from Gen. 1.1 when according to his own Assertion all true Believers are in the Covenant of Grace and so are the Elect of God in a true and proper sence and the fit subjects of Baptism And if he would himself who is yet an unbaptized person truly believe and be baptized and by a Gift from Christ did once become a Teacher in the true visible Church he might then baptise penitent Believers upon a foundation that himself acknowledges to be good and warrantable from the practice of the Apostles But for his baptizing Infants as he hath no authority for it from the Word of God so by his own Confession he hath no Foundation for it as they are in Covenant because he doth not know they are so But 2dly He saith page 7. That all Infants of such believing parents i. e. External and Visible Professors are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the Now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant And saith This is the principal thing designed from this Text meaning Gen. 17.7 c. Well if it be so it shall be considered but I pray who told him these things he hath so boldly asserted For in the first place If all Infants are not within the Covenant of Grace how comes it about that all the Infants of such believing Parents qua talis are in that Covenant Hath he not forgot what he wrote in the very Page before That the Covenant of Grace is God's gracious Promise of delivering from a state of Sin and Death and bringing into a state of Salvation by Jesus Christ all that by faith fly to and lay hold on him and could it enter into his imagination that little Infants can by faith fly to and lay hold on Christ And if they cannot then it 's plain this Gentleman hath been guilty of a Self-contradiction from which he can no ways extricate himself Mr. Collins had given him sufficient notice of it by saying surely the Gentleman hath forgot himself in the Definition of the Covenant of Grace and hath sufficiently confuted this Assertion but I find it 's as yet a Work he cares not to undertake to recant his Errors when he is detected for them But 2ly How doth he know that Infants have as much a right to Baptism now as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision He gives us neither Reason Argument nor Scripture in this place to prove it and therefore we must consider it our selves All the Answer I think needful to give is this Infants were commanded by God to be circumcised Gen. 17.10 Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Ver. 12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised And the particular Direction is given Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin Here you see is the Command of God both for the Work it self the Subject upon whom and the time when it was to be performed So that God's Command gave Infants then a right to Circumcision Now let but Mr. H. shew us any such Command in all the Scriptures for the baptizing of Infants and we will thank him for we never yet could find it in all the Book of God And till he doth we have no reason to believe what he so confidently asserts to be true But 3ly Mr. H. asserts That Baptism is the now Seal of the Covenant I know not how he will prove it for I am sure it 's an unscriptural Notion For the Holy Scripture doth no where tell us that Baptism is the seal of the Covenant but hath plainly told us that Christians were sealed with the holy Spirit Ephes 1.13 14. After that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of our Inheritance And I will rather believe the Apostle Paul than Mr. H. And this leads me to consider what he hath asserted in his first Chapter Part 1. CHAP. III. HAving in the former Chapter confuted those Arguments he hath brought from Gen. 17. to prove Infants Baptism I come now to consider his five introductory Considerations which he saith are very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant-baptism 1. He saith That a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express Words of Scripture 2. Or from evident Consequences drawn from Scripture As to the first It is a great Truth And thus we can prove our Practice of Believers Baptism with all the Perspicuity imaginable as I shall make appear when I come to treat of that Subject Therefore he must from his own Rule acknowledge that our Practice therein is of God But I am sure he is conscious to himself that the Practice of Infant-baptism cannot be proved by the express Words of Scripture because he finds fault with us for urging them to it in Page 10. where he brings us in saying bring us a plain Text and we will believe it and represents it as an unreasonable Demand But if his Passion hath not so far transported him as to make him forget what Subject-matter he is treating of he might have forborn those Reflections against us For I do affirm that Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship and therefore whilst he pretends to practice Infant-baptism he is obliged to shew us where it is expresly commanded in the Word of God or otherwise how does he know it is the Will of God that it should be practised at all For all Instituted Worship hath its Foundation only in the Will of the Law-giver as he hath revealed it unto us and unless he hath found out some other Rule of Faith and Practice besides the Word of God he is bound to submit himself to the Authority thereof