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
some things in one peculiar to his Spiritual Seed that no ways related to his Carnal Seed as such which proved the Covenant contained in promise to be distinct page 15 16. and some things in the other that belonged to his Natural Seed that appertains not to his Spiritual Seed as such of which this Man takes no notice I begin there with those things that belonged to Abrahams Natural Seed as such as peculiar to them 1. The first that I Name is That of Gods multiplying his Seed by Isaac 2. The Birth of Isaac by Sarah Abraham s Wife Gen. 17. 16 19. 3. The continuation of his Covenant with all that should proceed from Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 17. 6. 4. The coming of Christ out of Isaac according to the Flesh. 5. The bringing the Natural Seed of Abraham by Isaac out of Egypt 6. The promise of giving his Natural Seed the Land of Canaan for their Possession Now can any of these things concern or belong to Abrahamâ— Spiritual Seed as such that is do they concern us Gentiles who do believe Observe also that as these things peculiarly appertained to his Natural Seed as such so Circumcision is expresly called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. Thou shalt keep my Covenant every Man Child among you shall be Circumcised verse 10. And ye shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore Skins and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you verse 8. And I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan c. so Gen. 15. 8. Now this Covenant and these promises I affirmed cannot belong to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as such page 16. therefore a Covenant of peculiarity to which he hath given no answer Secondly I have shewed also what those things are that are Peculiar to the Covenant of Grace and so to Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such which Covenant only was by promise not a formal Covenant like the other viz. that of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7. 1. See Gen. 15. 5. Look towards Heaven tell the Stars if thou art able to Number them and he said unto him so shall thy Seed be and he believed in the Lord and it was counted to him for Righteousness This was not in the Covenant of Circumcision and referrs to Abrahamâ— numerous Spiritual Seed 2. So again I have made thee a Father of many Nations meaning Gentile Believers as divers Expositors shew 3. In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed Gen. 12. 3. Gen. 18. 18. Gen. 22. 18. I cited the Apostles words Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached the Gospel to Abraham saying in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed 'T is remarkable the Holy Ghost does not here refer to the Covenant of Circumcision Gen 17. 7 8 9 10. But to the free promise of the Covenant of Grace which Paul says positively Abraham received not in Circumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Now I desire it may be well considered by all Christians that the Covenant of Grace was only by promise and no Formal Covenant with any of the Saints under the Old Testament thus the Covenant of Grace run to Adam to Abraham to David c. 11 12. only by promise not a Covenant where there was a mutual restipulation between God and his Elect ones As in the Covenant of Circumcision there was between God and Abraham in respect of his Carnal Seed this Dr. Owen asserts also on Heb. 8. 6. page 227. When God renewed saith he the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his Loyns but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise 1. It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged to it 2. This was wanting saith he the Spring Rule and Measure of all the Worship of the Church this does belong to every Covenant properly so called that God makes with his Church that it be the entire Rule of all the Worship that God requires of it which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament thus Dr. Owen This is further confirmed by those expressions Jer. 31. 31. I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel c. clearly intimating he had not so made it before with any except it was with Christ as our Head Representive and Mediator with whom it was made for us and in him with us before the Foundation of the World Tit. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 9. Object Does not David say God had made with him an everlasting Covenant c. Answer I answer David was a Type of Christ Psalm 89 28 34 35. with whom the Covenant of Grace was made before the World began this therefore refers to the true David who was only able to answer the Condition agreed upon between the Father and himself as Mediator For the Covenant of Peace was between them both Zech. 6. 13. For unto us the Covenant of Grace is not a Conditional but an Absolute Covenant I will be their God and they shall be my People c. To Adam the promise runs The Seed of the Woman shall Bruise the Sepents Head c. To Abraham In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed In both places it contained only a gracious promise To Abraham and to his Seed the promise was made it is not said Covenant therefore when I say God made a Twofold Covenant with Abraham I mean that there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant Transactings of God with him one a Formal Covenant with him and his Carnal Seed which contained a Covenant upon mutual restipulation which was the Covenant of Circumcision which Abraham and his Carnal Seed subscribed to the other a free promise or Covenant of Grace to him and all is true Spiritual Seed which is confirmed by Christs Blood and which believers consent to and enter into when Baptized upon the profession of their Faith in Gospel days tho' I deny not but that they have actual interest in it as soon as they have Union with Christ or do believe in him Moreover it was through Faith only in the free promise of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace that all the faithful were justified and saved who lived under the old Testament tho' the Covenant it self was not then formerly a Covenant with them it being not Ratified nor confirmed by the Blood of Christ or Death of the Testator nor could it so be till the
typical Covenant was taken away This being so it follows clearly that the Covenant Gen. 17. was only a peculiar external and Typical Covenant made with Abraham and his carnal Seed in which Justification pardon of sin Adoption and Eternal Life was not contained but in the free Promise only God made to him that Covenant had in it it is true temporal Blessings apolitical Church state and typical worship and visible legal Church Membership given to Israel in subserviency to the Gospel Covenant And further to prove that the promise of the Covenant of Grace did not belong to Abraham's natural Seed as such Paul shews in Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and to his Seed was the promise made he saith not to seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ. And therefore saith he vers 29. and if ye be Christs then are you Abrahams Seed and heirs according to the promise Ye must say I reckon from Christ not from Abraham but Mr. Shute misrepresents me here also as if I set Abraham before Christ when 't is evident I intimated no other thing than this i. e. you must see your selves first in Christ before you can reckon your selves to be Abrahams Seed Again I cited Page 17. part 1. that in Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called 7. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God But the Children of the promise are counted for the Seed What can be more clear than this viz. that the natural Seed of Abraham as such called here the Children of the Flesh are not his Spiritual Seed to whom the Covenant of Grace doth belong unto that is saith the Apostle They which are the Children of the Flesh these are not he Children of God that is as such or as simply so considered For some of the natural Seed of Abraham tho' not all were the Children of the promise for saith he they are not all Israel that are of Israel vers 6. This Man meddles not with my arguments and what he catches up he generally wrongs and abuses me in rendring me to speak that which I speak not nor intended But to proceed he says Page 132. Both the Seeds of Abraham had a right to all the external benefits and priviledges of the everlasting Covenant God made with Abraham very few excepted Answer What few he means that are excepted I know not but if all the Spiritual Seed of Abraham had right to all the external benefits and priviledges of the external Covenant God made with him then all believing Gentiles and their Elect Infants have or had a right to circumcision the giving of the Law the possession of the Land of Canaan and all other rites of the Mosaical Law 2. If by the everlasting Covenant he means the Covenant of Grace then all Abrahams natural Seed as such a few excepted have or had a right to Baptism the Lords Supper and all Gospel Churche-priviledges and if so why were the Sadduâ—ees and Pharisees and Multitudes more of Abrahams natural Seed refused and not admitted to the external benefits and priviledges of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace Think not to say saith John Baptist within your selves ye have Abraham to your Father when they came to be Baptized he proceeds to prove several things that none denys Aâ— that the Covenant of Works was made with Adam and all mankind in him and that there is but two Covenants that all the elect under the Law were in the Covenant of Grace c. Then in Page 134 Shews what a Straight he is in and knows not which to wonder at most 1. At our boldness and confidence and imposing our sallacious corrupt Doctrins upon the People 2. Or at the Peoples ignorance to suffer themselves to be so horribly deluded and imposed upon Answer I do not much wonder at such lines because I know who wrote them and in what Spirit but Sir you should first have proved any Doctrin we maintain to be corrupt and fallacious 2. That we impose those Doctrins upon the People Dare you falsly charge and condemn the innocent we are not yet convicted nor tryed at a lawful Bar But both you and we must appear at a righteous and just tribunal ere long You proceed to renew your charge against me for leaving out everlasting Covenant Friend I quoted those Verses that concerned the point I had in hand and have cited that Verse and answered it too where circumcision is called an everlasting Covenant see Ax laid to the Root and I will now recite what I there wrote 2. Part Page 1â— viz. the Covenant of circumcision was called an everlasting Covenant My Answer there to this is as followeth Answer 'T is not unknown to our Opponents that the word everlasting sometimes signifies no more than a long continuance of time and so extensive was the promise of Gods peculiar favours to the natural Seed of Abraham and the original of their claim therefrom that the severity of that â—aw afterwards given to them was so far restrained as that notwithstanding their manifold breach of Covenant with God and forfeture of all legal claims of their right and priviledges in the Land of Canaan thereby that they were never cut off from that good Land and ceased to be peculiar People unto God until the End or period of that time determined by the Almighty was fully come Which was at the Revelation of the Mâ—ssiah and the setting up his Spiritual Temple under the Dispensation of the Gospel and thus far the word everlasting doth extend 'T is said God promised to give the Land of Canaan to Abrahhm and to his Seed for ever and again Gen. 17. 8. for an everlasting inheritance whereas 't is evident they have for many ages been disposessed of it Nor may this seem strange if we consult other Texts where the same Terms are used with the like Restriction for the Priesthood of Levi is called an everlasting Priesthood Numb 25. 13. And so the Statutes to make an Atonement for the Holy Sanctuary and for the Tabernacle and for the Altar is called an everlasting Statute Levit. 16. 34. Yet we know they all ended as did the Covenant of circumcision in Christ See more in Page 14. Ax laid to the Root 1. Now let any person see what blame this Man doth in Justice deserve for saying I have not mentioned the word everlasting in all my Book viz. circumcision being called an everlasting Covenant you also see what little argument lies in that to prove the Covenant of circumcision is a Gospel Covenant or appertaining to the Covenant of Grace Reader in those Sermons I laid down eleven arguments proving that the Covenant of Circumcision was part of the old legal and external Covenant God made with the Jews or the natural Seed of Abraham so not belonging to the Gospel Covenant and because thou
