themselves or their Parents for them To put this out of doubt you in Page 20. go about to prove Infants did believe and so may believe the Text you bring is that in Mat. 18. 2 3 4 5 6. And Jesus called a little Child unto him and set him in the midst of them And said Verily I say unto you Except ye be converted and become as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Vers. 6. But whosâ— shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me c. Here you make a great stir telling us that Christ speaks of Old Disciples and of Young Disciples Page 33. Here is the Young Disciple be 2 the Old Disciples them 3 Christ takes his Observation from the believing Young Disciple c. Answer I utterly deny that Child or those little Children who are positively said to be believe in Christ to be Infants 1. For 't is expresly said Christ called that Child to him he was able to come no doubt whom Christ called Could an Infant do that 2. To put the matter out of doubt 't is evidentas to matter of fact God hath in our days wrought by his Spirit savingly on several little Children some three or four years old others about six or seven as Mr. Jenaway in his token for little Children shews and names the Children Now it might be such a little Child Christ called to him and who did belive in him and 't is such little Children he speaks of that do believe in him who are able to believe but what is this to prove Infants â—o believe and are able to believe If this be so you need not plead only for the habit of Faith to be in them for now you think you have proved they have Faith it self for believing refers not only to the habit but to the act also 3ly Besides if we may not conclude they were such little Children yet as Mr. Collins observes and divers others it may intend such believers who have such and such qualities that are in young Children viz. harmless humble Innocent c. as Paul speaks in malice be
lastly you say their Baptism cannot be good because their Principle is to Baptise Adult Believers but not their Seed which is to Baptise but part of the believer whereas they should Baptise not only a part of him but all of him So that their Baptism is but a counterfeit Baptism Answer Is this to shew your great wisdom But are our Children a part of our selves and are we not believers without our Children How if our Children should prove unbelievers then I fear we shall not go for compleat believers but one part of us is a believer and the other part of us an unbeliever also then if your Child should perish but a part of you would be saved is it fit such stuff should be Printed Do not mistake your self you are one compleat Man and your Son another and you are no less compleat a Man if you have no Child at all So it you are a believer you are a compleat believer and want no part and if your Child is an unbeliever yet you are not less a compleat believer But you that Sprinkle only the Face I am sure you do not Baptise the whole person of a Child nor any part of it nor of the Adult neither What shall I call your Baptism In Page 187. you quote our three Queries but answer none of them 1. Whether Children are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely or conditionally â— Whether that can be an ordinance of Christ to which there is neither precept nor example 3. Whether in matters of meer positive right such as Baptism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the revealed will of the Lawgiver Had you answered these three queris to the purpose you had done ten times more than what is contained in your whole Book But instead of answering you ask this question viz. where do you find any command for the Infant Seed of believers to stay till they are Adult to be Baptized 1. Answer Where did God expresly forbid Abraham to circumcise his Male Infants on the 7th or 9th day or not to circumcise Female Infants 2. There needs no Negative Law where there is a Law in the affirmative if on the 8th day it follows not on the 7th or 9th if Males only are expressed not Females so if believers if such who are taught and made Disciples by teaching are commanded to be Baptized then all must stay till they do believe and are taught and made Disciples before Baptized 3. Was not the Gospel think you planted in Joseph and Mary's House and yet the Holy Child Jesus stayed till he was about 30 years old before Baptized Also Gregory Nazianzen in his 4th Oration saith Dr. Duveil gives an instance of those who died without Baptism by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen saith he tho' he was a Bishops Son being a long time bred up under his Father was not Baptized until he came to Mans age and so Basil the Great who was born of pious Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not Baptized until a Man The like he says of Hiorem Ambrose Chrysostom Augustin c. Nothing of this nature ought to be done in Gods worship without authority from his worâ— prove if you can one Infant was Baptized