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
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
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
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
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
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
they affirm they do perform it by their Sureties Answ. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretiship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful Undertaking But Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo. Do they or can they cause the Child to sorsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a Word Can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want Power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the Case and will not God one Day say Who has required these things at your Hands Arg. 7. If there be no Precedent in the Scripture as there is no Precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no Precedent that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any Precedent or Example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith It is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Iustit c. 16. Book 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Ludov. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the baptizing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient Proof from Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. p. 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous Dispositions of Baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. Proph. p. 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever which is necessary to Faith and Practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant-Baptism is not of God But whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the Consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasius saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Chrysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost. on 2 Thess. and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That 〈…〉 ould be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de Fide Augustine saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour lest a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness Arg. in his 198 Epistles to Fortunat. Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. Paschal Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. c. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great Use against the Lutherans forasmuch as they use that Rite every where having no Command or â—xample theirs is to be reâ—ected yet is it of no Force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bellarm. in his Book de Bapt. 1 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what End the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his Answer to the New-England Eâ—â—ns p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we adâ—â—â—â— of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet noâ— in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-Baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism But the Pedo-Baptists are at a great Loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ. As touching the Major I argue thus That which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance â—s the Subject and Manner of it But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of pedo-Pedo-Baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ. The Minor is undeniable Some affirm as we have shewed p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin Some say it is their Right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers Others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right Others say They have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties Some ground their Right from an Apostolical Tradition others upon the Authority of Scripture Some say All Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it Sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his Word would soon end this Controversy Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy House and they spake unto him and to all that were in his House vers 32. And he took them the same hour of the Night and washed their Stripes and was Baptized â—e and all his straight way Now from these words Mr. Shute affirms that they were all Baptized in his House that is in the Jaylors House 2. That they were Baptized the same hour of the Night 3. That they did not go out of the House to a River If you can see these three Things in these Verses you have better Eyes than I have As to what was done the same hour of the Night 't is directly in plain words asserted viz. He washed their Stripes As to the time when Baptized it is said Straight way If you will have the same Hour and Straight way to intend both the washing their Stripes and their being Baptized it is more than can be gathered therefrom but if that be granted might they not in that hour go a little way out of the House and be Baptized 't is evident he abuses the Sacred Text. 4. What reason hath he also to affirm that none believed but the Jaylor himself for so he asserts These are his words Page 7. We do not read of any one Soul of them that did believe besides the Jaylor himself before they were Baptized nor of any one act of Faith they exerted 1. Answer We do read in vers 34. And when he had brought them into his House he set Meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his House 2. He will say may be this was after they were Baptized I answer we read not one word of the Jaylors believing himself tell then I mean tho' he believed before and all his House believed before either were Baptized yet 't is not expressed by the Holy Ghost until after they had been Baptized and were come into his House and he set Meat before them believing in God with all his House So that here is as much mention made of that act of Faith his whole House exerted as of the Jaylors own Faith and as soon also 3. And is it not evident likewise that they were before out of the Jaylors House else why is it said when he had brought them into his House c. that is after they were Baptised take heed how you write at another time lest you provoke God by adding and diminishing from his Sacred Word In Page 12 you say you believe that there were more modes in Baptism than one for some went down into the Water and others were Baptised in their Houses but say you I understand not that any were Ducked all under Water it is possible their Faces might be Dipped without Plunging the whole Body under Water or by pouring Water on their Faces 1. Answer That which you again assert I again affirm is not true viz. That some were Baptised in their Houses what you have said of the Jaylors being Baptised in his own House all may see is without Book and without the least shadow of proof nor do you nor can you prove it of any other 2. If there were more modes of Baptism than one then there were different significations of the same ordinance and all of them could not be held forth in the Baptism of each person for such that were Dipped tho' it was but the Head only were taught the proper Mysteries represented thereby and those that were sprinkled only with Water or had Water poured upon them were taught the proper Symbols or signification of that mode but how absur'd that would be I leave to all impartial wise Men to consider 3. And if this was so how then was the way and ordinance of God in their Holy administration one and the same in all the Churches of the Saints you may as well say the modes of the Administration of the Lords Supper were more than one and so allow of the Popish mode therein who deny the Laiâ—y the Cup. Is this to make the Holy God a God of order or of confusion 4. If Dipping was one mode and Sprinkling another then would Baptism and Rantism be both ordinances of Christ ask the learned what the word for Sprinkling is in the Greek Tongue and if they do not tell you if they speak the truth 't is Rantising I will confess I have in this done you wrong and mistook my self But we deny Sprinkling is Baptism for Dipping of the whole Body is an essential not an accident of Baptism Baptism is compared to a burial that 's clear from Rom. 6. 