to make every believing Parent a like Root to his posterity with Abraham to his Seed as some have done and this Man seems to do is a great abuse of the Sacred Text. For this would be to set up another wall of separation or partition betwixt believers and their seed and unbelievers and their Seed as the Old one waâ— which is now broken down between Jews and Gentiles according to Eph. 2. 14 15. as also a knowing of Men after the Flesh i. e. after fleshly Descent external Priviledges c. 2. The first Fruit spoken of we understand to refer to Isaac Jacob and the Holy Partriachs who were given to Abraham as the first Fruit of the Covenant of Grace God made with him who were all Holy as Abraham their Root was Holy that is Spiritually and Inherently Holy 3. By the Lump may be meant the whole Body of the Elect or Spiritual Seed of Abraham who lived from the time the first Fruit was given him until the Gospel Days who were all Holy as the Root also By Lump cannot be intended the whole Nation of the Jews as Mr. Shute positively affirms in Page 82. for it so what consistency can there be in the Apostles words and Argument The Apostle speaks of the Elect Israel not of the fleshly and Carnal Israel take this Mans words the first Fruit the Jews c. the Lump or whole Nation of them and here is the same Root on which the Gentiles are grassed Page 82. He confounds the first Fruit and Lump together and says by it is meant the whole Nation of the Jews What Text can be wronged worse We grant 't is the same Root that all Gentile believers partake of the fatness of which the godly Jews pertook of under the Law viz. the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made with the Root Abraham but what is this to our Carnal Seed as such 4. By the Branches who are said to be Holy also certainly is to be understood those Elect ones of Israel who were living in the Apostles Days as vers 5. even so then at this time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace Now observe the Apostle speaks in vers 17. of some Branches that were broken off and of the Gentiles who were like a Wild Olive Tree being grassed in these Branches that were broken off were the unbelieving Jews who at that time comprehended the whole national Church of Israel for all that believed that were Jews were transplanted into the Gospel Church these Branches that were broken off sprang from the same Root as Abraham was their Father according to the Flesh and Legal Covenant and for a time seemed true Branches they were of Israel though not Israel Rom. 9. 6. they were the Children of the Flesh but not the Children of the promise they were in the external Covenant but being not in the Covenant of Grace by Faith and the Old Covenant being now gone and taken away they were cut off and no more lookt upon as Branches in any sense They were Branches in the Old Testament Church but there is a new will made a new and last Testament confirmed and ratifie by the Death of the Testatour Jesus Christ and the fleshly Seed as such have no such legacy left them as in the Old Testament viz. to be Members of the New Testament Church that running to none but to such who believe c. but they not believing or for their unbelief were cut or broken off 1. Not broken off the Covenant of Grace as Mr. Shute intimates because they never were in that Covenant 2. Not broken off Gods Election for to that they did not belong But 3ly They were broken off and their Children as such or as so considered so that they are no more a visible Church of God nor a People in any Covenant relation to him Yet we are not to conceive although those unbelieving Jews were in this Sense broken off from their old standing and Church state that their Children who believed were rejected and lost no no they that did believe in Christ and submit to the new dispensation were by Faith grafted into Christ and upon the profession of their Faith were united also to the Gospel Church and became members thereof And so with the believing Gentiles did partake of the fatness of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and of the Blessings and Priviledges of the Gospel Church and doubtless this is the very truth of the matter according to the main Scope and design of the Holy Ghost in this Chapter Now then Mr. Shute greatly wrongs this place of Sacred Scripture 1. Whilst he argues that the Jews were broken off from the Covenant of Grace 2. He wrongs the Text whilst he says it was no dissolution of the Jewish Church but an excommunication of those unbelieving Persons out of it by which he intimates as if the Jewish Church state still remains and that the believing Gentiles are grafted into that old Legal Church that is removed and gone for ever 3. He wrongs this Text whilst he would have all unbelievers Children of the Jews broken off the Covenant of Grace for to that he seems to refer For those of them that were in it were not broken off from that Covenant nor could be and those of the Jewish Children that believed were in the like good Estate with believing Gentiles and their believing Children and many of the Children of the unbelieving Jews did no doubt own Jesus Christ believe in him and were implanted into the Gospel Church 4. Whilst he pleads for believing Getiles and their Infants as such to be taken into the Covenant of Grace and so made Members of the Church of Christ now as the Children of the Jews were Members of the Church under the Law for this he affirms Page 81 82. 5. Whilst he applies the Holiness and Infection here meant to outward Dispensation only in the visible Church which is meant of saving Grace in the invisible 6. Whilst he makes every believing Parent a like root to his posterity with Abraham to his Seed he may as well say every believer is a common Father to all that believe as Abraham was For both these Conclusions I infer from his notion 1. Reader Pray observe that the Jews that believed not were broken off from being any more the People of God in any Covenant relation to him and this was for their unbelief and their Church State being gone by the Dispensation of the Gospel and by the bringing in the Gospel Church 2. That whosoever either Jews or Gentiles who are grafted into Christ the true Olive and into the Gospel Church must believe or be grafted in by Faith i. e. by their own Faith and own consent not by the Faith of their Parent be made Members of the Church under the Gospel no but must believe themselves as well as their Parents 't is not enough now to say we have Abraham to our
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
Covenant and all were Members of the Jewish Church read Gen. 17. 9 10 12 Dent. 29. 9 10 11. 12 13. But that legal Covenant we affirm is abrogated and taken away If it were not so what is it which our Apostle speaks in Heb. 10. 9. He took away the first that he might establish the Second Compared with Heb. 8. 7 8 13. Sure none can once Immagin that this Covenant was the Covenant of Grace Also what doth the Apostle mean when he says cast out the Bond Woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Doth he not tell us by the Bondwoman is meant the Old Covenant given to the whole House of Israel or the lineal Seed of Abraham not the Covenant given to all Mankind in the first Adam and doth he not tell us by the Son of the Bond-woman is meant the fleshly Seed of Abraham as such Who were all taken into Covenant with God under the Old Testament And yet is there no Covenant that peculiarly was made with Abrahams natural Seed as such In Page 7. Mr. Shute repeats Gen. 17. 7. 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 to thee and to thy Seed after thee Here he leaves out the following verse wherein the Covenant is Mentioned which he charges as an high crime in others viz. this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be circumcised Verse 10. and ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you verse 11. He that is born in thy House and he that is bought with thy Mony must needs be circumcised And my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant verse 13. these Verses he Cites not Now Mr. Shute Judges this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and that for two reasons as I suppose 1. Because 't is called an everlasting Covenant 2. Because God promised in this Covenant to be the God of Abraham and the God of his Seed after him in their Generations which no doubt refers to his natural Seed as such Taking in both those of his off-spring that did believe in Christ to come and such also that did not so believe that proceeded from Abrahams Loins by Isaac 1. As to the Term everlasting I have shewed in the precedent Answer that some times in the Scripture it is taken with restriction and denotes only a long period of Time viz. during that Dispensation or until the Mâ—ssiâ—s should comeâ— the Priesthood of Aaron is upon the same account called an everlasting Priesthood Indeed this Covenant could continue no longer than the Token of it abode or was to abide in their Flesh Read the words again verse 13. and my Covenant shall be in your Flesh for an everlasting Covenant 2. Circumcision being as our Adversaries say the Seal of the Covenant now say I since the Seal namely Circumcision is broken off and gone as it was it at the death of Christ I ask what is become of that Covenant it was a Sign or Seal of is not the Covenant gone and dissolved when 't is cancelled 〈◊〉 read your Annotators on Gen. 17. 13. And â—â—r the sign of it say they it is so called because it was to indure through all Generations till the coming of the Messias the word Olim here and elsewhere rendred everlasting or for ever being 〈◊〉 used to express not only simple Eternity but any long continuance for maâ—â—ages 〈◊〉 some time for a Mans Life Exod. 21. â— Deut. 15. 17. â— King 9. 3. thus Mr. Pools Annotations This being so to what purpose do you make such a stir about the word Everlasting â—ly As to this second reason viz. God in that Covenant gave himself to Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed in their Generations 1. Answer I would know whether God is now in Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such or are they not rejected how then could this be the unchangeable Covenant of Grace Read my 14. Arguments in the precedent Answer to prove the Covenant of circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace 2. Was God the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed as such by way of special interest if so they shall no doubt be all Eternally saved as well as all the Children or Carnal Seed of Believers Which you will not admit of Therefore consider that God may be said to be the God of a People two manner of ways 1. By the free promise or Covenant of Grace in a Spiritual Sense Or by Divine Union with him through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit 't is this gives special interest in God to all Adult Persons and thus he was not the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed no but of a few of them only comparatively for tho' the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sands of the Sea yet but a Remnant shall be saved 2. God may be said to be the God of a People by entring into an external outward or legal Covenant with them and thus he was the God of Abraham and of all his Carnal Seed or Off-spring or whole House of Israel Under the Old Covenant or Dispensation of the Law God made them as a Nation a peculiar People unto himself and was said to be married to them See Dr. Bates one of your own Ministers in his Sermon preached at Mr. Baxters Funeral 1. He shews that God is the God of all Mankind by Creation 2. God is the God of a People upon the account of external calling and profession and thus saith he the posterity of Seth are so called and the intire nation of the Jews c. Friend This I desire you to weigh well for God was not by way of special interest in a Spiritual Sense the God of Abrahams Carnal Seed as such Therefore it was this external Covenent no doubt that Mr. Cotton intends when he says the Ministry of John the Baptist did burn as an Oven and left the Jews neither the Root of Abrahams Covenant nor the Branches of their own good works Coâ—ton on the Covenant Page 21 22 Friend you speak as if your Ministers had 〈◊〉 those notions of yours into you about the Covenant God made with Abraham I am satisfied you abuse your Ministers I am sure Dr. Owen taught you no such Doctrin as I have already shewed and I shall here again faithfully cite two or three passages more of that Reverend Minister of Christ See his Exposition on the 8th Chapter to the Hebrews Page 219 c. 1. He shews that the Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel was not that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God made with all Men in the first Alam 2. That it was not the Covenant of Grace 1. Saith he Page 224. the Old Covenant the