from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelations of John Arguments to prove that those Churches who are gathered by Faith and Repentance and upon the profession of Faith are Baptized which are called Anabaptists are true Churches of Christ which Mr. Shute denâ—es so to be 1. ARgument All those Churches who are rightin matter and form are true Churches But those Churches falsly called Anabaptists are right in matter and form â—rgo they are true Churches The matter of true Churches are godly person or true believers the true form is the order or 〈◊〉 of the Gospel Church viz. The Aâ—ult upon the profession of Faith and Repentance Baptized and so with joynt consent give themselves up to the Lord and one to another to walk in fellowship and commanion in all the Ordinances of the Gospel 2. Arg Those Churches which consist of godly persons owning all the essentials of the true religion among whom the word of God it truly preached and the Sacraments are duly administred are true Churchs of Jesus Christ. But thâ—se Baptized Churches we contend for falsly called Anabaptists do consist of godly persons owning all the essentials of the true religion among whom the word of God is truly preached and the Sacraments duly and truly administred ergo they are true Churches of Jesus Christ. 3. Arg Those Churches that are constituted according to the direct pattern laid down in the New Testament are true Churches of Jesus Christ. The Baptized Churches falsly called Anabaptists are constituted according to the direct pattern laid down in the New Testament ergo they are true Churches of Jesus Christ. To these let me add the fourth which Mr. Collins hath in his half Sheet 4. Arg. Those Churches who make Christs merits the foundation of their Salvation and his Doctrin the foundation of their Churches constitution are true Churches and their Baptism is Authentick But the Baptists do thus ergo 5. Arg. If the ordinances of Christ are to be kept as they were first delivered to the Saints and as practised by the Apostolical Church our Baptism which you call â— counterfeit is Christ's true Baptism But the Ordinances of Christ are to be kept as they were first delivered to the Saints and as they were practised by the Apostolical Church ergo our Baptism is Christs true Baptism But Friend how can you hold Communion with such persons who have a counterfeit Baptism for I hear you break Bread with some who own no other Water-Baptism but that of Believers only and deny Infants to be subjects thereof I think none of our godly Brethren who are Pedo-Baptists ever denied our Baptism tho' they strive to justify theirs which of them will call the Baptism of believers yea tho' such who were Sprinkled when Babes to be a counterfeit Without repentance you must be accountable for this one day CHAP. V. Containing an account of some of Mr. Shutes onseemly Scoffing and opprobrious language cast upon Mr. Collins and my self together with his false and abusive representation of us and of several places of Holy Scripture with his Impertinences Inconsistences and self-contradictions as also those abuses he hath cast on the Baptized Congregations in which Rom. 11. 16. is explained viz. if the Root be Holy so are the Branches And if some of the Branches were broken off c. FIrst I shall begin with Mr. Shute's unbecoming and Scoffing expressions as they lie here and there in his Book 1. Page 5. He intimates we are horribly bigotted to our opinion In Page 4. he says he will not render railing for railing Yet in Pag. 5. you will find these expressions speaking to Mr. Collins you have charged me falsly You bogled and jugled with the sacâ—ed
they are not able to help him c. Doth Mr. Collins question Gods power or intimate God cannot work without help of the Creature 2. That he doth tacitly declare that God is not able to make them capable of the Reception of Grace Because they are not of years to exercise iâ— as if Mr Collins did not know God was infinite in power 3. That Adult persons do qualifie themselves for the reception of Grace or at leastwise are Copartners with the Spirit of Grace in the working of it 4. If this be so saith he then it is not Gods Grace but Mans work c. Which are all false Conclusions and great abuses cast on Mr. Collins and no ways to be inferred from his positions In Page 73. he renders the Baptists to be cunning deceivers take his words i. e. I am not saith he all together ignorant of their devices and stratagems by which they uphold their opinion in which their Principles are enveloped and lie Dormant In Page 115. he says Benjamine Keach doth reckon Abraham of greater antiquity than Christ. Answer This is a false charge likewise and no such consequence can be gathered from my words to which he refers as my Answer shews in this reply In Page 126. he saith this Author is for the saving Elect Dying Infants by some other Covenant and not by the Covenant of Grace Answer This is also false and a great abuse for I no where