3 4. as it is confessed by a multitude of learned Men who were Pedo Baptists as you shall hear anon Now will you say if the Face or Head only of a Dead Corps was covered with Earth and not the whole Body that the Corps was buried if you should would you not be laught at Our Saviour was buried not his Head only but his whole Body also in the Heart of the Earth and he whose whole Body is not covered all over in the Earth is not buried no more is he whose whole Body is not covered all over in the Water-Baptised Baptism is a lively Figure of the Burial of our Blessed Lord and of our Death to Sin and being Buried with him both in Sign and signification In Page 12. say you produce one positive command or example to prove that ever any Woman went down into a River or Pond to be Dipped or Ducked all under Water in Baptism throughout the Book of God or else take your human invention to your self these are your words Answer If we prove that a Woman by name was Baptized then we prove a Woman was Dipped because Baptized in Greek is Dipped in English and the Dutch as I have elsewhere shewed have so Translated the Word viz. Dooped or Dipped in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Now in Act. 16. we read of Lydia who was Baptized that is Dipped and in Act. 8. 12. when they believing Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were Baptized both Men and Women That is saith the Dutch Translation they were Dooped both Men and Women our Translators have left the Greek word untranslated into our Tongue What difference is there between Baptisma Greek and Baptism 2. But Sir I cannot but take notice how often you add Ducking to Dipping Is not this to reproach and cast contempt upon us and on the ordinance of Christ of Dipping believers in his name The Lord open your Eyes and give you repentance in mercy to your poor Soul In Page 13. because every Sinner God draws to Christ must come to him naked c So you say it must be in Baptism viz. that part of the Man Woman or Child that is Baptized must be naked and so plead only for the Baptizing of the Face 1. Answer
Sir what reason do you give for this have you any ground to run that parallel from any Text of Scripture Is it not of your own making and devising But since you are for plain Texts of Scripture for every thing pray where do you read that any Man or Womanâ— Face or Head was only Baptised or that â—ver John Baptists or Christs Disciples Baptised any person naked You tell us of the immodesty and evil of such a practice and that it may tend to gratifie the Devil and to the sin of Adultery certainly such a thing is utterly to be condemned and never was practised you know well enough by us whom you reproachfully call Anabaptists As touching what Mr. Baxter to which you might have added Dr. Featly hath said concerning Baptizing persons naked we know they as well as you were too much guilty of backbiting vâ—lifying and reproaching of us yet they had no ground in the least to cast this odium upon us we challenge all Men or any person living to produce one instance that ever any Man or Woman by any of our perswasion was Baptized naked As to what Mr. Tombs said to Mr. Baxter of a former custom in some nations of Baptizing naked it affects not us nor do I believe there was ever any such custom used among any godly Christians Nor did Mr. Tombs ever so Baptise any Maids in Bewdeley nor any where else If he said he could do it it was doubtless his weakness so to speak but I am not bound to believe all that Mr. Baxter hath wrote of worthy Mr. Tombs but since they are both dead we will say no more to that but any thing you can catch up you resolve 't is plain to make the greatest use of imaginable to reproach your godly Neighbours and the truth of Christ. In Pape 15. the Anabaptists you say make a great deal of pudder and stir about the Apostles words in Romans 6. 3 4. and have pressed them into their service the words are as followeth therefore we are buried with him by Baptism they will say you have it that this respects burying in Water over Head and Ears in Baptism and therefore they make it an argument for Dipping The Apostle you say seems to have been stirring them up and puting them in mind of their Baptismal vows and Obligations It may be as well to Children of believing parents that were grown up as to themselves for in vers 3 saith he know ye not that so many of us as were Baptised into Christ were Baptized into his Death that is say you as they were Baptized into all the priviledges that were purchased by the Death of Christ so they were baptised also into the sufferings of Christ for they were obliged by their Baptismal Covenant to take up their Cross and follow the Lord Jesus Christ c. 1. Answer You shall now see whether 't is only those whom you call Anabaptists that make such improvement of this Text you say pudder and stir about it or whether others who were and are Pedo Baptists do not make the like use of it viz. to prove Baptism is an Image Symbol or representation of Christs Death and burial and Resurrection together with our Death unto sin and vivification to a newness of Life But before I shall quote the Authors I must tell you the Apostle is not in the context speaking of the sufferings of believers not a word of bearing the Cross Therefore from the Scope and coherence of the Text you cannot infer any such conclusion as you do Pray Reader take notice of the 5th Chapter and the beginning of this 6th and see if I or this Man speak the truth of the Texts in vers 1. of this Chapter the Holy Apostle says thus i. e. What shall we say then Shall we continue in Sin that grace may abound God forbid how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein vers 2. Know you not that so many of us as have been Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death vers 3. Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death That like as Christ was raised up from the Dead by the Glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of Life vers 4. For as we have been planted together in the likeness of his death we shall be also into the likeness of his Resurrection vers 5. Is here a word of the Cross or suffering for Christ or that we are Baptized to shew we must suffer Martyrdom with Christ no no unless it be the Death or mortification of sin or the old Man Tho' I deny not but such that are Baptized must look for suffering You say our Saviour calls his suffering his Baptism and a Blood Bloody Baptism it was but I have a Baptism to be Baptized with and how am I straightned till it be accomplished now you say the Apostle draws his argument from the premises in verses 4 5 p. 16. Answer 'T is very true the Apostle doth draw his argument from vers 4 5. c. but not from Luk. 12. 50. the Text you mention about Christs Baptism of suffering so that 't is evident to all you have abused this Sacred Text also and prest it in to serve your purpose Pray read all the Annotators you can get on the place particularly Mr. Pools and see if any favour your exposition of it 2. Tho' I have said enough to silence this Man or any other upon this Text Rom. 6. 3 4 5. in two Treatises yet left they come not into the Author or Readers Hand I shall repeat some passages once again Let all Men consider in the fear of God and take notice of the gracious design and condescention of our blessed Saviour in his instituting of the two great ordinances of the Gospel viz. the Lords Supper and Baptism for as that of the Lords Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of his Body and the pouring forth of his Blood so the ordinance of Baptism doth as clearly if rightly Administed represent or hold forth the Death Burial and resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Together with our death to sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life and that this appears from this Text and that in Col. 2. 12. shall God assisting be evinced The whole Church of the Romans and every member thereof were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and were bound to live no longer therein because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they had held forth the same thing nay by that Baptismal covenant they were obliged to live and walk in newness of life See Pools Annotations on the place where you will find these words viz. he seems to allude to the manner of Baptizing in those warm Countries which was to Dip or plunge the party Baptised and as it were to bury him for a while under water See the like Phrase Col. 2. 12. Baptism doth not only represent