Original Covenant of works made with Alam and all Mankind in him is not intended for this is undoubtedly a Covenant different in the Essence and Substance of it from the New In Page 219. He saith but it is evident that the Covenant intended was a Covenant wherein the Church of Israel walked with God until such time as this better Covenant was solemnly introduced this is plainly declared in the ensuing context he says it was becâ—me old and ready to disappear Wherefore it is not the Covenant of works made with Adam that is intended when this other is said to be a better Covenant Thus the Doctor Friend doth not he hereby clearly lay down a Covenant of peculiarity made with Abrahams natural Seed as such or a Covenant that only and peculiarly belonged to them and 't is as plain this began in that Covenant God made with Abraham In Page 288. he saith we must grant two distinct Covenants to be intended rather than a twofold Administration of the same Covenant meerly to be intended He also shews that the old Covenant which God made with the natural Seed of Abraham could not be the Covenant of Grace because there was no reconciliation with God nor Salvation to be obtained by vertue of that Covenant Observe the Doctor speaks not of Adams Covenant but of that Covenant God gave to the whole House of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham He further shews that the Covenant of Grace untill Christ came was only contained in promise by which Covenant all that lived under the Old Testament who had Faith in it were saved to Abraham and his Seed was the promise made Gal. 3. 16. That was the Covenant of Grace therefore say we the Covenant of circumcision and Sinai Covenant where there was mutual stipulation betwixt God and the whole House of Israel could not be the Covenant of Grace besides 't is said that that Covenant they broke and by so doing lost all the external blessings of it as the Prophet Zach. Chap. 11. 10 14. shws because of the Jews unbelief and putting the Messiah to Death God broke his Covenant with that People Zech. 11. 10. And I took my Staff even beauty and cut it asunder That I might break my Covenant which I made with all the People What is become now of your everlasting Covenant God made with all the People of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham Is it not gone are his Carnal Seed as such still in Covenant with God or are they not with their external legal Covenant cast out Sir the everlasting Covenant of Grace that stands firm 't is true that is confirmed by the Oath of God and Blood of Christ but the Covenant in which was contained circumcision and all the Legal Rites and Jewish Church and Church-membership is gone and taken away The New Covenant is not according to that Old Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel or Carnal Seed of Abraham if it be not according to it then it was not the same in Essence nature or quality See Jer. 31. 32. 1. This saith the Doctor is the nature and substance of that Covenant which God made with that People viz. a peculiar temporary Covenant c. Page 235. Mark it Reader He adds and concurs with the Lutherans who deny that by the two Covenants is meant only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant but that two Covenants substantially distinct are intended `1 Because in the Scripture they are often so called and compared with one another and some times opposed to one another the first and the last the new and the old 2. Because the Covenant of Grace in Christ is eternal immutable always the same obnoxious unto no alteration no change or abrogation neither can these things be spoken of it with respect unto any Administration of it as they are spoken of the Old Page 226 227. 1. He shews again that by the Old Covenant is not intended the Covenant of Works made with Adam Page 227. When 2. We speak of the New Covenant saith he we do not intend the Covenant of Grace absolutely as though that were not in being and efficacy before the Introduction of that which is promised in this place For it was always the same as to the substance of it From the beginning it passed through the whole Dispensation of times before the Law and under the Law of the same nature and Efficacy unalterable everlasting ordered in all things and sure Again he saith when God renewed the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things Mark it especially the proceedings of the promised Seed from his Loins but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise And as such only is proposed in the Scripture Page 227. it appears that the Doctor understands the Covenant God made with Abraham as we do viz. the promise to Abrahams Seed viz. Christ and all Eternal blessings with him to intend the Covenant of Grace but whereas it is said God made a Covenant with Abraham c. that has respect to other things that which concerned his natural Seed and out of whose Loins Christ was to come That 's the Covenant of peculiarity he proceeds and gives three reasons why the Covenant of Grace could not absolutely in it self but in the promise of it only be called a formal Covenant Page 227. 1. Because it wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged unto it before this was done in the Death of Christ it had not the formal nature of a Covenant c. 2. This was wanting saith he it was not the Spring rule and measure of all the worship of the Church i e. this doth belong unto every Covenant properly so called that God makes with the Church that is the intire rule of all the worship that God requires of it which is that they are to restipluate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament for God did require of the Church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto but now under the New Testament this Covenant with its own Seals and appointments is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship wherefore the new Covenant promised in the Scripture and here opposed unto the old is not the promise of Grace Mercy and Life and Salvation by Christ absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a Covenant given unto it in its establishment by the Death of Christ c. Page 227. 1. Now pray observe does not the Doctor clearly hint thereby that no Rite Sign or Seal properly of the Old Testament can be a Rite Sign or Seal properly of the New Covenant how then could circumcision be the Seal of the said Covenant of Grace 2. It is evident in the Covenant of circumcision there
was a restipulation at their entrance into that Covenant with God so that that was a formal Covenant but the Covenant of Grace he tells us was no formal Covenant but only a free promise under the old Testament Therefore there was two Covenants held forth in Gods Transactions with Abraham First a formal Covenant made with him and all his Fleshly Seed of which circumcision was a Sign at their entrance into it which they thereby subscribed unto Secondly The Covenant of Grace held forth only in Gods free promise to him 3. Whilst the Church enjoyed all the Spiritual benefits of the promise faith he wherein the substance of the Covenant of Grace was contained before it was confirmed and made the sole Rule of Worship unto the Church it was not inconsistent with the Holiness and Wisdom of God to bring any other Covenant Mark it or prescribe unto it forms of Worship he pleased Page 228. Then he proceeds further 1. That this Covenant did not saith he disannul or make in effectual the promise but that it doth still continue the only means of Life and Salvation and that this was so our Apostle proves at large Gal. 3. 17 18 189. 2. That this other Covenant with all the worship contained in it or required by it did but direct and lead unto the future establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a Covenant c. By these words and in other places he shews that that Covenant God made with Abrahams natural Seed or whole House of Israel tho' it was not the Covenant of Grace Yet it was given in subserviency unto the Gospel Covenant 3. These things being observed saith he we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expresly make mention of two Testaments or Covenants and distinguishes between them in such a way as what is spoken cannot hereby be accommodated unto a twofold Administration of the same Covenant The one is mentioned Exod. 20. Deut 5. namely the Covenant God made with the People of Israel c. The other promised Jer. 31. 31. Cap. 32. 40. Which is the new Gospel Covenant as before explained And these two Covenants or Testaments are compared with the other 2 Cor. 3. 6 7 8 9 Gal. 4. 24 25. Heb. 7 22. Chap. 9. 15 16 17 18. Page 228. These things being so it follows that the Doctor utterly overthrows what Mr. John Flavel and other Pedo Baptists assert about the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Sinai to which circumcision appertained viz. that it was only Administration of the Covenant of Grace and not a distinct Covenant 1. The Doctor then proceeds in Page 229. to prove that the Covenant made with Israel according to the Flesh did not abrogate the Covenant of Works God made with Adam and substitute that in the room of it 2. But that it revived declared and expressed all the Commands of that Covenant in the Decalogue that being nothing but a Divine Summary of the Law written in the Heart Says he 3. It revived the Sanction of the first Covenant in the curse or sentence of Death which it denounced against all transgressors Death was the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of works ` So say I was Death the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of circumcision the Male-Child the Flesh of whose Fore-skin is not cut off shall dye the Death which clearly shews it was of the same nature of the Sinai Covenant 4. It revived the promise saith he of that Covenant of Eternal Life upon perfect obedience Rom. 10. 5. So say I did the Covenant of circumcision in that he that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal 5. 3. Now saith the Doctor this is no other but the Covenant of Works revieved nor had this Covenant of Sinai any such promise of Eternal Life annexed to it as such but only the promise inseparable from the Covenant of works which is revieved saying do this and liâ—ve Hence saith he when our Apostle disputeth against justification by the Law or by the Works of the Law he doth not intend the Works peculiar unto the Covenant of Sinai such as were the Rites and Ceremonies of the Worship then instituted but he intends also the Works of the first Covenant c. Let this be well considered for 't is from hence Paul excludes circumcision Rom. 4. As being a work or duty opposed to Faith and so appertaining to the Old Covenant He then proceeds in sixteen particulars to prove that the two Covenants differ from each other Page 236 237 c. 1. That they differ in circumstance 2. That they differ in the circumstance of place Gal 4. 24 25. 3. That they differ in the manner of their promulgation 4. In their Mediators 5. That they differ in their subject matter both as unto the Precepts and Promises all sin forbid upon pain of Death and gave Promise of Life upon perfect Obedience no promise of Grace to Communicate Spiritual strength to assist in Obedience Had Promises of temporal things in the Land of Canaan in the New Covenant saith he all things otherwise 6. That they differ in the manner of their Dedication and Sanction that they differ in their substance and end the old Covenant was Typical Shadowy removable Heb. 10. 1. That they differ in their extent of their Administration the first was confined unto the posterity of Abraham according to the Flesh c. excluding all others from the participation of the benefits of it But the Administration of the New Covenant is extended unto all Nations under Heaven That they differ in their Efficacy the Old made nothing perfect the first Covenant saith he became a special Covenant unto that People that People were the posterity of Abraham Page 232. Sir What think you now of two Covenants and of a Covenant of peculiarity with Abraham's Carnal Seed You must consult your Ministers better before you write again I doubt not but your Pastor is of Dr. Owens Judgment in this matter In Page 5. you say In my last Book I have clearly made out that whatsoever the Covenant God made with Abraham was to himself and Seed both Spiritual and Carnal that were in the Covenant is the same now to believers and all their Seed c. 1. Answer Then it follows that Abrahams Carnal Seed who were ungodly Persons were in the Covenant of Grace for circumcision belonged to them and their Male Children as far forth as it did appertain to believers and their Male Children who were of his race 2. It will follow then also that we Gentiles that believe and our natural Off-spring have the same Right to the Land of Canaan and all other Priviledges of the Jewish Church with Abrahams Carnal Seed There is no ways to save your self from the greatest absurdities imaginable without distinguishing between those two Covenants and the two Seeds or between the Covenant of circumcision made with Abraham c. and the promise