in the Determination of this Controversy To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them Isa 8.20 2. He endeavours to perswade us That evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are sufficient I might deny this in the Point under Consideration because Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship For altho' this may be true about speculative Points in Divinity it is no necessary Consequence it must be so in positive Duties But I will not insist upon it but for Arguments sake allow it to be true And therefore let him proceed as soon as he pleases to prove the Baptism of Infants an Ordinance of God by evident Confequences drawn from Scripture and I will allow it As for his second Observation it is applicable to himself and not to us and therefore I shall leave it at his own door 3. He saith Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully consirmed in the Old Testament tho' little or nothing be said of them in the Now Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the
C. had said this is his Answer in Part 2. Page 15. The plain truth is the poor man hath such a weak head that he knows not what in the World to make of it He mistook the man It was himself and not Mr. Collins to whom these words ought to be applied For it 's manifest that he knew not how to confute him because he repeats the old Arguments he had used in his first Part. But I would not have Mr. Collins think the worse of himself for all his Railery against him because the poor man hath not yet learned the common Civility and curteous Behaviour which every ingenuous man will shew to any one that is a stranger especially if he put himself upon the trouble and charge to serve him for the good of his Soul as Mr. Collins hath done But some mens evil Nature will never depart from them nor be mortified by them let us do what we can There are several other Arguments Mr. Collins hath also added by which he hath undeniably evinced this Covenant in Gen. 17.7 8 c. not to be the Covenant of Grace as having only temporal Blessings promised in it And because persons might be saved out of this Covenant and many were saved who were never circumcised nor in that Covenant That many Absurdities follow the holding such an Opinion and that it overthrows many fundamental Points of Religion divers of which he there enumerates Now I appeal to all ingenious men whether it had not been Mr. H's business to have given some solid Answers to these Particulars and whether Mr. H. Collins deserved such a Treatment from a man who calls himself a Minister of the Gospel But to proceed 2. I have undertaken to prove That this Covenant of Circumcifion Gen. 17.7 8 c. was abolished by Christ But upon Enquiry I find that Mr. M. H. Part 1. pag. 6. doth confess that Circumcision is now abolished His Words are these Circumcision is now abolished by Christ and cites for Probation thereof Eph. 2.15 Having abolished in his Flesh the Enmity even the Law of Commandmandments contained in Ordinances for to make in himself of twain one new man so making Peace To this he adds 1 Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing and Vncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandments of God Now upon this Concession I would willingly know of Mr. H. why he supposes the Covenant of which he saith Circumcision was a Seal is still remaining when he confesses the Seal thereof is broken off and taken away from it If a Bond for the performance of a Covenant be once cancelled the Covenant it self ceases to be obligatory any longer 3. If that Covenant Gen. 17.7 8 c. had been as he saith the Covenant of Grace yet it had not therefore given the Infants of believing Parents a right to Baptism without an Institution from God requiring it to be done I prove it thus 1. From Mr. H. own words part 1. page 6 7. We do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as Infants of the Elect. And a little before speaking of persons being really in the Covenant of Grace as united to Christ living Branches knit to Christ by a vital union he adds and thus only the Elect are in Covenant The Covenant thus considered is not the ground of Baptism if we must baptize none but such as are vitally in Christ then must we baptize none and he gives this reason for it because tho' we see the outward profession we do not know who belong to the Election of Grace From all which its plain Mr. H. doth not think their being in the Covenant of Grace a sufficient ground to baptize any person because he cannot possibly know that they are so How then can he baptize any Infant upon the terms of that Covenant Gen. 17. if it were as he saith the Covenant of Grace But saith he those that are externally and visibly in Covenant all that profess Christ Tares and Wheat wise Virgins and foolish This saith he is the Ground of Baptism I answer Had Mr. H. being speaking of the Members of a Nation and also of the Members of the visible Church and had distinguished the latter into these two sorts of Persons i. e. such that were invisible members and such that were only so by a bare profession reason would that I should allow it But when he is speaking of the Covenant of Grace to tell us of Hypocrites and carnal Professors who are devoid of true Grace and that all such are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and that