it for he hath written two Books already and not one Argument in either of them that concludes the thing in Question And to tell you my Thoughts upon it I am of Opinion if he should write a hundred Books it will be still the same for he hath run over nine Arguments twice to no purpose For there is nothing of the Point in question inferr'd in any of them And I know the Reason It is not simply for want of Parts and Learning but for want of Matter for that which is not cannot be proved to be but Infant-baptism is not an Ordinance of God and therefore it cannot be proved so to be And whereas he doth allow he cannot shew us a Command for it by abusing us for but demanding it of him I am sure his Attempt to prove that to be an Ordinance of God by Consequence only when he hath granted there is no express Command is too great a Task for him ever to perform And if he would take my Advice I would not have him so much as attempt it any more because it 's imâ—ossible to be done But why doth Mr. H. tell us Baptism is a Seal of the New Covenant If it be his Arguments are all out of doors for a Seal is not to be set to a Blank as it must be if applied to Infants Besides he is mistaken in the whole of his Position for Circumcision is only said to be a seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and not to the rest of his Posterity Rom. 4.9 Faith is reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness And in the 10th Verse he tells us it was before he was circumcised But in Ver. 11. he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also This is the only Text that I find the Word is used in as applied to Circumcision and here it is restrained to Abraham only and not applied to any other Person whatsoever I do think therefore it was an unwary Expression of Mr. H. to make Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Law to all circumcised Infants when it 's applied by Paul to Abraham only and not to any one of his Posterity Nor could it be because it was to him as a Seal of that Promise that he should be the Father of all Believers which could not be true of Individuals nor of any other but himself it being commanded to them for other Ends. As for his calling Baptism a Seal of the New Covenant I must say the same of it as of the other For 1. It is no where called so in all the Holy Scripture and therefore no metaphorical Use to be made of it 2. The Holy Scriptures do tell us 〈◊〉 other thing that is the Seal of the New and everlasting Covenant wherewith Believers are sealed under the Gospel and that is the Holy Spirit 2 Cor. 1.21 22. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts Ephes 1.13 After ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise Ephes 4.30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption The Learned Dr. Cox upon these words Rom. 4.11 saith It is Genitivus Speciei as when we read the City of Jerusalem for the City Jerusalem and the like For we read not saith he that any other Ordinance No not Baptism is so called in Scripture but in the New Testament the sealing of Believers is attributed to the Holy Ghost For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith c. to one that never had Faith And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while uncircumcised as to affirm that it was the Seal of a paternal relation to all Believers unto every one that received it And I hope this Gentleman will allow me to say that it 's more absurd now under the Gospel wherein all the Children of the Covenant are to be taught of God and all of them to know God that any should affirm that Baptism is a Seal to Infants who have no Faith at all neither in Habit nor in Act espeeially seeing it 's no where called so in the Holy Scriptures If men â—â—â—ough the Lightness and Vanity of their Minds must needs play with metaphorical Expressions in Scripture yet I know not how they should have a liberty to impose words upon us as Mr. H. doth which are not at any time nor in any place so much as mentioned This is our Case Mr. H. will have Baptism called the Seal of the Covenant we will not allow it him because it 's no where so called in Scripture But suppose we should it would ruine his beloved Cause for then it could be administred to none but such who are true Believers But before Mr. H. goes any further he proposes this Question Who we are to understand by the Children in the Text viz. Acts. 2 39. His Answer is No doubt but they are the very same which in Gen. 17 are called Seed The Reason he gives for it is from the Etymology of the Greek word there used The Word saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for little sucking Babes Matt. 21.18 and 1 Cor. 7.14 How he came to give us this sence of the Word so contrary to the Scope of the place I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular is rendred thus by a late famous Grecian A Child an Off-spring and in the plural a numerous Off-spring In the 2d Epistle of John Ver. 1. he uses the same Words as in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The elder unto the elect Lady and her Children Here it 's rendred Children as it is in Acts. 2.39 but not little sucking Babes For you have their Character given in Ver. 4. I rejoyced greatly that I found of thy Children walking in truth as we have received a commandment from the Father And he writes to her and them in the plural to look-to themselves and to 〈◊〉 false Teachers c. And in the last Verse 〈◊〉 saith The Children of thy Elect Sister greet thee Now these things can no ways agree with Mr. H's little sucking Babes And he hath every whit as much Reason to give this sence of the word here as in Acts 2.39 it being the same Word But let us examine his other two Texts In Matt. 21.18 Now in the morning as he returnned into the City he hungred This I am sure hath neither the word nor thing he intends But I suppose he intended the 15th Verse And when the chief Priests and