hint any such thing but say 't is impossible any Infant or Adult Person either should be saved by any other Covenant but that tho' I say they may be saved and not be Members of the visible Church as some Infants were before God made known the Covenant of circumcision and set up the legal Church of Israel In Page 134. he calls our Doctrin a fallacious Doctrin and knows not which to wonder at most viz. our boldness and confidence Or our Peoples ignorance to be so horribly deluded and imposed upon What Enemy could reproach us worse In Page 113. saith he Thus I have given you one broad side more by which I have brought your opinion by the Lee and all the Carpenters and Calkers in the Nation cannot save it from sinking Answer Friend you mistake our cause and opinion is an firm and as sound as ever and needs no Carpenters nor Calkers to mend those Breaches you have made In Page 140. he says Thus you see the Covenant God made with Abraham and all his Seed both Spiritual and Carnal stands fact and firm to Gospel Believers and all their Seed both Spiritual and Carnal notwithstanding Hercules with his Club and Benjamin hewed it with his broad Ax they cannot destroy it because it is an everlasting Covenant 1. Answer Are these Savoury expressions my Ax Friend is Gods word the Title of that Book was the words of the Text viz. the Ax laid at the Root and this Ax will cut down all your Thorns and Briers do what you can 2. How he hath proved that Covenant God made with Abraham and his Carnal Seed as such doth remain let the Reader now Judg. 3 How came if this be so Abraham's natural Seed to be unchurched as he himself confesses in Page 37. nay that they unchurched themselves In his Postscript Page 190. he says tho he has thus written concerning the Anabaptists and proved their Congregations to be no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their Opinion Sacrilegious in that they Rob the Church of her treasure c. These are very hard words and also false for he has not done what he says and never will nor can he do it An Account of some of Mr. Shute's Impertinences Inconsistences and Self-contradictions IN the last place take a few of his Impertinences c. In Page 49. If you can prove saith he by plain Scripture Testimony that ever Christ or any of his Apostles c. did forbid the Baptising the infant Seed of Believers c. Answer Now how impertinent is this Where did Christ forbid Infants of Believers the Lords Supper and indeed they may have that as well as Baptism and the first Fathers that established Infant Baptism gave them the Lords Supper also 2. Where is crossing in Baptism forbid or Popists Salt Spittle or Crisom or other Popish rites These in plain words are not forbid are they therefore lawful If Christ would have them to be Baptized it would have been expressed in the affirmative and is this horribly to impose our own uncouth notions as you affirm in the said 49. Page of your Book Where hath Christ forbid Baptizing of Turks and Insidels or the Children of unbelievers In Page 98. he says the Church of the Jews was not a legal Church take his words viz. the Church of God under the Mosaick Law was not a Carnal legal Church Strange contradiction What a Church under the Law and not a legal Church he may as well say the Church of God under the Gospel is not a Gospel Church In Page 97. he distinguishes not on the Covenant made with Abraham but positively asserts that off from that Covenant God made with Abraham viz. The Covenant of Grace some of the natural Branches were broken yet in contradiction to this he shews in Page 74. from Psa. 89. That the Covenant of Grace is firm and abideth for ever and else where shews that there 's no final falling from grace all those therefore say I that are in that Covenant cannot fail of Salvation therefore those Branches never were in the Covenant of Grace In Page 25. he says God saves Elect dying Infants in no ways or means differing in any one point or part from that wherein he saves Adult believers Yet in Page 65. he owns Infants cannot exercise grace in an ordinary way and that nothing is required of them personally but passive Obedience Is nothing required say I of Adult believers but passive Obedience If there is then the way or mode of Gods saving dying Infants differs in some part or point from the way or means of saving the Adult and clear it is that more than passive obedience is required of Adult persons One while he says all Abrahams Seed are in the Covenant of Grace God made with him and he denies final falling out of that Covenant yet in Page 12. he says one of Abrahams Sons or Seed is praying to him in Hell And to be Abrahams Seed will not serve their turn He is for a Congregational Church and yet in Page 34. Speaking of the Gospel Church he says all the Seed of believers are Members as much now as the Jewish Children were under the Law And that it is the same Church State tho' in another dress and denys the dissolution of the Jewish Church Page 35. Can a natural Church consisting of whole Parishes Families and Provinces be all one with Gospel Congregational Churches of believers only Why did this Man leave the Church of England also then the Jewish