of the Covenant of Grace made to him and to all his Spiritual Seed as such 3ly That Christ should come out of Abrahams Loins according to the Flesh and of none else was in that Covenant God made with him and a special part it was of the Covenant of circumcision and was that made to the Gentiles that believe or was it not peculiar to Abrahams Seed only according to the Flesh. 4. Also when the Apostle speaks of the Gospel which God preached to Abraham or promise of the Covenant of Grace he doth not mention the Covenant of restipulation in Gen. 17. 7 8 9. But that in Gen. 12. 3. Chap. 18. 18. and Chap. 22. 8. In thy Seed shall all Nations be Blessâ—d Mark it well You say The Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed was never Repealed nor Dissolved nor their Church State taken up by the Roots at the coming in of the Gospel for if it had say you how couâ—d the Blessing of Abraham come upon the Gentiles as promised Gen. 12. 3. 1. Answer Is not the Jewish Church State dissolved and doth not Dr. Owen tell you their Old Covenant is gone Yet 2. Do we say the promise of the New Covenant God made to Abraham is dissolved God forbid for that is unalterable and by the Vertue of which it is that believing Gentiles partake of the Blessings of Abraham But Friend the Gentiles receive not the Blessings of Abraham through the Law nor through the Covenant of Circumcision but by Faith in the Promise of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham viz. in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Nay Abraham himself 't is evident received not that blessedness in the Covenant of circumcision That Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness The Apostle asserts Rom. 4. 9. How was it then reckoned When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision Verse 10. There was no need of this distinction if circumcision appertained to the Covenant of Grace we see how 't is contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith And he received circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith he had yet being uncircumcised That he might be the Father of all that Believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also From hence I argue that circumcision was a Seal to none but Abraham 1. Because it is said to be a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith Abraham had being yet uncircumcised for so it could not be a Seal to others because they were circumcised before they believed 2. Because also it was to assure him of that peculiar Blessing and priviledge of being the Father of all that believe And none had that prerogative but Abraham only 3. Take this Argument If Abraham received the Spiritual Blessing viz. Righteousness and Justification by Faith in the promise of the Covenant of Grace made to him and received not the Blessing of Righteousness and Justification in the Covenant of circumcision then there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant transactions of God with Abraham But the former and latter is true Ergo there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant transactions God made with Abraham In Page 3. Mr. Shute says the Olive Tree or Covenant God made with Abraham was not dissolved For the Jews are to be grafted into their own Olive Tree again but if the Covenant were dissolved and repealed how can they be taken into it again for 't is called their own Olive Tree Rom. 11. 11 12 17. 1. Answer This Man mistakes the Holy Ghost The Apostle speaks not of the Jews as being Abrahams Carnal Seed as such but of thâ—m that belong to the Election of Grace 2. Now who doubts but that the Covenant of Grace was their Covenant or Olive Tree even all of them that shall be taken into it of the Jewish race in the latter days as much as it was their Covenant who were Jews and Elect ones who lived in the Apostles time 3. It might be called their Olive Tree or Covenant because the Covenant of Grace as it was made with Abraham ran first to his natural Seed who were the Children of the promise i. e. the Elect of God hence Christ said he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel That is not first sent they were first to have the offer of all New Covenant Grace and Blessings to them appertained the Covenant and Adoption c. viz. in the first place 4. Do we plead for the dissolution of the Covenant of Grace God made with or promised to Abraham because we say the Legal and external Covenant made with him and his Carnal Seed as such is removed by vertue of which they had their political Church State and visible Church-membership and all other Fleshly and Legal Priviledges Or do we say those Jews that believed or their Elect Infants were cast out of the Covenant of Grace God forbid No for if the Children of unbelieving Jews did believe it shews they are in covenant also In a word All that believe let them be whose Children they will they are all in the Covenant of Grace For there is now no difference Jews and Gentiles Old and young bond and free are all one in Christ Jesus Now no knowing Men after the Flesh i. e. upon the account of Fleshly or external Priviledges by descent from Abraham according to the Flesh Circumcisioa nor uncircumcision availeth nothing but a new Creature old things are past away and all things are become new 2. Cor. 5. 17. Should this Man object and say as to Dr. Owen he speaks of the Sinai Covenant or the Covenant made with the People of Israel after they came out of Egypt and not of the Covenant of circumcision Answer I answer that it is evident where Paul excludes the Law as not being of Faith nor the Covenant of Grace but opposed unit he also excluded upon the same Foot of account circumcision Rom. 4. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Gal. 3. 21. Gal 5. 3. Rom. 2. 25 26 27. Also Mr. Sbute says the Covenant Deut. 29. 11 12 13. is the same Gâ—â— made with Abraham Take his own words â—age 17. note this saith he by the way he hath dropt the 13. verse wherein is the explanation of the Covenant to be the same God made with Abraham and his Seed Which verse doth indeed clearly shew that the Covenant of circumcision was the same and but a farther establishment of it with that given in Horeb thou shalt enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God c. viz. That he may establish thee to day for a People to himself and that he may be unto thee aGod as he hath said unto thee and hath vowed unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. You ask What was the personal actual sin which those young Babes committed at the coming in of the Gospel that provoked God
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
through Christs Blood and no longer rest in such a Spirit and practice Christ is at the Door take heed of smiting your fellow Servant But should you instead of answering our arguments proceed still after the same manner we shall find out another way to deal with you viz. Bring our Charge against you for Right and Justice to the Congregation you belong unto The Lord send and increase Love and Charity among his People and unite them together in one Spirit which he will suddenly do and wipe off our reproach to whom be glory and praise for ever and ever Amen ERRATA IN Page 5. line 7. for Burkie read Burkit p. 8. l. 20. blot out Blood p. 16. l. 37. f. contained r. contrived p. 19. l. 28. f. Comma r. Period Also in several other Places you will find false Pointing or Stops P. 22. blot out the comma in l. 21 22 23 24 25. they being this Authors words p. 27. l. 10. add Gen. 17. 8 9. there begins the Covenant of Peculiarity p. 32. l. 29. f. purity r. parity p. 38. l. 3. f. usurp'd r. absur'd p. 39. l. 18. f. ratifie r. ratified p. 41. l. 39. f. have r. have had p. 42. l. 3. f. tho' r. the p. 29. l. 31. add as to outward dispensation p. 43. l. 1. f. Natural Church r. National FINIS POSTSCRIPT Containing several Arguments to disprove Pedo-Baptism and to prove Believers only the Subjects thereof For Mr. Gyles Shute to Answer Friend IF you will not desist but write again you are desired to answer these Arguments the stress of the Controversy lying in them Arg. 1. If none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour Matth. 28. but such who are first made Disciples by being taught than Infants who are not capable to be taught ought not to be baptized But none aâ—e to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour but such who are first made Disciples by Teaching Ergo Little Babes ought not to be baptized Arg. 2. If Infant-Baptism was never instituted commanded or appointed of God Infants ought not to be baptized But Infant-Baptism was never instituted commanded or appointed of God Ergo They ought not to be baptized As to the Major If one thing may be practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 't is either contained in the great Commission Matth. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not to be found in the Commission nor any where else Ergo. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore are to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be baptized before discipled then Turks Pagans Unbelievers and their Children may be baptized because they are a great part of the Nations But Turks Pagans and Unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo. Besides that Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before Baptizing we have proved which generally alâ— Learned Men do assert if the Institution is to be found any where else they must shew the Place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized Infants are not required to believe and repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters and 't is also asserted by the Church of England What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question The Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the Promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denied Arg. 5. That Practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor to the Profit of the Child when done nor in after-times when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him caâ—â—câ— be a Truth of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor to the Profit of the Child when baptized nor in after-times when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo. See Levit. 10. 1 2. where Moses told Aaron because his Sons had done that which God commanded them not that God would be sanctified 〈◊〉 all that drew 〈◊〉 unto him intimating that such who did that which God commanded not did not sanctify or glorify God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Matth. 16. 9. In vain do you worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men and that that Practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after-times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christ's Church Sure all understanding Men know Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Child's Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful and dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great Error How can Water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul physically Nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so many Years c. is not easily conceived On Regen p. 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speak truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Object If it be objected That
Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the External ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watry Grave a new creature Moreover unto these let me add what Dr. Tillotson the present Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote see his Book stiled Sermons on several occasions 5th Edit Page 188 189. Speaking also of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were Baptised put off their garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signifie their entrance upon a new Life And to these customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death c. Dr Duveil on Act. 8. Page 292 293. cites a most learned Anonimous French Protestant Writer in his answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux speaking thus viz. 't is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been Administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this sprinkling is an abuse thus custom which without any accurate examination saith he they retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its institution and ancient use and that nearness of similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith repentance and resurrection This reflection of Mr. Bâ—ssuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Romish Church Calvin also saith l. 4. c. 16. that Baptism is a form or way of burial and none but such as are already dead to sin or have repented from dead works are to be buried But now say we sprinkling and pouring is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial nor can Infants be the subjects of it because as the learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future regeneration 't is an outward sign of that Death unto sin which the party Baptised passed under then or ought to have had before Baptis'd they then professed themselves to be Dead to sin i. e. when they were Buried with Christ in their Baptism for the argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are Dead to sin live any longer therein know you not that so many of us who were Baptized into Christ were Baptized into his Death both in sign and signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says they rise out of that watry Grave as new born Creatures it denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and arguments drawn there from utterly condemn sprinkling and pouring as that which is not Christs true Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the true subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that Watry Grave as new born Creatures I will only quote one Author more and proceed and that is learned Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. There are saith he two parts in regeneration i. e. Mortification and Vivification that is called a burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ the Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are Baptised that they are buried wich Christ and raised with him but only of such who have true faith Thus Zanchy Now Sir see what a stir and pudder as you call it these Pedo-Paptists make on this Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. to prove Baptism is Dipping or a figure of a burial Would you not have us give the true sense of the Word wherein we concur with all learned Men I hope by this time Reader thou art fully satisfied that this Man hath said nothing to weaken our Arguments or Grounds for Dipping tho' ' twice as much we have said on this Account in that Treatise called The Rector Rectified but this shall suffice here as to the Mode of Baptizing CHAP. II. Wherein Mr. Shutes Reply to Mr. Hercules Collins Answer about habitual Faith is considered detected and clearly refuted proving that Infants are not required to believe nor are they without a miracle capable so to do nor are they intended in those places of Scripture that Enjoyns Faith on the Adult BEfore I proceed to take notice of what this Man hath said about Infants having habitual Faith I shall note two or three things by the Way 1. 