C. had said this is his Answer in Part 2. Page 15. The plain truth is the poor man hath such a weak head that he knows not what in the World to make of it He mistook the man It was himself and not Mr. Collins to whom these words ought to be applied For it 's manifest that he knew not how to confute him because he repeats the old Arguments he had used in his first Part. But I would not have Mr. Collins think the worse of himself for all his Railery against him because the poor man hath not yet learned the common Civility and curteous Behaviour which every ingenuous man will shew to any one that is a stranger especially if he put himself upon the trouble and charge to serve him for the good of his Soul as Mr. Collins hath done But some mens evil Nature will never depart from them nor be mortified by them let us do what we can There are several other Arguments Mr. Collins hath also added by which he hath undeniably evinced this Covenant in Gen. 17.7 8 c. not to be the Covenant of Grace as having only temporal Blessings promised in it And because persons might be saved out of this Covenant and many were saved who were never circumcised nor in that Covenant That many Absurdities follow the holding such an Opinion and that it overthrows many fundamental Points of Religion divers of which he there enumerates Now I appeal to all ingenious men whether it had not been Mr. H's business to have given some solid Answers to these Particulars and whether Mr. H. Collins deserved such a Treatment from a man who calls himself a Minister of the Gospel But to proceed 2. I have undertaken to prove That this Covenant of Circumcifion Gen. 17.7 8 c. was abolished by Christ But upon Enquiry I find that Mr. M. H. Part 1. pag. 6. doth confess that Circumcision is now abolished His Words are these Circumcision is now abolished by Christ and cites for Probation thereof Eph. 2.15 Having abolished in his Flesh the Enmity even the Law of Commandmandments contained in Ordinances for to make in himself of twain one new man so making Peace To this he adds 1 Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing and Vncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandments of God Now upon this Concession I would willingly know of Mr. H. why he supposes the Covenant of which he saith Circumcision was a Seal is still remaining when he confesses the Seal thereof is broken off and taken away from it If a Bond for the performance of a Covenant be once cancelled the Covenant it self ceases to be obligatory any longer 3. If that Covenant Gen. 17.7 8 c. had been as he saith the Covenant of Grace yet it had not therefore given the Infants of believing Parents a right to Baptism without an Institution from God requiring it to be done I prove it thus 1. From Mr. H. own words part 1. page 6 7. We do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as Infants of the Elect. And a little before speaking of persons being really in the Covenant of Grace as united to Christ living Branches knit to Christ by a vital union he adds and thus only the Elect are in Covenant The Covenant thus considered is not the ground of Baptism if we must baptize none but such as are vitally in Christ then must we baptize none and he gives this reason for it because tho' we see the outward profession we do not know who belong to the Election of Grace From all which its plain Mr. H. doth not think their being in the Covenant of Grace a sufficient ground to baptize any person because he cannot possibly know that they are so How then can he baptize any Infant upon the terms of that Covenant Gen. 17. if it were as he saith the Covenant of Grace But saith he those that are externally and visibly in Covenant all that profess Christ Tares and Wheat wise Virgins and foolish This saith he is the Ground of Baptism I answer Had Mr. H. being speaking of the Members of a Nation and also of the Members of the visible Church and had distinguished the latter into these two sorts of Persons i. e. such that were invisible members and such that were only so by a bare profession reason would that I should allow it But when he is speaking of the Covenant of Grace to tell us of Hypocrites and carnal Professors who are devoid of true Grace and that all such are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and that all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace as you may see in the Page before-mentioned this is one of the greatest Paradoxes I ever met with If the wicked who are called Tares are to be accounted Believers in Covenant why shall they be cast into Hell-fire Mat. 13.40 41 42. If the foolish Virgins in the Church are in the Covenant of Grace why must they be shut out of Heaven Mat. 25.11 12. Now that it was without reason for him thus to argue I prove from his own Words Because he doth assure us from the Testimony of Holy Scripture that all Believers are in this Covenant This saith he in pag. 6. is abundabtly evident from Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15. Gal. 3.29 the Covenant was made with Abraham as a Believers and with all Believers as well as him And that we may not mistake his meaning he often calls it the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham c. Now that the Covenant in Gen. 17.7 8 c. is not the Covenant of Grace I have already shown But that there was a Covenant of Grace in which Abraham was instated being a Believer in Christ and a special Friend and Favourite of God as the Father of the faithful wherein all true Believers have a right and interest as being in Christ I readily allow And moreover That all true Believers in Christ altho ' under the former dispensation they could not be admitted to Baptism because it had been Will-Worship so to do it not being then commanded Yet now they have a right to that Holy Ordinance as the proper Subjects thereof because Christ hath not only commanded it but made a gracious promise to them upon their Obedience thereunto Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Now seeing Mr. H. further saith in page 7. That Persons are to be baptized as making a visible and credible profession of Religion and that the Apostles did baptize such as did profess Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Acts 2.41 I therefore infer upon him the unreasonableness of his former Assertion That the Children of such as are only formal Hypocrites are to be baptized because their Parents make an outward profession of Christianity for which he quotes Ezek. 16.20 21. which I desire may be read over for I think he might have proved it as well