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
to cast them out of Covenant for you do own that the Seed of believers were once in Covenant and were Church-members but if you cannot prove what the transgression was then all your arguments ought to be committed to the custody of the Essex Jayl Keeper thus Mr. Shute Answer You Should first prove it was a gracious priviledge to Babes or the Carnal Seed of Abraham that they were in the Legal Covenant and national Church of Israel before you ask that question The Apostle says not that circumcision was a Priviledg unless they kept the Law and by it they were obliged to keep it perfectly and hence it is called a yoke of Bondage 2. It was not for the Sins of little Babes that the Legal Covenant and Legal Church was dissolved at the coming in of the Gospel But it was the will and pleasure of God to take that Covenant away that he might establish the second and better Covenant And God it appears hath done Infants no hurt hereby since the promise of God made to Abraham touching Salvation by Christ in the Covenant of Grace stands fast for ever and is brought in and established to all the Elect both of Jews first and also of the Gentiles True the unbelieving Jews were cast off for not believing for had they believed they had pertaken of like Gospel Grace with those that did believe But the believing Jews and their Children did no longer abide in that national Church to which they once belonged nor were their Children until they believed received into the Gospel Church yet I affirm that was no Spiritual loss to those Babes seeing there was no righteousness nor Salvation to be had by the Law Legal Covenant nor circumcision Mr. Collinâ— will not say that believers and their Seed only were in the Legal Covenant and in the Legal Church but all unbelievers also and their Children who sprung from Isaacs Loyns were in the same Covenant and were Church-members and that by Gods appointment too as far forth as were the godly or believing Jews and their Children And Friend it should appear that among Abrahams Carnal Seed there were but a very small remnant that were believers Tho' all were in the Legal Covenant then and where Churhmembers 3. Say you You must prove that the Gospel brought less Grace with it than the Abrogated law carried way Answer The abrogated Law had no Grace in it at all Grace came not by the Law but by Jesus Christ the Law is not of Faith 4. Here say you you confound â—nd contradict your self for you say the Church is established upon better promises which I do own and have proved in my Book but the Church State is the same and therefore that of it self is a sufficient argument to prove that all Children of Christian believers are still in Covenant Answer Must the Carnal Seed be Members of the Gospel-Church as under the Law or is it else not a better Covenant that God has established Friend many other external Priviledges as well as that is gone the Sons of our Minishers as such have no right to the Ministry now yet all the Sons of Ministers as such had that right under the Law Besides we have no Land of Canaan nor glorious external Temple no promise of gathering earthly riches no Political State of Government among our selves yet is the Gospel Church State Gospel Covenant better than that under the Law An Account of Mr. Shutes scurrilous language as to the rest of this Sheet I shall only make some remarks on his hard reproachful and Opprobrious words and abuse of Scripture IN Page 2. he compares Mr. Collins with the Jews as if his Arguments were of like nature with theirs who said we have a Law and by our â—aw he ought to dye In Page 5. You do but beat the Air and Shoot all your Arrows against a Brazen Wall and there is no more Work for the Club nor Ax. Answer He may perceive he was mistaken for the Ax hath not done with him yet He in the said 5. Page abuses that Text better promises these are his words viz. for the promises are better and that chiefly because circumcision was changed for Baptism Answer Doth the Holy Ghost there refer to this change or is Baptism a promise or a precept He abuses that Text in Acts 15. 10. the former saith he meaning circumcision wherein Infants were chiefly concerned was such a Yoke as they nor their Fathers were able to bear they were not able to see their Childrens Flesh cut off and we have an Instance of this in Zipporah what made her in such a passion with Moses her Husband as that she called him a Bloody Husband twice Why she tells you her self it was because of the circumcision Answer In this he seems to charge the Holy God who appointed and commanded circumcision as if it was more like a punishment of criminals than an ordinance of God as he calls Diâ—ping of Believers in the Name c. 2. Was it from the pain that circumcision put the Infants to that the Apostle calls it a Yoke that neither they nor their Fathers could bear or was it not rather because it lay them under an obligation to keep the whole Law for our Apostle so says in Gal. 5. 