'T is very remarkable and worthy the Readers observation to see how the asserters of Infant Baptism differ among themselves about that Faith they suppose to be in Infants for as I noted in by Answer to Mr. Smythies Cold resined Page 144 some of them as Thomas Aquinas asserts They have the Faith of the Church that being intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof others say they have the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties thus the Church of England c. Musculus seems to assert they have an Imputed Faith Mr. Blake intimates They have a Dogmatical Faith only Mr. Baxter would have it be a saving Faith but does not tell us how it agrees or differs from the Faith of the Adult some as Mr. Danvers observes say 'T is a Physical some a Metaphysical Faith some a hyperphysical Faith Some say They are born Believers which proceeds from their Patents being in the Covenant and being Believers but this is to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation nay and to assert all are not Children of Wrath by nature or as they are born and come into the World others say They are made Believers by Baptism that Ordinance conveying grace as Mr. Rothwell This Man asserts they have habitual Faith the like do the Athenian Society seem to intimate But which of all these shall we give credit to The Truth is they all speak without Book having no ground from Gods word to say what they do 2. We desire it may be considered and carefully heeded lest we still are abused as Mr. Collins hath been that we stedfastly believe and readlly grant it as an Article of our Faith That all Infants are under the Guilt and stain of original Sin as they come into the World and that no Infant can be saved but through the Blood and Imputation of Christs righteousness And also we do believe That all those dying Infants who are â—aved God doth in some way or
another which is not known to us Sanctify them for no unclean thing can enter into the Heavenly Jerusalem See our confession of Faith 3. We do believe that no dying Infant can be saved that is not in the Covenant of Grace for t is through or by the Grace Mercy and Inconceivable Love of God as 't is contained in the Covenant of Grace that Christ and all Blessings of Christ are made over to all the Elect whether Adult or little Infants We therefore never asserted That no Infants of Believers or of unbelievers either are in the Covenant of Grace but we do assert all Elect Infants are in it Yet we do deny that the Infants of Believers as such or as so considered as bring their Natural Offspring are in the Covenant of Grace Having noted these three Things I shall proceed First take what Mr. Collins hath asserted in his Answer to Mr. Shutes pretended Antidote See Page 3. viz. That Infants are saved by Christ we have asserted because we know of no other Name but Jesus but that they are saved by Faith habitual Faith in Christ I must confess I never read in all the Book of God I could wish he could shew me the Chapter where Christ said any such thing i. e. that Infants are saved by habitual Faith And what would this Man make a new Bible have a new rule to tell us of things never heard of These are Mr. Collins's words Take Mr. Shutes reply pray look into that Chapter saith he where you find that God hath declared two ways for saving Elect persons one for the saving of aying Infants without the Grace of Faith and the other for saving adult Believers by Faith And then he asketh two other as impertinent Queries But 〈◊〉 last he sixes uâ—on one Text to prove habitual Faith in Infants viz Joh. 3. 9. whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God Answer We say there is but one way to be saved and that one way is Jesus Christ 't is by his Sacrifice by his Blood by his merits that is by the imputation of his righteousness but that there is the same Way or Mode and no other for the Application of the Blood and Merits of Christ respecting elect dying Infants as there is for the Adult and that God doth not cannot sanctify dying Infants any other way but by infusing the same habit of Faith which he infuseth into the Adult who believe he should prove God is a free Agent and may have ways to apply the Blood of Christ and Sanctify dying Infants that we know not of 2. As to the Text he brings to prove habitual Faith in Infants of believers if it be not brought to prove that that Seed or divine Habit is in infants of believers as such it does not concern the present controversie 't is Joh. 3. 9 which we will now consider and examine And let it be well noted That the Seed remaineth in him that sacred habit abides in him that hath it it remains and shall remain in every Soul in whom it is infused grace in the habit can't be lost 'T is a Well or Spring of living Water that springeth up unto Eternal Life Joh. 4. 14. Christ hath prayed That our Faith fail not that is the Seed or Habit thereof for the Act in the exercise of it in part may fail now and then if the Infants of Believers have the Habit of Faith in them be sure those Habits will appear and they must be true Believers and be saved because the Seed remaineth in them 3. Why do you not answer Mr. Collins Argument Page 7. of his reply to you faith he those Children of Believers which die in an unconverted state either never had the Habits of grace or else if they had them they have lost them but there is no losing Habits of grace ergo they never had them Reader see what Mr. Shute hath said to this Argument in Page 42. of his last Book these are his words viz. Therefore I will put it to a fair issue which shall be this produce me but one place in all my Book where I have asserted this you have charged upon me and I will turn Anabaptist immediately c. Answer If you have not said that the Infants of Believers as such have habitual Faith what is it you argue for why do you plead for the habit of Faith to be in them if you say you plead only for habitual Faith to be in Elect Infants 1. Then I hope you will only have Elect Infants to be Baptised and how do you know which they are since they can make no confession of Faith 2. Moreover I also conceive you may allow Baptism to the Infants of Unbelievers For sure you dare not deny but some of their Seed are comprehended in Gods Eternal Election 3. The controversie or difference between us and you lies not how dying Elect Infants are Sanctified c. whether by the habit of Faith or by some other way by which God may apply Christs Merits to them c. But whether the Infants of Believers as such have the habit of Faith or Faith in any sense by which they come to have right to that ordinance what have we to do with dying Infants did you Baptise no Infants but such that dye and were sure that all the dying Infants of Believers were elected it might seem some what to the purpose tho' not so much neither as you may Imagin for I do affirm you have as much ground to give them the Lords Supper as you have to Baptise them because such who are the proper subjects of Baptism have an immediate right according to the order of the Gospel to the Lords Supper You must have a command or Authority from Christs word to Baptise them or you ought not to do it but you have no such command nor Authority 4. The habit of Faith without the Act gives not a right to that Sacred ordinance for Faith and a confession of Faith is required But I must confess I see not how there can be the habit and not the Act for tho' the habit may be Antecedent to the Act in order of nature yet not in order of time in any Believer Prove if you can any person that was a Believer had the habit of Faith and yet not the Act of Faith at the same time For as all learned Men generally agree as soon as life is infused into a dead sinner there is Heat Motion Activity c. the habit of grace is a Vital Principle and as they say 't is naturally active it is a Spring of perpetual motion as Mr. Charnock shews 5. You say Infants may believe And you would have them to be such Children of the Jaylors Houshold who are said to believe and yet would have it to be only Faith in the habit But all Men of understanding know believing
refers to the Act or exercise of Faith you may as well say the Jaylor had no more than the habit of Faith for read the words again viz. be rejoyced believing in God with all his House 6. If Infants believe they know the object of their Faith can any believe in him whom they know not Faith all Men I think agree has its Seat in the will and understanding the understanding is illuminated and sees the need necessity and excellency of Jesus Christ and so assents that he is the only Saviour as well as the Will consents bends and bows down in subjection to him And can any either young or old be said to be Believers or to have Faith and yet in them is nothing of this But say you Page 22. For as much as the Creature is wholly passive in the reception of grace and Christ is all in all from the foundation of Mans Salvation to the topstone therefore a young Child in the Womb or Cradle is as capable of being born again as well as an old one for both young and old are dead in sin and Trespasses before they are converted Answer You seem to refer to the Almighty power of God 'T is very true he can if he please infuse grace into a Babe in the Womb or Cradle nay of Stones raise up Children to Abraham but the question is not what God can do but what God doth do Though we do believe the creature is passive in the first reception of Grace yet how do you prove God doth regenerate Infants in the Womb or Cradle Gods Grace is infused into fit and proper subjects and tho the Grace by which we believe is from God yet 't is the Creature that doth believe Why do we say that Irrational creatures are not fit Soil for the Seed of the word is it not because they have no understanding and tho' Infants have rational Souls yet till they come to maturity they have no knowledg nor understanding the design of God in sowing the Seed or Habit of Grace is that the Fruits thereof may be produced and brought forth But you must say the Fruits of grace do not appear in Babes which is Love Joy Peace Longsuffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meckness Temperance c. Gal. 5. 22. Nor is it possible it should without a Miracle Such as is the Cause such is the effect or product of it How God doth Sanctify dying Infants I speak as to the Mode of it no mortal Man I am sure can tell if it is by infusing Grace let it be so tho' it can't be proved whilst the World stands yet Gods design therein could not be the same in them as it is in others he expecteth no such fruit from them Nor can any Gospel ordinance be the right of such Infants nor any other without a precept or example from Gods word Baptism as you have heard is a significant ordinance 't is an outward sign of mortification of sin and of Vivification to a new life and â—aith is required in respect of the act of it touching the gracious promise of God made to all such who are the true subjects thereof see what Dr. Taylor Late Bishop of Down speaks about this notion of Infants having habitual faith viz. are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended habit this strange invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority And further saith he if any run for succour to that exploded Cresphuâ—eton that Infants have faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against reason common sense and all experience Again he saith how can any Man know they have faith since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Thus Dr. Taylor In Page 22. He strangely reflects upon Mr. Collins and endeavours to infer that from his Arguments which no way can in honesty be drawn therefrom viz. that the whole strength of his arguments against Infant Baptism naturally tends to the making Adult Believers the Authors of their own Faith and Eternal Salvation Answer Let all Men consider the nature of this Mans Spirit what little ground there is for this Conclusion will soon appear to all that read Mr. Collins arguments doth he deny the infusion of Sacred habits in Believers or that 't is not by the grace of God alone that they are quickened and regenerated because he knows not that Infants have the like Sacred habits infused into them We say the same with worthy Mr. Marshal in Page 78. of his Book which you recite in the 24th Page of yours viz. that Union between Christ and the Soul is fully accomplished by Christ giving the Spirit of Faith to us even before we can Act Faith in the reception of him because by this grace or Spirit of Faith the Soul is inclined to an active receiving of Christ. What of this tho' 't is thus in the Adult must this Spirit of Faith or the Habit of Faith be therefore in Infants of Relievers also Sir let me ask you two or three questions here before I leave this Is Regeneration in your Infants that are Regenerated the fruit or product of that Spirit of Faith or Habits which you plead for to be infused into them when Infants sure if they had any such Habits when Infants they need no other inspired Habits when they are grown up 2. I would know since you speak only of those habits to be in Believers Infants whether they were infused before they were born or after 3. Seeing some Infants of Infidels or Unbelievers may be elected nay and it appears to us by Gods working upon the Hearts of such when grown up that they were comprehended in his electing love had not they likewise when Infants habitual Faith and so an equal right to Baptism In Page 26 you say all the Seed of Believers under the Gospel do partake of all the benefite and priviledges of the Covenant of Grace as much as ever the Seed of professing Jews did under the Law Answer I say so too and more All our Children partake of greater benefits and priviledges of the Gospel of the New Covenant than theirs did of it under the Law as to outward dispensation and revelation when grown up set under the clear and plain Revelation and Ministration of it But of what this therefore say you they have as good a right to the initiating Seal or Token of the Covenant namely Baptism as ever the Jews Children had to the initiating Seal of the Covenant namely Circumcision Answer You go too fast how do you prove that Baptism is an initiating Seal of the Covenant some call it an initiating rite into the visible Church but is it indeed an Ordinance of initiation into the Covenant of Grace then your Infants are not in the Covenant before Baptized I know nothing to be the