from Gen. 1.1 when according to his own Assertion all true Believers are in the Covenant of Grace and so are the Elect of God in a true and proper sence and the fit subjects of Baptism And if he would himself who is yet an unbaptized person truly believe and be baptized and by a Gift from Christ did once become a Teacher in the true visible Church he might then baptise penitent Believers upon a foundation that himself acknowledges to be good and warrantable from the practice of the Apostles But for his baptizing Infants as he hath no authority for it from the Word of God so by his own Confession he hath no Foundation for it as they are in Covenant because he doth not know they are so But 2dly He saith page 7. That all Infants of such believing parents i. e. External and Visible Professors are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the Now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant And saith This is the principal thing designed from this Text meaning Gen. 17.7 c. Well if it be so it shall be considered but I pray who told him these things he hath so boldly asserted For in the first place If all Infants are not within the Covenant of Grace how comes it about that all the Infants of such believing Parents qua talis are in that Covenant Hath he not forgot what he wrote in the very Page before That the Covenant of Grace is God's gracious Promise of delivering from a state of Sin and Death and bringing into a state of Salvation by Jesus Christ all that by faith fly to and lay hold on him and could it enter into his imagination that little Infants can by faith fly to and lay hold on Christ And if they cannot then it 's plain this Gentleman hath been guilty of a Self-contradiction from which he can no ways extricate himself Mr. Collins had given him sufficient notice of it by saying surely the Gentleman hath forgot himself in the Definition of the Covenant of Grace and hath sufficiently confuted this Assertion but I find it 's as yet a Work he cares not to undertake to recant his Errors when he is detected for them But 2ly How doth he know that Infants have as much a right to Baptism now as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision He gives us neither Reason Argument nor Scripture in this place to prove it and therefore we must consider it our selves All the Answer I think needful to give is this Infants were commanded by God to be circumcised Gen. 17.10 Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Ver. 12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised And the particular Direction is given Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin Here you see is the Command of God both for the Work it self the Subject upon whom and the time when it was to be performed So that God's Command gave Infants then a right to Circumcision Now let but Mr. H. shew us any such Command in all the Scriptures for the baptizing of Infants and we will thank him for we never yet could find it in all the Book of God And till he doth we have no reason to believe what he so confidently asserts to be true But 3ly Mr. H. asserts That Baptism is the now Seal of the Covenant I know not how he will prove it for I am sure it 's an unscriptural Notion For the Holy Scripture doth no where tell us that Baptism is the seal of the Covenant but hath plainly told us that Christians were sealed with the holy Spirit Ephes 1.13 14. After that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of our Inheritance And I will rather believe the Apostle Paul than Mr. H. And this leads me to consider what he hath asserted in his first Chapter Part 1. CHAP. III. HAving in the former Chapter confuted those Arguments he hath brought from Gen. 17. to prove Infants Baptism I come now to consider his five introductory Considerations which he saith are very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant-baptism 1. He saith That a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express Words of Scripture 2. Or from evident Consequences drawn from Scripture As to the first It is a great Truth And thus we can prove our Practice of Believers Baptism with all the Perspicuity imaginable as I shall make appear when I come to treat of that Subject Therefore he must from his own Rule acknowledge that our Practice therein is of God But I am sure he is conscious to himself that the Practice of Infant-baptism cannot be proved by the express Words of Scripture because he finds fault with us for urging them to it in Page 10. where he brings us in saying bring us a plain Text and we will believe it and represents it as an unreasonable Demand But if his Passion hath not so far transported him as to make him forget what Subject-matter he is treating of he might have forborn those Reflections against us For I do affirm that Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship and therefore whilst he pretends to practice Infant-baptism he is obliged to shew us where it is expresly commanded in the Word of God or otherwise how does he know it is the Will of God that it should be practised at all For all Instituted Worship hath its Foundation only in the Will of the Law-giver as he hath revealed it unto us and unless he hath found out some other Rule of Faith and Practice besides the Word of God he is bound to submit himself to the Authority thereof in the Determination of this Controversy To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them Isa 8.20 2. He endeavours to perswade us That evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are sufficient I might deny this in the Point under Consideration because Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship For altho' this may be true about speculative Points in Divinity it is no necessary Consequence it must be so in positive Duties But I will not insist upon it but for Arguments sake allow it to be true And therefore let him proceed as soon as he pleases to prove the Baptism of Infants an Ordinance of God by evident Confequences drawn from Scripture and I will allow it As for his second Observation it is applicable to himself and not to us and therefore I shall leave it at his own door 3. He saith Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully consirmed in the Old Testament tho' little or nothing be said of them in the Now Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the