3. I testifie again to every Man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law compared with Rom. 2. 25. 3. He abuses that Text Exod. 4. 15 16. Let him read his Annotators she called her Husband a bloody Husband or a Spouse of Blood because she by Blood as it were redeemed her Husbands Life God being provoked against Moses as the 14. verse shews and she prevented his danger by circumcising her Son 2. If she referr'd to circumcision it self as he takes it yet she being a Midianitisb Woman tâ—â—t would not Justifie him thus to reflect on that Holy Rite and Ordinance of God In Page 6. says he so this question may be sent to Essex among the Barren Jayl Keepers Is it safe to Scoff and make a sport when we write about Sacred things He also reflects upon the whole party of the Baptists as if we were fallen from our former Principles about humane learning I cannot says he but observe how much this People are swerved from their first Principles For it is not long since they decried humane learning and also making a trade of preaching But if they can get a few Shreds or broken fragments of learning or a learned Man on their side they are ready to make an Idol of it and now they make a Trade of Preaching Page 16. c. Answer It appears 't is the whole party he strives to bring into contempt But let him take heed of belying so gracious a People as the Adversaries themselves confess them to be did we ever decry humane learning because we believe and ever did that it is not an essential qualification in a Minister We are no more for it
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
reflects upon Mr. Collins because he calls Infants ignorant Babes See his words viz. He seems to make the ignorance of young Infants to be too hard a match for the Wisdom and Power of God and renders Infants wholly uncapable of receiving the Seeds of Grace Answer Doth Mr. Collins question the wisdom and power of God because he affirms Infants are morally uncapable of those habits of Faith which are in Adult persons What cannot God do no doubt he that placed in Infants the Seed or habit of natural knowledg will affections c. can inspire Infants with the habits of Divine Grace nay and as easily bring those Natural and Divine habits in their Infancy when infused into Acts and Exercise also according to their distinct natures and Operations as in the Adult But for any to assert that God doth this is the business and 't is that which we do deny and say God infuses no such habits into any Infants that we know of who are out of a moral capacity to Act and improve those habits according as they dispose incline and impower all that have them 2. And let it be also considered whether this Man doth not go about to limit the holy one of Israel When he argues that because God saves and sanctifies the Adult by infusing the habits of Grace into them c. that therefore God must that way and no other sanctify and apply the Blood and righteousness of Christ to dying Infants We know that Men can differently apply the same medicine to a sick person and yet it shall have the same effect in curing So say we may God some other way apply Christs merits to dying Infants and sanctify them which we know not of besides his infusing the same habits which believers are inspired withall who is a free agent and whose ways are wonderful and past finding out CHAP. III. Proving that Infants of Believers as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one that peculiarly referred to his Natural Seed as such and the other to his Spiritual Seed as such with a full Answer and Confutation of what Mr. Shute hath said in his last reply to Mr. Collins and to Benjamin Keach in his Treatise The Ax lay'd to the Root about the Covenant of Grace and that of Circumcision I Shall pass by several things in your Answer because they are over and over fully answered in our late Treatise wrote on this Controversie as that in page 44. of your Book concerning Federatal Holiness from 1 Cor. 7. 14. See our Answer to the Athenian Society and Rector Rectified and that in page 71. about the promise Acts 2. 