all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace as you may see in the Page before-mentioned this is one of the greatest Paradoxes I ever met with If the wicked who are called Tares are to be accounted Believers in Covenant why shall they be cast into Hell-fire Mat. 13.40 41 42. If the foolish Virgins in the Church are in the Covenant of Grace why must they be shut out of Heaven Mat. 25.11 12. Now that it was without reason for him thus to argue I prove from his own Words Because he doth assure us from the Testimony of Holy Scripture that all Believers are in this Covenant This saith he in pag. 6. is abundabtly evident from Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15. Gal. 3.29 the Covenant was made with Abraham as a Believers and with all Believers as well as him And that we may not mistake his meaning he often calls it the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham c. Now that the Covenant in Gen. 17.7 8 c. is not the Covenant of Grace I have already shown But that there was a Covenant of Grace in which Abraham was instated being a Believer in Christ and a special Friend and Favourite of God as the Father of the faithful wherein all true Believers have a right and interest as being in Christ I readily allow And moreover That all true Believers in Christ altho ' under the former dispensation they could not be admitted to Baptism because it had been Will-Worship so to do it not being then commanded Yet now they have a right to that Holy Ordinance as the proper Subjects thereof because Christ hath not only commanded it but made a gracious promise to them upon their Obedience thereunto Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Now seeing Mr. H. further saith in page 7. That Persons are to be baptized as making a visible and credible profession of Religion and that the Apostles did baptize such as did profess Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Acts 2.41 I therefore infer upon him the unreasonableness of his former Assertion That the Children of such as are only formal Hypocrites are to be baptized because their Parents make an outward profession of Christianity for which he quotes Ezek. 16.20 21. which I desire may be read over for I think he might have proved it as well
in being under the Gospel a thing so contrary to the tenor of the Gospel and the express Words of Holy Scripture The whole Fabrick of the Jewish Church-state being pulled down and a New Church-state erected in the room thereof it is not the House of God erected by the Mosaical Law but the House of Christ erected by the Son himself Heb. 3.6 opposed to and in contradistinction from that former one under the Law which all that were circumcised were obliged to observe For the Apostle saith If any man he circumcised he is a debtor to the whole Law But in his next Paragraph he entangles himself with a difficulty I suppose he will not be able to free himself from For he saith in page 21. This promise the Apostle speaks of was that promise or covenant of which Baptism was the Seal And in the words following he tells us that Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of the same covenant Now whereas I have already proved that the covenant of Circumcision was not the covenant of Grace I think I need not prove that Baptism is a duty belonging to the New Covenant because all acknowledge it so to be And as certain I am that the Apostle Paul opposes the Law of Works to the Law of Faith It is of Faith that it might be of Grace and circumcision obliging to keep the whole Law which covenant being now abolished he saith If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And he gives this reason for it Whosoever of you are justified by the law ye are fallen from Grace And that this respects the covenant of circumcision with its adjuncts is plain from Gal. 5.1 where the Apostle exhorts them To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage which he explains in the following verses to be meant of the covenant of circumcision So that Mr. H. may see what a Labyrinth he is in out of which I suppose it will not be easie for him to extricate himself The late Learned Dr. Neh. Coxe in his Excellent Discourse of the Covenants hath given us the true ground of these perplexities that the Learned have fallen into which I shall transcribe for the sake of those who have not his Book to inform them nor are likely to obtain because it 's out of print Sect. 6. pag. 12. Now as it is evident from what hath been already said that all soederal transactions of God with men flow only from his good pleasure and the counsel of his Will so upon that ground it is certainly to be concluded that our knowledge and understanding of them must wholly depend upon Divine Revelation None can pretend acquaintance with the secret of God but as he hath pleased to reveal it in his Word this light must guide all our inquiries after it and our Sentiments of things of this nature must be strictly governed by this Rule seeing the nature of them is such as transcends the common principles of reason or natural Light inasmuch as they owe their original to the free acts of the Divine Will and Wisdom which are unaccountable 'till revealed by God himself and therefore it becomes us to captivate all our thoughts of them to the obedience of Faith as knowing that Learning