be a true Visible Church who do not thus admit Members by Regeneration but by Generation only and we have great reason so to do because they have only Humane Invention for their Foundation and not the Authority of God's Word as I have already shewed in this Treatise to which I refer you 2. He tells his People that we are you see no Churches no Ministers no Christians c. whereas there is nothing of Ministers intended in this Article as all may see that read it but that of Ministers under the Name of Elders or Pastors is contained in the 15th Article But he that writes in haste may repent at leisure 3. He saith We do by that make them no Christians I must confess I know not what his People are but I hope they are men of greater Charity and Moderation than their Priest or else I am sure they are not well qualified Christians But how can he think so from that Article when the design thereof is to shew who are orderly Members of a true visible Church and do therein declare that every one before they are admitted to baptism are to be true penitent Believers and he knows 't is our avowed principle not to admit any other but such only that in the judgment of Charity are so What sorts of Persons he accounts Christians I know not but I do account such to be so that are true penitent Believers and I hope there are many such in the World altho' they do not agree with us about some of the external modes of Worship but this seems to be done on purpose to exasperate the Spirits of his People against us but I hope they will not be so unwise as to mind what such a Clamorous Pen saith against us without better evidence Having cleared our selves from this Abuse I think it highly reasonable to know who it is he owns for Churches and Ministers for those that are rightly constituted according to the Primitive Pattern he is against so that it must be some others Now in Part 1. page 6. Mr. H. saith Whoever will be a Member of the Christian Church must be baptized 2. He tells us That Persons being knit to Christ by a vital union as they are living branches in him and the Elect of God is not a ground for Baptism and yet he confesses that thus only the Elect are in Covenant 3. When he comes to give us an account who are in the visible Covenant which in his Language is visible Church-members he saith page 7. Thus all who profess Christ Tares and Wheat Wise Virgins and Foolish this is the ground of Baptism He is much mistaken about the Parable of the Tares in Mat. 13. to apply it to Visible Church-members for our Lord doth not say the Field is the Church but the field is the World The good Seed are the Children of the Kingdom i. e. the Church and the Tares are the Children of the Wicked One i. e. the Devil the Harvest is the end of this World and the Reapers are the Angels c. Now had I been to plead against some of the cursed persecuting Tyrants of the World or against those bloody persecuting Principles and Practices of your Old Friend John Calvin I would have used this Text for an Argument against them as genuine and proper but it hath no relation to the visible Church for the Tares are the Rabble of the wicked out of the visible Church and such who shall be damned â—ternally for the Angels shall cast them into a Furnace of fire c. But however it seems they will serve Mr. H. to make Church-members of for he saith in the words following They are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and their Children to be baptized and that all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace and yet in the same page he saith We do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as the Infants of the Elect for we do not know who belong to the Election of Grace But self-contradictions are common with him I shall make some few Remarks upon it and so proceed to what I intend 1. That if all the unconverted Hypocrites among all that profess the Christian Name be but baptized they are Believers in the Covenant of Grace then by his own Principle they must all be saved for they can never fall totally and finally 2. That if all the Infants of such are in the Covenant of Grace then they also must needs be saved by his Doctrine It 's an easie way to bring Persons into the Covenant of Grace if sprinkling a little cold Water on their Faces will do it 3. That notwithstanding all this it seems he doth not know that any one either of his Church-members or their Infants are in the Covenant of Grace neither doth he baptize them as such for he plainly confesses he doth not know who belongs to the Election of Grace Then it 's as plain that he is not sure that any of his Members or their Infants shall be saved and then they are at charge to maintan him to very little purpose Nay further he doth not know by this confused way of arguing that any of those Churches Ministers or Christians that belong to those visible Churches he talks of are in any more hopes of Salvation than those Heathens he speaks of in another place whom he with Calvin of old condemns to the pit of Hell for no other imaginable Reason than the Decree of God built only upon this Supposition because God will have it so But God will not entrust these rasn Men to be Judges of the World For he hath committed all Judgment to the Son otherwise the poor Anabaptists would be under bad Circumstances I now proceed to prosecute my Design to discover who it is that he intends by Ministers By Ministers he must needs intend those that were before described to be Members viz. Either his carnal Professors or Infants born of them Infants he cannot mean because they are not capable If you would therefore be satisfied he hath told you it is all the Ministers that profess Christ besides those of our way For there lyes the Antithesis For he saith we disown them all so to be but our selves and he owns them or else he hath no reason to be angry with us I hope we are not to understand that he is displeased with us for disowning them whom he disowns To be short The Membership and Ministry of the Presbyterians Episcopal and Romish Church are all built upon the same foundation which will appear if you ask but a few Questions 1 Que. Whether the Presbyterians do not own the Church of England to be a true Church Their Answer must be Yes because we received our Baptism from them and never repeated it and therefore they must be a true Church or else our Baptism is no true Baptism 2 Que. Whether the Presbyterians do not own the Bishops and their
hereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned But after all this you still oppose the Truth as well as your self by saying it signifies an Eye a little Fountain sending forth but little water in conformity to the Eye There really was but little water a Man might stop it with the Foot What can a Man stop many Rivers with his Foot I hope you will blush at the reading of such silly Contradictions as these But yet you say there was much that is many Waters here Conscience began to check you and forced another Confession from you but immediately by your Explication you contradict it again For you say there was several little Holes like Eves gushing out Water But in the next Words you say there was much water Well but how do you make that out As a Bucket-full is compared with a Spoon-full I was afraid those many Rivers would have dwindled to nothing But you confess there was a Bucket full of water to fill those many Rivers and to supply their constant course of flowing and so you say comparatively there was much and yet really but a little water If this be not to write against the Light of your own Understanding and to struggle with the Convictions of your own Conscience I know not what is We may see by this what shift some Men will make to support an Error when once they have espoused it The Greek words in that Text are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Arias Montanus renders Quia aquae multae erant illic Because there was much water there as our Translators have also done And the Learned Leigh in his Critioa Sacra saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multus much and in approved Authors as Thucyd Homer and others it 's used for things that are great large excelling eminent c. Teste Budaeo With the seventy Interpreters there is nothing more usual than to render it thus as Gen. 15.1 Exceeding great Psalm 36.6 A great deep 1 Kings 4.29 Exceeding much And it 's so taken Luke 16.10 where it 's twice rendred much And seeing you have mentioned the Hebrew give me leave also to set down the two Hebrew words that answer to it viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Majim rabbim Majim signifies Waters Fontes Flumina Fountains and Rivers Rab. signifies in the singular much great chief and as Leigh saith Multus magnus apponitur parvo pauco it signifies much and great opposed to little and few But here it 's used in the plural Number which encreases its signification See Robertson's Hebrew Dictionary and Leigh's Critica sacra And as for the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnajin an Eye a Fountain as it 's rendred a Fountain in many other places of the Old Testament so particularly in Gen. 16.7 it 's twice so rendred in that one verse And the Angel of the Lord found her by a Fountain of Water in the Wilderness by the Fountain in the way to Shur But if in this and many other places where the same Word occurs we should understand it an Eye instead of a Fountain what strange work should we make in interpreting Scripture such that would not become one who esteems himself a Master of Reason and a Teacher in Israel But Sir I perceive your speaking of the Name of the Town which was not at all to the purpose was to lead us from the Truth of the thing which was the Matter in Question viz. That there was much Water as the Holy Spirit saith Before I pass this place the last Words in John 3.23 are in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were dipped The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vaitabelu and were dipped For as Baptizo signifies to dip or plunge into the Water and implieth the washing of their whole Bodies even so the Hebrew Root Tabal from whence is used this Word in the Text in the passive form vaitabelu signifies He dipped The same that is used in 2 Kings 5.14 Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan according to the saying of the Man of God From hence you may observe That when this word is rendred to wash it signifies no other washing than what is performed by dipping and plunging the whole body under the Water For in ver 10. it 's said by the Prophet Go and wash in Jordan seven times and in ver 14. according to that Command He dipped himself in Jordan seven times And to let you see what Trifling you have been guilty of in both those Tracts about the Meaning of this place Had it been Sprinkling intended it must have been from Rantizo in the Greek to sprinkle or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazab in the Hebrew he sprinkled but neither of these are used in this place but instead thereof its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal he dipped from whence it 's derived which are as different both as to Letters and Signification as any two Words can well be for that Sprinkling is not Dipping Rantizing is not Baptizing Besides It 's plain from the reason given by the Holy Spirit in the Text why John baptized in this place i. e. because there was much water But if he had not plunged them into the water and overwhelmed them with it as the word signifies but only sprinkled their Faces with a few drops thereof this Reason had been without Foundation For as Cornelius a Lapide observes A very little water would have served to have sprinkled thousands But their manner of baptizing being to dip the whole Body under water therefore much water was necessary thereunto without which the Act of baptizing could not be performed And as Erasmus saith upon the place Aenon in the Syrian Tongue signifies gushing streams of Water by reason whereof there was plenty of Water to baptize the People withall And our Learned Critick Mr. Matt. Poole saith thus upon the place It is from this apparent that both Christ and John baptized by dipping the Body in Water else they need not have sought places where there had been great plenty of Waters I shall say no more to it for this is more than sufficient to satisfie any rational Man about the meaning of this place And Sir If you will not acknowledge such a wilfull Error as this I shall despair of curing your infidelity 2ly I desire you to observe that the great stress you lay upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnolam Gen. 17. to prove that Covenant of Circumcision to be the Covenant of Grace is because you say that word signifies eternal Now if you your self did not doubt the truth of your own Assertion what makes you say in your second Book pag 17. The Covenant of Grace is immutable and eternal therefore Gnolam doth here signifie a perpetual Eternity Sir this is according to the common Proverb To run round like a Horse in a Mill For First You prove as you say the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. to be eternal because Gnolam signifies