38. But to proceed This first of all the Reader is desired to consider of and that carefully that our Adversary hath dealt very unfairly with my Reverend Brother Collins I hope it is through his Ignorance or great oversight viz. first he positively concludes and takes it for granted that Mr. Collins hath endeavoure◠〈◊〉 â—rove the Covenant of Grace which God made with or rather promis`d to Abraham is dissannulled and taken away Secondly that Mr. Collins by his often repeated distinction of the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham doth mean and intend the Covenant of Grace when this is as far from his intention and expressions any where in his Book or Judgment as the East is from to the West I have seen many Men undertake in Controvertible Points but never saw any except one abuse his Antagonist worse nor after such a sort 't is evident there was two Covenants contained in those transactings of God with Abraham one peculiarly respected only his Natural Seed or Off-spring as such which Mr. Collins calls the Covenant of peculiarity as others have done before him which Circumcision was a Sign of and this he hath proved was not the Covenant of Grace which God promised to Abraham for the Covenant of Grace God Promised to him did not peculiarly relate to Abrahams Natural Seed that were Elect Persons but to all the Gentiles also who believe in Christ for that comprehends none but the Elect or the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham as such Reader if you read Mr. Colline first Book or his answer to Mr. Shute you will find this is as plainly layd down by him as any thing could well be I am afraid that this Man`s over heated Zeal would not suffer him distinctly to read over and seriously weigh what Mr. Collins hath wrote and said upon this account before he attempted to write an Answer for thro' this gross mistake as one that hath read Mr. Shutes Book observed and told me he hath wrote near twenty Leaves to no purpose i. e. to prove that which no body denys viz. that the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham is not dissolved cast out or disannulled but abides the same forever which we all as stedfastly believe as Mr. Shute therefore he has but set up here on this respect a Man of Straw and then fights with it And upon search and examination of Mr. Shutes reply I see that what the Gentleman told me is very true and that those Leaves do begin about 74th page and so on And in the said 74th page Mr. Shute begins with this easie assay viz. To prove the Covenant of Grace God made with or rather promised unto Abraham abideth for ever and ever he urgeth that blessed Text Psalm 89. 34 35 c. My Covenant I will not break nor alter the thing that in gone out of my Lips once have I sworn by my my Holiness that I will not lye unto David c. Do we say or Imagin that the promise of the Covenant of Grace God made to Abraham is abrogated God forbid for that stands firm for ever and ever as the Spring of all our comfort and consolation in Life and Death being confirmed by the Oath of God who cannot lie Heb. 6. 13. 15 16 17 18. and so doth the Invisible and Mystical Church or Body of Christ remain and abide for ever also against which the Cates of Hell shall never prevail But the question is viz. Whether or no there was not a Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed or Off-spring as such viz a Covenant that only did belong or appertain to the Jews in which no-believing Gentiles nor their Seed as such were concerned of which Circumcision was a Sign for this is that which we affirm Now Reader observe Mr. Collins's Argument and Mr. Shutes Reply in his 76. page viz. The Natural Branches are broken off Ergo Childrens visible in Covenanting is repealed thus Mr. Collins Take the Answer as followeth Now Sir you shall see saith Mr. Shute That this doth no more prove that the Children of believing Parents were cast out of the everlasting Covenant which God made with Abraham than c. Answer By the Everlasting Covenant you mean the Covenant
of Grace that God promised to Abraham Friend we say all the Elect Infants of believers or of unbelievers were Included in that Covenant and they are not nor can they be cast out of it But you mistake the Argument `t is not about the Spiritual Seed but the Natural Seed of Abraham the Controversie lies not about who are Members of the Invisible but who are Members of the Visible Church in Gospel days the Argument is about Childrens Visible in Covenanting I am sorry you distinguish no better either you do not see where the Stress of the Point lies or else will not see it I ask you whether there was no Covenant made with Abraham that belonged to his Natural Seed as such only and whether Circumcision did not belong to that Covenant and so a Covenant of Peculiarity i. e. in which Gentile believers and their Seed were no ways concerned was not Christ to come only of Abraham and his Seed according to the flesh Besides if this were not so Circumcision could not be said to be an advantage to the Jews upon the account of the Law above the Gentiles Rom. 3. 1 2. is it not said â—nto them that is the Jews appertained the Covenants c. Rom. 9. 4. is not here more Covenants than one 't is not Covenant but Covenants Now the Covenant of Circumcision that belonged to them as they were the Natural Seed of Abraham tho' wicked Persons and so did the giving of the Law and Service of God under that dispensation but the Covenant of Grace belongs only to Abraham Spiritual Seed First such of them that proceeded from his Loyns and Secondly those of the Gentiles also that were comprehended in Gods Election of Grace hence Christ saith he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel that is to all that God hath given him among the Jews not sent that is not first the promise runs first to the Jews to the Jews first and also to the Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. 