and strength of Parts tho' of excellent use in their place not guided by Scripture light in these Inquiries can only form an Ingenious Error and lose a man in the Labyrinth of his own Imagination and uncertain Guesses seeing the single advantage of those assistances in this case trusted to and stretched beyond their line can reach no farther than to enable him cum ratione errare and so to wander from truth in a path seeming more smooth tho' no less dangerous than others light upon And therefore in these things lyes the spring of most mistakes and corruption of Doctrine and Practise in matters of Religion men do easily find out and agree in the true Dictates of the Law of Nature but in things pertaining to the covenants of God how various are their Sentiments Yea many great Learned and good men have been divided in their Judgments about some things of great importance to the Faith and Edification of the Church And some one Error admitted about the nature of God's soederal transactions with men doth strangely perplex the whole System or Body of Divinity and entangle our Interpretation of innumerable Texts of Scripture and by this means Jars and Contentions have been perpetuated in the Church to the great grief and hindrance of all the offence of the weak and greater scandal of the blind World and all this hath been much occasioned thro' the want of a due and humble attention to that Revelation of Truth which God hath given us in the Holy Scriptures and endeavouring to collect the mind of God from thence without prepossession of Judgment which is a greater occasion of these mistakes than men are generally aware of and careful avoiding the undue mixture or confusion of things natural with those that are purely of a soederal nature Now I would earnestly beg of Mr. H. both for his own good and the good of the people he stands related to that he would be pleased to consider seriously what this Learned Man hath said and by laying aside all pre-conceived Prejudices and pre-possession of Judgment would apply himself to an humble inquiry after the mind of God as revealed in his Word and not trust to his Learning nor lean to his own understanding in the matters of Divine Truths but labour to satisfie his conscience from the Revelation of God in his Holy Word that thus it is written and therefore I believe And to apply it to the present case if Mr. H. can shew us where is written that Infants ought to be baptized by any appointment of God or where it s written that any one Infant was baptized or where it s charged as a sin upon any one to neglect carrying them to be baptized or where any Minister is blamed for not teaching them to bring their Children to Baptism or for not baptizing them when they were brought or indeed if there be any thing said about it directly or indirectly to enjoyn the practise thereof or any the least mention made of it in all the Book of God we will grant him the cause But I perceive himself is satisfied there is no such thing and therefore he is pleased to ridicule us for demanding of him to shew us where it is commanded in the Scripture But let him know that all instituted Worship hath no foundation but the Divine Will requiring it and therefore his pretence to evade the Objection is vain But however seeing he thinks he is so excellent at consequences and that he can do mighty things that way let Mr. H. if he can prove by consequence or any other way that Infant-baptism is God's Ordinance But I perceive he cannot do
them For as it 's another word so it hath a different respect and signification Matheteusate in Mat. 28.19 importing that the Apostles should teach and instruct the Gentiles who were Strangers and Aliens in the Faith and Doctrine of the Gospel that they might believe it and become Disciples of Christ But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 20. Teaching them vero docere significat eos qui jam discipuli redditi sunt Magisterio nostro jam addicti By which it 's plain that you have no reason to imagine that Infants can possibly be here intended qua talis because the first word intends such as were to be made Disciples by their Ministry and the latter respects their being instructed in all those other Duties this new Master of theirs the Lord Jesus required of them after they were first made Disciples and believed and were baptized that they might be made perfect and compleat in all the will of God How false therefore and incougruous is that rendring of the Words Matheteusate panta ta ethne Discipulize all Nations as you have done to say Go disciple me all Nations teaching them when the plain meaning is That they were first by their Ministry to be made Disciples of Christ and then to be baptized as it follows in the Text. And not as you say That when the Parents being taught believe they are discipled and their Infants with them For if that be the meaning of the Word Matheteusate that such who are so taught as to believe are discipled their Infants not being capable to be so taught by the Ministry of the Apostles as to believe they cannot be Disciples in your own Understanding from any meaning can be put upon these Words by you recited Mat. 28.19 But further here is an express Command to baptize some Persons That they were Believers we affirm because it 's said in that Parallel Text Mark 16.15 