of their own and is detested by all Protestant Churches Error Abominable Doctrine False dangerous and uncomfortable Doctrine Error of the Anabaptists Arminian Anabaptists The grossness and foulness of it Weak ignorant Preachers they have Pride and Confidence and 't is these ignorant men that broach most of these Errors I might tax the Anabaptists as guilty Opposing their Errors This stone is flung at the head of the general Anabaptists Now which Party Mr. Collins is of I know not but by what he saith it seems to me not only rank Arminiamism but a new way to Heaven and Mountebank Divinity Thus you may see what frame of Spirit this man is of it 's in Vain for him to think he is in a better state for leaving Episcopacy and becoming a Presbyter whilst such corrupt Communications proceeds out of his mouth For as our Lord saith Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh it 's an Indication therefore of a corrupt and unmortified Heart for which he ought to be deeply humbled 'T is contrary to all those Exhortations in the Gospel to Meekness Kindness Tenderness and Gharity Our Lord who is the Prince of Peace whose Gospel is a Gospel of peace whose People are peaceable gentle and easy to be entreated hath himself set us a blessed Example who when he was Reviled Reviled not again when he sufferred he threatned not but commited himself to him that Judgeth Righteously Let us therefore labour to follow his Example and then we may expect a Blessing in our Deed. For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God Jam. 1.20 Let the Reader take notice I have collected these harsh expressions out of Mr. Harrison's Books page by page as he may see by examining the same beginning with the first and ending with the last and have been very exact therein because I would not wrong him My Reason was partly that you might see what Spirit he is of and how unfairly he hath dealt by us as also to avoid being vex'd with them in every paragraph where they occurr'd CHAP. II. THE first thing he begins with is the Covenant of Circumcision which he supposes to be the Covenant of Grace and quotes Genes 17.7 for proof thereof and infers That all Infants of Believers are in this Covenant and therefore they have a right to Baptism He spends the first eight Pages upon it and seems to hug himself in the Thoughts of some great Success among his Hearers upon this his Undertaking But if I shall be so happy as to take from him the Foundation upon which all his Fabrick is built He may then think he hath labour'd in vain and spent his time for nought This therefore I shall first insist upon it being the main Pillar he rests upon in both his Tracts to support that humane Invention of Baby baptism I shall first shew That the Covenant mentioned in Genes 17.7 8 9 10 c. the place cited by him is not the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Circumcision 2. That this Covenant was abolished by the Death of the Messiah 3. That if that Covenant Gen. 17.7 had been as he saith the Covenant of Grace yet it had not therefore given the Infants of believing Parents a right to Baptism without an Institution from God requiring it to be done 1. To prove therefore That the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 c. is the Covenant of Circumcision we have nothing to do but to read the Words as they are recorded And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their Generations This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man child among you shall he circumcised And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you And ver 13. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant Notwithstanding the fulness and plainness of these Expressions Mr. H. is pleased to tell us this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace as you may see in pag. 4 5. lib. 1. Altho' I believe no man that is not prepossessed with Error can ever find any thing like it by the Words of God himself for he saith positively it is that of Circumcision I need not therefore insist much upon his ipse dixit when it is directly contrary to the Word of God But to make the matter beyond any reasonable Contradiction I shall urge those very Arguments Mr. Collins hath so well advanced upon this Subject in his Sandy Foundation of Infant Baptism shaken in Answer to Mr. Mence and Mr. Harrison which do yet remain unanswered pag. 10 c. Mr. H. Collins to prove that that Covenant God made with Abraham and his natural Seed Gen. 17.7 8 c. was not the Covenant of Grace he urges these following Arguments Arg. 1. The Covenant of Grace extends unto all Nations the Covenant of Circumcision was limited to one Nation Ergo the Covenant of Circumcision is not the Covenant of Grace Both which he hath substantially proved to which I refer you Arg. 2. That Covenant which obligeth to keep the whole Law is not the Covenant of Grace But the Covenant of Circumcision obligeth to keep the whole Law Ergo the Covenant of Circumcision is not the Covenant of Grace The major he shews to be undeniable and the minor he proves from Gal. 5.2 3 4. For I testify to every man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law and that Christ shall profit him nothing c. Arg. 3. That Covenant which is abrogated and repeal'd is not the Covenant of Grace But the Covenant of Circumcision is abrogated and repealed Ergo the Covenant of Circumcision is not the Covenant of Grace As for the minor there are few in the World but such as are Judaizing will deny And for the major none do suppose the Covenant of Grace can be repealed c. Therefore the conscquence follows that that Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace Now notwithstanding all this and much more which Mr. H. Collins hath spoken upon this subject and that indeed with such clearness of Evidence that Mr. H. will never be able to answer yet in his second Book he russ over his old Arguments again in the former Book and instead of giving any new solid Arguments to take off the force of what Mr. H.