1. Let this therefore be carefully considered viz. that God made a twofold Covenant or two Covenants with Abraham and his Seed one a formal Covenant the other held forth in promise which by and by I shall further evince 2. That the Gospel Covenant run first to all the Elect that were the Natural off-spring of Abraham and then to the Gentiles and from hence 't is said Rom. 11. That when the Jews are called and brought in again they shall be grafted into their own Olive-Tree Their own because the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant first in the blessings of it was to them or to such amongst them that were Gods Elect 2. Because the true Olive doth according to God 〈…〉 rnal pupose and free Grace Peculiarity belong to all the Elect and called ones of God but 3. Let it be consider'd that there was a National Covenant of Peculiarity also made with Abrahams Carnal Seed as such in which Circumcision the Land of Canaan the giving sorib of the Law on Mount Sinai their Visible Church and Church-membership and all the Statures Ordinances and Services of the Law did appertain and this brings me to what Mr. Shute hath said by way of answer to my Sermon on Maâ—h 3. Now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees Where I do not only assert but prove that two Covenants were continued in Gods Transactions with Abraham but first observe Reader his abuses and misconstructions of my words as in page 115. as if I had left out on purpose the 7. verse in Gen. 17. where the Covenant of Circumcision is called an everlasting Covenant 'T is evident I did not only mention that verse but answered Mr. Flavels Argument drawn there from as in part 2. page 13. But still he affirms positively again that in all my Discourse I have not so much as named this viz. an Everlasting Covenant and so compares me with the Devil who left out part of a Scripture see his Book page 116. Now this being a matter of Fact let such who are in Communion with him consider it for if they read my Sermons page 13 14. they will see that 't is a great untruth What tho' I left it out at such times when the writing it was not to my purpose in Hand seeing I mention it at another and answer what our opponents draw there from In page 117. he says If there were two Covenants made with Abraham then there would have been three Covenants in being at once two of Works and one of Grace Answer This I have fully answered in those Sermons called the Ax layd at the Root see page 14 15 16 18. Second Part. Thus you will find I express my self viz. Tho' there is but one Covenant of Work 's yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident altho' given upon a different End Purpose and Design by the Lord The Covenant of Works was primerly made with Adam yet another addition or ministration of it was given on Mount Sinai and to that Covenant I there prove Circumcision did appertain Ax 2d Part page 17 18. Also I there shewed that tho' there is but one Covenant of Grace yet there were several distinct Additions or Administrations of that Also in page 125. he misrepresents my words again he cites an Objection I mention in page 25. part 1. viz. Object If Infants as such were not included in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham how can dying Infants be saved My Answer is Must Infants of believers as such be comprehended in that Covenant God made with Abraham or else can they not be saved how then were any dying Infants saved before Abraham's days or before the Covenant was made with him Now Mr. Shute says page 125. That I have answered this Objection as if there had been no Covenant of Grace before that time God did declare and make that Covenant with Abraham Answer I will appeal to all Men whether or no the very purport of my Answer is not to signifie that the Covenant of Grace was from the beginning made primarly with Christ before the World begun for us and that those Infants that were saved before Abraham's time were saved by the said Covenant of Grace otherwise I had said nothing the very Stress of my Argument lyes upon that foot of account In page 132. Mr. Shute he says if God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham and his Seed then 1. There must be that in the one that is peculiar to his Spiritual Seed 2. There must be that in the other that is peculiar to his Carnal Seed but we find saith he it is altogethor unscriptural for 1. Both the Seeds of Abraham had a right to all the External Benefits and Priviledges of the everlasting Cevenant which God made with Abraham very few excepted Answer I have largely proved in the said Sermons called The Ax layd to the Root That there were