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved That any Infants can be intended by it you must deny because you say there is no express Command to baptize them For in Part 1. page 41. you put this Objection But we have no express Command in the New Testament to baptize Infants Your Answer is I have shewn there needed none And in page 37. you bring in this Objection If it be God's will Infants should be baptized why is there no Command for it as there was for their Circumcision Your answer is There was no need of any particular mentioning of them And further say It had been absurd to have given a New Command for Children and your saying that the general Command includes Children and yet never tells us what it is or where to be found is a covering too narrow for you to escape this consequence For if there be an express Command in Mat. 28.19 given by Christ to his Apostles to baptize fome Persons or other and there be no express Command by your own Confession in the New Testament to baptize Infants then Infants are not at all intended in this great Commission And I pray Sir tell me how it is then an Ordinance of God if it be no where commanded by him in his Word For baptism is a part of instituted Worship And you ought to shew the Institution or else forbear practising it any more I will now shew you what Grounds we have from Scripture for baptizing penitent Believers that are adult Persons able to give an account of their Faith And because Mr. Richard Baxter is an Author you so much esteem I shall give you his Arguments from Scripture for proof thereof in his Book called The second Disputation of Right to Sacraments p. 149 150. in these words upon this very Text Mat. 28.19 20. This is not like some occasional mention of Baptism but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples for Preaching and Baptizing and purposely expresseth their several works in their several Places and Orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The Second Work is to baptize them whereto is annex'd the promise of their Salvation The Third Work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of Faith even saving that must go before Baptism the profession whereof the Minister must expect Of which see what is to this purpose before cited by Calvin and Piscator which Words are mentioned by him p. 85. and are as follows Calvin upon Mat. 3.6 saith Therefore that Men may rightly offer themselves to Baptism Confession of Sins is required othewise the whole Action would be nothing else but Sport And Piscator upon Mark 1.4 saith It is called the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins because John preached the Remission of Sins to the Penitent Believers Mr. Baxter further saith p. 149. If there can be no Example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of a saving Faith nor any Precept for so doing then must we not baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequence To prove this Assertion he produces the several Examples in Scripture which he saith might afford us so many several Arguments but I shall put them together viz. First John as I have shewed you required the prosession of true Repentance and that his Baptism was for the Remission of Sin Secondly When Christ layeth down the Apostolical Commission the Nature and Order of the Apostles work is first to make them Disciples and then to baptize them That it was saving Faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them Acts 2.38 is plain in the Text. The Samaritans believed and had great Joy and were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ Acts 8.12 whereby it appeareth that the Understanding and Will were both changed And they had the profession of saving Faith yea even Simon himself ver 37. The Condition upon which the Eunnch must be baptized was If he believed with all his Heart which he professed to do and that was the Evidence Philip expected Paul was baptized after true Conversion Acts 9.18 The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized Acts 10.44 Lydia's Heart was opened before she was baptized and she was one the Apostles judged faithful to the Lord and offered to them the evidence of her Faith Acts 16.30 The Example also of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the Question in hand He first asketh What he shall do to be saved The Apostle answereth him Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy House So that it was a saving Faith that is here mentioned He rejoiced and believed with all his House and was baptized the
Scribes saw the wonderful things that he did and the Children crying in the Temple and saying Hosanna to the son of David they were sore displeased The word that is here translated Children is not the same word as in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if we may believe our Lexicographers they tell us that in this very Text Matt. 21.15 it signifies a Boy or young Maid sometimes a Son and sometimes a Servant And we have an Instance in Mark 5.39 40 41 42. of a young Maid of 12 years of Age where the same word is rendred Damsel And straight-way the Damsel arose and walked for she was of the Age of twelve years Now had not her Age been recorded no doubt but Mr. H. would have insisted upon it that she was a little sucking Child because it 's said in ver 23. my little daughter But to proceed