New Testament And presently after he tells us This is the case of Infant-baptism Well Sir If you will prove that Infant baptism was clearly revealed and fully confirmed to be an Ordinance of God and our duty to practise it in Gospel-days by the Scriptures of the Old Testament I am contented But pray be pleased to shew us that revelation and confirmation that we may be satisfied it is so For I never read of Infants-baptism as yet in all the Old Testament and I believe there is as little mention made of it in the New But 4ly You say those Doctrines which were once throughly settled in the Old Testament and never called in question by any in the New there was no occasion given to speak of them again If this be ad rem there are then two things signified thereby 1. That there was no occasion given to speak of Infant baptism in the New Testament And I am certain if there were it was wholly omitted for there is no mention made of it in the least 2. That it was a Doctrine throughly settled in the Old Testament If this be true Why doth he not prove it by shewing us where it is so written If he cannot let him acknowledge his Mistake As for what he speaks in his fifth consideration That Doctrine may be very clear the Scriptures brought to prove and the Argument thence deduced clear and convincing and yet it may remain dark to one that is uncapable of discerning it This I allow to be true And if there were no other Instance to be given of it besides Mr. Harrison himself may be given in evidence For notwithstanding the express Evidence from Scripture that multitudes of Believers were baptised by dipping in the Apostles days as I shall prove in due place yet by reason of those Catarrachs of Ignorance that have blinded the Eyes of his Mind he is uncapable of discerning it for in Pag. 48. he saith It was never yet proved that persons were then dipped And on the contrary a thing that is never mentioned at all in Scripture viz. Infant-baptism That he saith is as clear to him as the Doctrines of the Trinity the Divine Nature of Christ Justification by imputed Righteousness c. Now this gives occasion to fear that he is yet but a natural man because such a one perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned And therefore He that is not as yet of the number of the Illuminati would do well to put himself into the number of the Catechumeni that he might be instructed in the way of God more perfectly CHAP. IV. Being an Answer to what Mr. M. H. saith upon Acts 2.39 For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. I Shall endeavour to give you the true Scope of the place and then return an Answer to Mr. H's Allegations The Apostle Peter having convinced the Jews That the same Jesus whom they had crucified was both Lord and Christ they being pricked in their Hearts cryed out Men and Brethren what shall we do Peter's Answer is Repent and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ This is the duty for the remission of Sins that was the end proposed and the thing they wanted The promise follows in these words And ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost For the promise i. e. of the Gift of the Holy Ghost is to you and to your Children c. By Children here is meant their posterity who if they did also perform those conditions of Repentance Faith and Baptism they also should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Moreover there being Gentiles also his present Auditors he adds The promise is to all that are afar off meaning the Gentiles And to let them know he intended no other mathod for their children than what he proposed unto them he restrains it to Believers only Even as many as the Lord our God shall call If any should fancy that Baptism is intended in the promise and so apply it to little children that cannot be because Baptism is not a Promise but a Command and so there can be no Pretence for Infant baptism from this Promise And Mr. H. being aware of that he hath found out a New Invention for he tells us 't is the promise of God to Abraham Gen. 17.7 which therefore contains a plain precept for the baptizing of Infants I was in hopes I might have finished what was needful to be said upon Gen. 17. before but I see Mr. H. builds his whole Superstructure upon it and therefore I must say something further to it Notwithstanding Mr. H. Collins hath sufficiently confuted what he saith but it seems he hath not yet attained to that discretion to know when he is fully answered 1. Therefore I shall shew that Canaan-Land with those External Blessings that accompanied them in the possession thereof is the great promise in that place by him cited Gen. 17. 2. I do affirm and I think the proof I have given for it already may be sufficient satisfaction to any reasonable man that the Covenant in Gen. 17. is that of Circumcision and not the Covenant of Grace and then his Interpretation of this promise Acts 2.39 is wholly groundless As touching the first whoever will please to read Gen. 17. will find beside the Promise of a numerous Off-spring that of Canaan particularly exprest ver 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 for an everlasting possession and I will be their God I will give you the Words of a late Learned Protestant upon the place he tells us That this Covenant is said to be an everlasting Covenant in the same sence as Canaan is said to to be an everlasting possession there is therefore no more reason to conclude from this term that the Covenant of Circumcision was directly and properly a covenant of spiritual and eternal blessings than there is to affirm that the Land of Canaan and the good things thereof were a spiritual and eternal Inheritance And God's promising to be their God denotes only his engaging himself to make good the promises contained in that Covenant As for his pretended Reasons they vanish of themselves because they are built upon a false Notion that the covenant of circumcision is the Covenant of Grace which I have already disproved And he may as well affirm that all Believers and their Children have a promise in Acts 2.39 to possess the Land of Canaan whether they be Jews or Gentiles as to tell us That promise the Apostle here speaks of must be that promise to which he saith Circumcision was the Seal under the former dispensation I am troubled to think that Mr. Harrison should trifle thus about sacred things and endeavour to deceive his Reader by perswading him that the covenant of circumcision is yet