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
5. Mâ—n Spiritual and savingly quickened from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are made partakers made a meet habitation for God Eph. 2. 21 22. 1 Cor. 3. 16. c. Page 106. Also see Reverend Mr. Cotton of New England on the Covenant speaking of the Ax being laid to the Root of the Trees Mat. 3. 9. Page 177 178. The first is saith he the Root of Abrahams Convenant which this People much trusted upon and that is that which John Baptist speaks of is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees think not to say with in your selves we have Abraham to our Father vers 8. So that all their confidence they had in Abrahams Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such things is burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon But 2ly The Lord he saith hath cut us off from the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of his Ordinances Again he saith it is spoken of the Ministry of John Baptist which did burn as an Oven and left them neither the Root of Abrahams Covenant nor the Branches of their own good works he cutteth them off from the Covenant of Abraham and so by cutting them off from the root he leaveth them no ground to trust to Page 21 22. you say the new creature in the Womb or in the Cradle is as perfect and compleat in all its lineaments as in the oldest Saint on Earth Page 40. c. Answer Sir do not mistake your self if Infants are any of them regenerated in the Womb then Regeneration in them is the first birth but Regeneration is a being born again or a second Generation which is wrought by the Holy Spirit therefore it can't proceed from believing Parents in any wise they can by their Faith contribute nothing to the second Birth Now shew at what time 't is that regeneration is wrought in your Infants O take heed for tho' God doth regenerate the Souls of dying Infants that are saved Yet what is this to the Infants of Believers as such Besides if John Baptist or Jeremiah the Prophet were Regenerated in the Womb or any other Infants then it would follow they were not born Children of wrath as others Nor could their Regeneration be called a being born again as I hinted before but their first Birth must be so called You I see apply those Scriptures where our Lord Jesus Speaks of the Adult to Infants as that Mark 16. 16. John 3. 3. So that Infants by your notion are required to believe and to be born again nay you in Page 24 25 Châ—llenge Mr. Collins in the name of the Lord to produce â—at one Text of Scripture that dâ—â—h discover any other way or means wherein God hath ordained and appointed to save Elect. dying Infants in differing in any point or part of it from that wherein he saves Adult believers Again in Page 19. say you where will you find two ways for the saving Elect Persons c. Answer As to the way of Salvation 't is we gâ—ant but one viz. Christ is the way nor is there Salvation in any other But the mode or manner may differ about the Application or means of that one way in some points as may appear to all viz. 1. The Adult except Ideots are not saved without the Act and exercise of Faith dying Infants are 2ly The Adult are not saved without actual repentance but dying Infants are 3ly The Adult are not saved without Mortification of Sin taking up the Cross and following of Christ. But Infants are saved without any of these or any other Sacred Acts of obedience whatsoever and yet will you say the way as to the Mode or manner of the Salvation of dying Infants differs in no one point from Adult persons How will you prove that 't is the habit of Faith and not the Act of Faith that applies Christs merits and Righteousness to the Soul in adult persons is it not from the habit the Soul is enabled to believe and say hold on Christ and is it not thus that Christ saves the Adult and doth he just so and in the same mode or manner save dying Infants As to the producing one Text in the Case I say the Holy Ghost is wholly silent as touching the way or manner of the application of Christs merits to dying Infants or how their sinful natures are sanctified yet that the modes differ in many respects as I have shewed is evident As to what you say in Page 4â— I ask how do you knâ—â— but that some of the dying Infants of â—fiâ—â—ls may be elected as well as some Infants of believers and so in as good a condition â—â—y â—â—w 〈◊〉 on know but that all Infants dying in Infancy may be elected sure I am naturally all are born in â—in and I know no difference in that respect nor is there any when grown up till grace is infused ' 〈…〉 e and not the natural Birth that makes any difference between the Children of Believers and the Children of unbelievers and I do affirm till Children have actual Faith or do believe and repent they have no right to the Ordinance of Baptism nor have you proved the contrary nor ever will The Church of England acknowledg the same viz. that Infants are not able to perform Faith and Repentance the two great prerequisits of Baptism by reason of their tender age therefore they have found out sureties to ingage for them In Page 57. you greatly abuse Mr. Collins in saying that he allows not Elect dying Infants to be in the Covenant of Grace Doth it follow because he denies the Infants of believers as such to be in the Covenant of grace therefore he denies elect Infants to be in the Covenant of Grace Sir you ought not to bear false witness against your neighbour as you have done he will tell you and hath told you that all that are saved are in the Covenant of Grace Reader Pray note how disengenuous this Man seems to be and how he hath strangely encumbred the present controversie in talk of habitual grace in dying Infants for what is that to the purpose since he refers not to such Infants of believers that live he himself acknowledges that all their Infants who live have not the habit of Faith Nor can he prove any of them have it or such that die either therefore unless no other but dying Infants were baptized by the Pedo Baptists this can no ways concern the controversie 2. Consider that since those supposed habits in Infants of believers do not appear to us nor do we know which they are what ground it there to Baptise any of them For what appears not is not as to us Shouâ—d we Baptise any Adult persons in whom no Fruit Sign or demonstration of Faith appears than what appears in Infants certainly we should be worthy of the greatest blame imaginable For 't is evident that in all whosoever that are the true subjects of
Baptism ought the habits of Faith not only to be but the Act confession and fruits of it also True we might plead thus what tho' we see no fruits of Faith in some yet they may be elected and the habit of Faith may be in them Nay this allowed viz. that they may Baptise all the Infants of Believers promiscuously supposing some are true Subjects and have habitual Faith why say I may they not also Baptise by the same argument the Infants of Infidels or Unbelievers since among them may be some elected allo and if so why not as much the habit of Faith as any Elect Infant of Believers To conclude with this take three or four Arguments Arg. 1. That which cannot be proved of this nature from the word of God nothing being directly or indirectly spoken about it is absurâ—d and vain for any person to assert But it cannot be proved from the word of God that one Infant of Believers or any other have habitual Faith there being nothing directly or indirectly spoken about it ergo 'tis absurd and vain for any person to assert that any Infant of Believer hath habitual Faith Arg. 2. 'T is forbid and a sinful thing for any to pâ—y into Gods secrets All they that pry into the way how God applies the merits of Christ to dying Infants and sanctifieth them do pry into God Secrets ergo 'tis forbid and a sinful thing to pry into that c. The Text says positively secret Things belong unto God not unto us That is such secret things which God hath not made known to his dearest Children for we deny not but some things that were kept secret are now revealed and some things also that are made known to the godly are kept secret from the wicked hence 't is said the Secrets of the Lord are with them that fear him and he will shew them his Covenant Psal. 2â— 14. The Covenant of grace that is hid from others is revealed to believers they understand the nature Blessings and duties of it they know no person can be saved but by the Grace of God in this Covenant nor without the merits of Christ and Sanctification But yet how the merits of Christ or the blood of the Covenant is applyed to Infants that die or how they are Sanctified is no where revealed to the godly therefore one of Gods Secrets if this Man knows it let him shew where it is written or hath he it by Revelation But this Man says Page 129. That the Salvation of all the Elect is revealed and Christ saith there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed and hid that shall not be known Answer Sure those words must be taken with restriction for there are many things not revealed and tho' it is revealed that all the Elect are saved and Sanctified by Christ yet shew me where 't is revealed or made known that Infants have habitual Faith Arg. 3. They who have had an Habit of Faith infused into them can never lose it But such Infants that live may lose your supposed Habit of Faith Therefore Such Infants never had an Habit of Faith infused into them For proof of the Major Proposition See 1 John 3. 9. The Seed remains in him Luke 22. 23. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Arg. 4. Those Infants who have your supposed Habit of Faith infused into them are Regenerated and when grown up to maturity need no other Regeneration But those Infants when erown up to maturity do need Regeneration Therefore Those Infants have no such Habit of Faith infused into them If he should say those habits infused in Infancy do regenerate their Soul let him prove it How doth it come to pass then that some of the Children of Believers are not regenerated till they are may be 30 or 40 or 50 years old Strange that such habits should be in them and yet lie asleep so long and evil habits predominate in them till that time This Man in Page 45. positively affirms that some Children have had Faith tho' he cannot prove any Infants have it that are now living If he by Children means Infants I do deny it and bâ—d him prove what he says for the Text he mentions in Luk. 1. 41. proves no such thing What tho` the Babe leaped in the Womb of Elizabeth doth that prove the Babe had faith or the habit of it Neither doth that in 2 Tim. 1. 5. What tho' St. Paul was perswaded that Timothy had when an Adult person like unfeigned saith that was in his Gran mother Lois and in his Mother Eunice doth that prove he had the habit of Faith in him when an Infant If you say that the habit of Grace may be in a person and yet nor appear act nor influence or dispose the person according to the nature and quality of it you may as well say there may bâ— a principle of life in a person and yet he may be dead or have no Life Sense feeling or motion in him or there may be Fire and no Heat a Sun and no light Water and no moisture also you contradict all Divines and wise Men in the World in their notions about a habit of Grace or vital Principle they say where these habits are there is Divine Life there is a Spirit of love and other Graces whereby as their understandinâ—s are possessed with knowledg of the excellencies of Gods ways so their wills are seasoned by the power of those habits and as the old nature is the habit of Sin so the new nature is the habit of Grace where the habit of Faith is they tell you there is a ready disposition to every good work and as 't is ready in respect of disposition so it is in the activity of motion yea that 't is naturally active according to its Divine nature and voluntary active And where these habits are there is a kind of natural necessity of motion from life and habit c. Now if these habits do remain in any Infants of Believers that live How comes it to pass there is none of these effects and Operations but the direct contrary till new habits be infused If you say these habits may be quite lost then there is a possibility of falling quite from true Grace Reverend Dr. Owen in his discourse of the Holy Spirit Page 416. saith That the habit of Grace is a vertue a Power a Principle of Spiritual Life wrought created infused into our Souls and laid in all the faculties of them constantly abiding and unchangeably residing in them And again saith this abideth always in and with all that are sanctified And hereby are they prepared disposed and enabled unto all duties of obedience Thus you see that there is not in any Infants of Relievers that live any habit of Faith and if you still affirm it you will run upon one Rock or another which will sink your Ship down to the bottom without remedy In Page 41. Mr. Shâ—te