in being under the Gospel a thing so contrary to the tenor of the Gospel and the express Words of Holy Scripture The whole Fabrick of the Jewish Church-state being pulled down and a New Church-state erected in the room thereof it is not the House of God erected by the Mosaical Law but the House of Christ erected by the Son himself Heb. 3.6 opposed to and in contradistinction from that former one under the Law which all that were circumcised were obliged to observe For the Apostle saith If any man he circumcised he is a debtor to the whole Law But in his next Paragraph he entangles himself with a difficulty I suppose he will not be able to free himself from For he saith in page 21. This promise the Apostle speaks of was that promise or covenant of which Baptism was the Seal And in the words following he tells us that Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of the same covenant Now whereas I have already proved that the covenant of Circumcision was not the covenant of Grace I think I need not prove that Baptism is a duty belonging to the New Covenant because all acknowledge it so to be And as certain I am that the Apostle Paul opposes the Law of Works to the Law of Faith It is of Faith that it might be of Grace and circumcision obliging to keep the whole Law which covenant being now abolished he saith If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And he gives this reason for it Whosoever of you are justified by the law ye are fallen from Grace And that this respects the covenant of circumcision with its adjuncts is plain from Gal. 5.1 where the Apostle exhorts them To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage which he explains in the following verses to be meant of the covenant of circumcision So that Mr. H. may see what a Labyrinth he is in out of which I suppose it will not be easie for him to extricate himself The late Learned Dr. Neh. Coxe in his Excellent Discourse of the Covenants hath given us the true ground of these perplexities that the Learned have fallen into which I shall transcribe for the sake of those who have not his Book to inform them nor are likely to obtain because it 's out of print Sect. 6. pag. 12. Now as it is evident from what hath been already said that all soederal transactions of God with men flow only from his good pleasure and the counsel of his Will so upon that ground it is certainly to be concluded that our knowledge and understanding of them must wholly depend upon Divine Revelation None can pretend acquaintance with the secret of God but as he hath pleased to reveal it in his Word this light must guide all our inquiries after it and our Sentiments of things of this nature must be strictly governed by this Rule seeing the nature of them is such as transcends the common principles of reason or natural Light inasmuch as they owe their original to the free acts of the Divine Will and Wisdom which are unaccountable 'till revealed by God himself and therefore it becomes us to captivate all our thoughts of them to the obedience of Faith as knowing that Learning and strength of Parts tho' of excellent use in their place not guided by Scripture light in these Inquiries can only form an Ingenious Error and lose a man in the Labyrinth of his own Imagination and uncertain Guesses seeing the single advantage of those assistances in this case trusted to and stretched beyond their line can reach no farther than to enable him cum ratione errare and so to wander from truth in a path seeming more smooth tho' no less dangerous than others light upon And therefore in these things lyes the spring of most mistakes and corruption of Doctrine and Practise in matters of Religion men do easily find out and agree in the true Dictates of the Law of Nature but in things pertaining to the covenants of God how various are their Sentiments Yea many great Learned and good men have been divided in their Judgments about some things of great importance to the Faith and Edification of the Church And some one Error admitted about the nature of God's soederal transactions with men doth strangely perplex the whole System or Body of Divinity and entangle our Interpretation of innumerable Texts of Scripture and by this means Jars and Contentions have been perpetuated in the Church to the great grief and hindrance of all the offence of the weak and greater scandal of the blind World and all this hath been much occasioned thro' the want of a due and humble attention to that Revelation of Truth which God hath given us in the Holy Scriptures and endeavouring to collect the mind of God from thence without prepossession of Judgment which is a greater occasion of these mistakes than men are generally aware of and careful avoiding the undue mixture or confusion of things natural with those that are purely of a soederal nature Now I would earnestly beg of Mr. H. both for his own good and the good of the people he stands related to that he would be pleased to consider seriously what this Learned Man hath said and by laying aside all pre-conceived Prejudices and pre-possession of Judgment would apply himself to an humble inquiry after the mind of God as revealed in his Word and not trust to his Learning nor lean to his own understanding in the matters of Divine Truths but labour to satisfie his conscience from the Revelation of God in his Holy Word that thus it is written and therefore I believe And to apply it to the present case if Mr. H. can shew us where is written that Infants ought to be baptized by any appointment of God or where it s written that any one Infant was baptized or where it s charged as a sin upon any one to neglect carrying them to be baptized or where any Minister is blamed for not teaching them to bring their Children to Baptism or for not baptizing them when they were brought or indeed if there be any thing said about it directly or indirectly to enjoyn the practise thereof or any the least mention made of it in all the Book of God we will grant him the cause But I perceive himself is satisfied there is no such thing and therefore he is pleased to ridicule us for demanding of him to shew us where it is commanded in the Scripture But let him know that all instituted Worship hath no foundation but the Divine Will requiring it and therefore his pretence to evade the Objection is vain But however seeing he thinks he is so excellent at consequences and that he can do mighty things that way let Mr. H. if he can prove by consequence or any other way that Infant-baptism is God's Ordinance But I perceive he cannot do