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
mayest not meet with them I shall give thee here the heads or sum of them as followeth see Page 18. 1. Part. Arg. 1. Because the Law or Covenant of circumcision was made as to the design and end of it to separate the natural Seed of Abraham in their national Church state from all other Nations and to give them the Land of Canaan so that they might not mixt themselves with the Heathen 1. Will any say the Gospel Covenant or any precept of it in the end and design of it is institured to separate all believers and their fleshy Seed as a national Church from all other People in the World if this be so farewel to all Spiritual incorporated congregations of Christians See Dr. Owen 2. Doth any Gospel ordinance assure us and our Children of the Land of Canaan or any worldly and earthly Blessings or is not the new Covenant established upon better promises Arg. 2. Because some who were not in the Covenant of promise had a positive right to and where commanded of God to be circumcised as Ishmael Esau c. and all the Male-Children tho' wicked Mens Children that sprung from Isaac in their generations c. also some of Abrahams Spiritual Seed were not to be circumcised nor had they any right there too 1. As all his Male-Children who died before eight days old 2. All his Females who were elected persons and some others who lived in Abrahams Days as Melchisedeck and Lot c. Arg. 3. Because some of Abrahams natural Seed to whom circumcision did belong were nevertheless denied Gospel Baptism tho' their plea was Abraham is our Father 1. From hence it follows circumcision was no Gospel Law for that which gave right to circumcision was not sufficient to give right to Gospel Baptism 2. It also appears that the Covenant of Grace was not the adequate reason of circumcision but the mere positive command of God to Abraham So that if they could prove the Children of believers in the Covenant of Grace it would nevertheless be no argument to Baptise them unless they had a command or ground from Christ so to do For the Covenant God made with Abraham speaks nothing of Baptism And had not our Blessed Saviour given it forth as an instistution of the Gospel we had never heard of it nor known it had been a duty or ordinance should we have read the Covenant made with Abraham a thousand times over Therefore if all they say about the Infant Seed of Believers as such should be granted being in the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham which cannot yet it would not follow from thence Infants ought to be Baptized for none ought to be Baptized but such that Christ's Commission and positive command doth authorize so to be which are none but those who by preaching and the working of the Holy Ghost are made Disciples or do believe and make a confession of their Faith in maters of mere positively right We must always keep to the direct will and words of the Law-giver like as Abraham did in circumcision No adding nor altering no pleading for Females to be circumcised if Males only are expressed in the institution of it Arg. 4. Circumcision could not be a Gospel rite because all in the Gospel Church 't is expresly said shall know the Lord Jer. 31. 31. And shall not need to be taught to know him Now under the old Legal Covenant Infants were admitted Members of the Jewish Church who did not know the Lord but had need when grown up to understanding to be taught to know him in this the old Covenant differs from the new and old Church Membership from new Church Membership for our Children before admitted into Gods Church must know the Lord we and they too must believe or be made Disciples by teaching we must know Christ or fix our Faith on him in saving knowledg which Infants cannot do To the last of these arguments he seems to say some thing see Page 119. where he cites these words out of my Sermons Page 21. viz. in the old Covenant Infants were Members who did when taken into that Covenant and made members of that Legal Church not know the Lord. Mr. Shute says here I mention but one Covenant and acknowledg Infants were in that one Covenant So that he hath confused himself and let him or any of their opinion prove by Scripture God did â—ast young Infants out of that one Covenant he hath destroyed his two Covenants by thus contradicting himself a Man under his circumstances had need to have a good Memory Answer That Covenant which I mention was I tell you the Legal Covenant that God made with the whole Church and House of Israel and how do I contradict my self Infants I own were Members of the Jewish Church and doth not the Scripture say cast out the Bond woman and her Son c. is not the old Covenant the Jewish Covenant gone did not God take away the first that he might establish the second what Covenant is that which the Apostle says is took away and difanulled 't is not you will say the Covenant of Grace I also ask you whether the Jewish Church that was founded upon that Old Covenant is not gone and dissolved if so what doth your arguing prove nor is there a new Gospel national Church like the Church of the Jews instituted in the room of the old since you plead for Infants Church-membership you must come to the new and last Will and Testament if Christ hath not willed Infants their right to Baptism and Church-membership in the Gospel they can't have it by the former Testament which is disannulled Tou ask if faith and repentance was not required under the Law Page 119. I answer Not to make any Members of the Jewish Church you are in Page 120. 121. c. upon your old argument that both young and old Infants and the Adult are saved by faith We have answered that already Such that can believe that Infants do believe or know the Lord let them I believe it not nor can he nor all the Men of the World prove it I shall repeat the substance of my other arguments to prove that circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace Arg. 5. Because the Terms of it runs according to the Sinai Covenant which is said not to be of Faith But the Man that doth these things shall live in them Gal. 3. 22. Life was promised to their obedience death threatned to their disobedience The promises were earthly c. and thus runs the Covenant of circumcision Gen. 17. 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant c. and I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land of Canaan And the uncircumcised Man-Child whose Flesh of his Fore-â—â—in is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off c. vers 14. 6. The covenant of circumcision was of the Letter and not of the Spirit that is of the Law
or first Testament and not of the Gospel or second Testament See Rom. 3. 29. 7. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for righteousness was not the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant but Faith was not reckoned to Abraham in circumcision ergo See Rom 4. 9 10. See more Page 22. 1 Part. Arg. 8. That Law or Covenant that is contra-distinguished or opposed to the Covenant of Faith or Gospel Covenant could not be one and the same in nature and quality with it But the Apostle lays down the Covenant of circumcision as contra-distinct or opposed to Faith or the Covenant of Grace ergo 9. That Covenant or precept that could profit none unless they keep the whole Law perfectly it could not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but so 't is said of circumcision Sâ—e Rom. 2 25. 10. That Law or Covenant that obliged those that conformed to it to keep the whole Law could not belong to the Covenant of Grace but so did circumcision oblige See Gal. 5. 3. See our last Annotators on that Text. 11. That Covenant that is called a Yoke of Bondage could not be the Covenant of Grace But circumcision is called a Yoke of Bondage ergo See Act. 15 Gal. 5. 1 2. 12. All those that are in the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham have an undoubted right to all the saving Blessings of the said Covenant but all those that were in the Covenant of circumcision had not an undoubted right to all the saving Blessings of the Covenant of Grace ergo c. 13. All those that are in the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham have a sure and strong ground of consolation that is Spiritual Consolation and they should be saved Heb. 6. 13 14 15. But many of them that were in the Covenant of circumcision had no sure ground of consolation that is Spiritual nor have many of our Children who are Believers any such ground of consolation but some of them may perish ergo Sir why did you not answer these arguments you have said nothing that is worth regard to me Also shew if you writ again what profit your Infants receive by Baptism and in what sense they are in the Covenant of Grace and how they can be Members of your Churches and yet are not Members nor received as such until they actually believe and repent But remember if you could prove them in the Covenant of Grace yet that doth not prove you ought to Baptise them Baptism is of mere positive right You must have authority from Christ to Baptise them or you sin if you do it In Page 136. You tell us That the form of circumcision was transient and is ceased Yet the Essential part thereof remaineth in the Flesh for nothing could be more a Type of Baptism than Circumcision c. Answer I promised to forbear hard words but a Man that argues thus should be severely dealt with one way or another i. e. either by writing or rather in a Church way be severely reproved Does the Essential part of circumcision remain in the Flesh then the mark it made in the Flesh doth no doubt remain for I know not what was else the essential part of it remaining in the Flesh save that the form was the cutting off the fore-skin If you had said the essential thing signified by it doth remain in the Heart of true believers you had said some thing to the purpose But. Did ever any Man before now intimate that Baptism is the essential part of circumcision If this were so circumcision could not be circumcision in the Flesh without Baptism because a thing cannot be where the essential part of it is wanting He proceeds to give a reason why the essential part of circumcision remains in the Flesh Page 136. viz. how saith he could this token of the Covenant be everlasting if the Essence thereof was dissolved upon the coming in of the Gospel This cannot be for it is a contradiction in it self for everlasting and dissolution are opposites 1. Answer This Man by this argument gives cause to fear he may erelong plead for circumcision and turn Jew for he is for the essential part of it and that in the Flesh too already I am sorry he understands no better the difference between a Type and the Antitype for there can no part of the Type remain much less the essential part of it when the Antitype is come But he runs into this error from his ignorance of the word Everlasting which as I have shewed is sometimes to be taken with restriction and refers to a long period of time He may as well say Aarons Priesthood remains or the essential part of it because called an Everlasting Priesthood Numb 25. 13. 2. We deny Baptism was the Antytipe of circumcision To prove it was not I have given many reasons which he answers not 1. Both Circumcision and Baptism were in full force together for some time even from the time John Baptized until the Death of Christ. 2. Because one thing that is a figure or shadow cannot come in the room of as the Antitype of another thing that is a figure See 12 Reasons more in Rector Rectifiea Page 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 c. One of them Mr. Shute takes notice of which is this viz. Circumcision belonged only to Male Children Baptism belongs to Males and Females who believe To this he answers that the Females was included in the Males because Man is the head and representative of the Woman and Woman is a part of Man Answer Why then let your Females be Baptized in your Males for from hence it will follow when your Males are Baptized your Females are Baptized also as much as the Jews Females were circumcised Neither need your Wives eat the Lords Supper for when you receive they receive it But sure Sir you mistake your learning fails you Will the food you eat feed your Wife or will your Faith serve her Doth she believe when you believe because she is part of you as here you intimate In page 12. 7. he reflects on me for saying God may have many ways to save dying Infants which we know not He can apply the Benefits and Merits of Christ's Blood to them in ways we are wholly ignorant of c. For this I Quoted Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down Take his answer viz. Pray take notice this Man contradicts himself for in page 21. he saith They must believe and repent and bring forth good Fruits c. Yet here â—e saith God hath many ways to save dying Infants And in page 30. for this Mr. Shute says There is no saving of any Person Old or Young without the Grace of Faith Thâ— you see there is saith he but one way to eternal Life 1. Answer I cannot see but that you have by your arguing thus excluded all Infants that dye out of the Kingdom of Heaven for if no Infant can be saved unless they Believe
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
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
but answered the argument that is raised from thence See Part 2. Page 9 10. Now that Mr. Shute hath left part of the words in some Texts and added words in other he hath quoted See Page 120. Where he mentions the words of that Text 1 Cor. 15. 22. For as in Adam aâ— dye so in Christ shall all be made alâ—ve he has wrote thus for as in Adam all the Elect dye so in Christ they shall all be made alive this is all in the same Italick Letter Where he adds Elect and they rendring the sense as if none should have a resurrection but the Elect which is against the Sense of the Apostle So in Page 133. mentioning Mark 16. 16. viz. He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned He hath wrote it thus viz. He that believeth shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Baptized is left out to favour his design I fear for tho' faith be the same in every age yet the the Ordinances are not the same under the Gospel as under the Law for Baptism is no legal Ordinance nor the Lords Supper c. Also he has given a false exposition on several Verses in Rom. 11. and hath in so doing abused Mr. Collins also these are Mr. Collins words as repeated by Mr. Shute Page 75 76. The natural Branches are broken off ergo Childrens visible incovenanting is repealed the Antecedent of this Enthymem is clear from the Apostles assertion Rom. 11. 19 20 21. by the natural Branches without controversie is to be understood the natural Seed of Abraham Now Mr. Shute leaves out Mr. Collins demonstration following to prove his argument i. e. by the branches saith he without controversy is to be understood the natural Seed of Abraham and the breaking off must either be meant from visible Church-membership and external priviledges thereunto belonging or the Everlasting Covenant of grace It cannot saith he be the latter because that Covenant is immutable therefore it must be the former Thus Mr. Collins And he argues to the purpose for 't is impossible for any to be broken off from the Covenant of Grace who were once in that and 't is as clear that the Jews or natural Seed of Abraham as such are broken off from being any more a visible Church and that the legal Covenant for their incovenanting i. e. both Parents and Children as such is gone and taken away he took away the first that he might establish the Second Heb. 10. 9. There is a First and a Second an Old and a New Now the first is only taken away as a Covenant of works do this and thou shall live and as it was given to the whole House of Israel by vertue of which they held their Church-State and Church-membership and all their external Rites Ordinances and Priviledges for the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the whole Law Heb. 7. 12. Tho' it was for the Jews unbelief they were broken off yet the dispensation being changed it was impossible for them to keep their Church-State and external Legal Rites and Priviledges any longer for 't is evident that those Jews that believed in Christ abode no longer members of their Old Church but were transplanted into the Gospel Church what can be more clear than this viz. the Old House and Old legal Right of Church-membership is overturned and râ—oted out for ever And say I if the Covenant for incoveannting of the fleshly Seed as such is abolished and no new Law is given forth for the bringing in again professing Parents and their Carnal Seed as such what is it this Man contends for yet what a mighty stir he makes about that in Rom. 11. you may See in Page 76 c. This Man makes it his main business to prove that the Covenant of Grace is not taken away which we assert with as much Zeal as he but see how he abuses the Text Rom. 11. 17. viz. as those Jews which were these Branches were broken off and their Children with them were cast out of the Covenant So the Gentiles and all their Children were taken into Covenant in their room and did partake of the same Priviledges with those â—ews that did abide firm in the Covenant c. 1. Answer This Man doth not distinguish one Covenant from another i. e. the Legal from the Gospel Covenant nay he owns but one so that he assâ—rts the unbelieving Jews were broken off of the Covenant of Grace and their Children too by which he seems to plead for Arminianism or final falling oâ—â— of the Covenant of Grace Nay worse i. e. that the Children were broken off from the Covenant of Grace for their Parentâ— Sin and unbelief 〈…〉 For if the first Fruit be Holy the lump is also Holy and if the Root be Holy so are the branches vers 16. â— the Root is doubtless meant Abraham but then know that Abraham was a twofold 〈◊〉 as well as a twofold Father viz the Root of all his natural Seed and the Root or Father of all his true Spiritual now for a Man to say that the Apostle here refers to Abraham as a natural Root and so to his natural or Carnal Seed as such is to destroy the whole scope and drift of the Holy Ghost in this Chapter in the close of the 10 Chapter the Apostle shews the Jews were rejected and the Gentiles called and in the beginning of this 〈◊〉 Chapter he prevents an objection some might be ready to say if this be so then God hath cast away his Covenant People To this he Answers vers 2. God hath not cast away his People whom he for knew that is his Elect or the Spiritual Seed of Abraham that were among the Jews See vers 5. even so then oâ— this present time there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace Again in vers 7 what then Israel had not obtained c. that is the natural seed as such but the Election hath obtained it and the rest were blended and tho' the main Body of the Jews were rejected for their unbelief yet in the Latter Days God will call all those and bring them in who belong to the Election of Grace and so all Israel that is the Spiritual Israel shall be saved See vers 15. and â—6 And from hence the 16. verse is brought in viz. for if the first Fruit be Holy the lump is also Holy 〈◊〉 Is the Apostle speaking here of a Legal Federal Holiness No not a word of any such matter But of such a Holiness as was in the Post i. e. in Abraham who was Spiritually Holy being an Elect Person and to that Holiness the Apostle refers viz. first in respect of Gods Election Personal and inherent in Gods intention Now then to apply the Holiness and Infection here to outward Dispensation only in the whole Church which is meant of saving Grace in the invisible and
Father or that our Parents were believers and in Covenant because the Church now does not consist of the carnal Seed but of the true Spiritual Seed only Mr. Shute says in Page 82. to Mr. Collins if you have not enough you shall have enough before I have done with you I am satisfied and he too he has said too much unless it were better or to better purpose He appeals to any experienced Christian among us or of our party to judg whether there can be a more full Text of Scripture produced to prove the continuation and Stability of the Covenant c. If he will take my thoughts who am 't is like in his opinion as well as my own an unexperienced Christian I must tell him he hath mistaken his Antagonist and the Text too Cannot the Jewish Legal Church State go but the Covenant of Grace must go with them God forbid The Apostle it is evident in this Chapter Rom. 11. speaks of Gods Election which ran first to Abrahams natural Seed according to the Covenant of Grace that is to the Elect among the Jews and so argues God had not cast away his People whom he foreknew and from hence he shews that all that belong to the said Election of Grace shall be called and in the Latter days be brought in or grafted into their own true Olive tree i. e. into Christ and into the Gospel Covenant and Church for all the true Israel shall be saved as it is written c. 't is said they are Holy that is they are decretively and in Gods sight and intention Holy I wonder at some Expositors who conclude that it is an external relative Federal Holiness the Apostle speaks of here which Holiness is not mentioned in all the New Testament as an eminent Writer observes And this brings me to what Mr. Shute says to that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy Which Scripture he mistakes also whilst he asserts it is Federal Holiness as well as Matrimonial Holiness for no doubt the Sanctification of the unbelieving Husband to the believing Wife is the same Sanctification or Holiness that is said to be in the Children that is the Husband and Wife were Sanctified or set apart for the use of one another by Gods ordinance of Marriage and so their Children were Holy i. e. Legitimate lawfully begotten and not Bastards for no doubt their Children that were born when both were unbelievers were Holy in the Sense the Apostle speaks of as such that were born when one was a believer But see a full answer to this Text in Rector Rectified from Page 113. to Page 120. And when he writes again let him answer what is there said Mr. Shute also gives a false exposition of that Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Page 15 16. Whilst he refers there to the Baptism of suffering telling us the Apostle was there exerciting the Saints to prepare for sufferings which is not true Likewise he abuses that Text 1 Cor. 2. But God hath chosen the weak things of the World c. by intimating as if the Apostle means little Children and who are weaker saith he than Children Page 23. Also that in Psa. 82. I think he would have to refer to Infants i. e. out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings thou hast perfected thy praise Page 23. In Page 130. that in Mark 16. 16. Joh. 3. 3. he applies to Infants viz. he that believes and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned And so pleads for like necessity for infants to believe if saved as the Adult In Page 10. he seems to infer that John Baptist Baptized little Infants because 't is said there went out to meet him all Judea and Jerusalem and all the regions round about Jordan and were Baptized Which I have answered Ax laid to the Root in my reply to Mr. Exell see 2 Part Page 35. to 54. In Page 174. Mr. Shute citing Rom. 11. 6. if it be by Grace then it is no more of Works he infers if dying Infants are saved without Faith then they must be saved by works Which is an abuse of that Text for as the Apostle speaks not of Infants so he speaks of Gods Grace and Favour in opposition to works oâ— merits according to that in Eph. 2. 8. by Grace you are saved he puts Faith in the place of Grace We say no Infant can be saved but by Grace yet we do say we see not how it can be said that Infants do or can believe And now let me infer from his notion viz. if Infants cannot believe they must all perish and be damned this follows clearly from what he asserts He had need to see he is certain of what he affirms In Page 92. he says it is common for Men of our opinion to bring in and set up our own Carnal Reason in opposition to the Wisdom of God is not this an Unchristian charge Besides he proves not what he says nor attempts to do it Sure some gracious Person or Persons he is concerned more particularly with in Church-fellowship will look upon themselves bound in duty to inquire into some of these grand enormities false acusations and other evils this Man is found guilty of in his Writings In Page 13. he says that part of the Man Woman or Child that is Baptized must be naked and if the whole Body must be Baptized then the whole Body must be all naked also And he quotes a passage of Mr. Baxter as if Mr. Tombs could or did Baptise Women naked to render such a practice odious as indeed it would be should any do it but to cast that on us is Unchristianly done In Page 19. he intimates as if we had found two ways to Salvation because we know not that dying Infants have Faith or can believe In Page 20. he abuses Mr. Collins as if he was ignorant of any such thing as habitual Faith because he knows nothing of such habits in Infants and says he derides habitual Faith which is a notorious falsehood and that which Mr. Collins abhors to do In Page 20. he would have his Reader think that Mr. Collins had rendred Mr. Charnock an Anabaptist because he quoted him to detect his notion of habitual Faith in Infants In Page 43. because Mr. Collins said unless Children have personal actual Faith they are not to meddle with Gods most holy things Mr. Shute says by this mans opinion Elect dying Infants must be lost and damned he would have those Children to be Infants that cryed Hosanna to the Son of David For if it be not that he means it is nothing to his purpose for we deny not but some little Children have and may have a work of God upon their Hearts tho' not above five or six years old In Page 68. he infers four false Conclusions upon Mr. Collins denying Faith to be in Infants 1. That God cannot work Faith in young Infants because
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