they also tell us it 's taken for a Maid-servant a Bond-woman as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Gal 4.22 30. speaking of Hagar after the birth of Ishmael Cast out the Bond-woman and her son Now in this place it 's impossible to prove Hagar a little sucking have and therefore I suppose he will not attempt it I hope the Reader will observe how I came to bâ—â—â—â—d to the use of this word by Mr. H. But the Reason why he quoted it I know not unless he took it for granted because he found Children in the English Bible it must needs be the same word in Greek which he may now find to be a mistake But I shall proceed to consider his other Text 1 Cor. 7.14 In 1 Cor. 7.14 the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Children nor will this Text do him any Service to prove what he brings it for because it 's often used for persons of grown years John 1.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sons of God He cannot suppose these to be little sucking Babes for that they had actually received Christ and believed on his Name The learned Leigh in his Critiea Sacra saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberi often And besides what he saith upon John 1.12 He cites the use of it in Eph. 6.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is used there in the plural Number such as are begotten and born of them and being of the Neuter Gender doth include both Sexes Males and Females Sons and Daughters which agrees with those words Asts. 2.17 Your Sons and your Daughters shall prophesie Colos 3.20 Extenditur ad Filios Filias imò ad Nepotes It is extended to their Sons and Daughters yea as One hath it Nepotes vocant omnes posteros They call all their posterity by that name But not intending to use polixity in the handling of it take the plain words of my fore-named Author It is a general word which in Scripture and other writers is used to set forth all sorts of Children of what sex of what age of what degree soever they be To this I shall only add this brief Observation That those Exhortations spoken of in Eph. 6.1 and Colos 3.20 where it is written Châ—â—â—ren obey your Parents in the Lord c. must be intended such Children of grown years that were Members of the visible Church of Christ by Repentance Faith and Baptism because 't is such the Apostle directs his Epistles unto Eph. 1.1 To the saints which are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus And in Col. 1.2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Coloss Now these words cannot possibly be applied to little sucking Babes unto whom Mr. H. would have the use of the Word restrained Nay further where the Apostle John uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filioli little Children which is the Diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no less than eight times in his first Epistle as 1 John 2.1 12 28. and 3.4 7 18. and 4.4 and 5.21 yet in none of those places doth he intend little sucking Babes for there are such things required of them which such Infants are not able to perform for in Chap. 2.1 They are exhorted not to sin c. Ver. 18. They had heard that Antichrist should come Ver. 28. They are exhorted to abide in Christ Chap. 3.7 Little Children let no man deceive you Ver. 18. not to Love in word and tongue but in deed and in truth Ver. 4 and 5. he tells them they knew that Christ was manifested to take away their Sins Ye have overcome c. 5.21 little Children keep your selves from Idols Now it 's evident to the meanest Capacity that little sucking Children cannot do all these things here spoken of and therefore are not at all intended in any of those places Now had Mr. H found the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Asts 2.39 as he did the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how would he have swaggered with it But the Apostle Peter knew better how to express the Mind of God in that place than Mr. H. doth to understand it Prejudice having blinded his Eyes For his other Reason that he gives that it is a Repetition of the grand Promise Gen. 17.7 I have answered that already and therefore I had thought to have said no more to that but finding him to return again to it in page 26. I shall endeavour fully to clear the Point before I leave it His Words are these Now to return to Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your Children I will conclude saith he in the words of Holy Mr. Rutherford Break saith he the Text into an hundred pieces and blood it as men please this is the genuine Thesis which cannot be neglected viz. That those to whom the promise of the Covenant belongs those should be baptised But the promise of the Covenant is to you and to your Children therefore you and your Children ought to be baptised Mr. H. doth not insist upon it however I shall give this Answer thereunto If Mr. Rutherford intended such of their Children that were the called of God by Repentance Faith and Baptism then the gift of the Holy Spirit belonged to them as well as to their Parents But if he doth not it is a heap of words without Reason or Truth or any proper Signification For here is by him neither Promise nor Covenant nor any thing plainly exprest For the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith is thus rendred a Covenant or mutual Paction so called from the Choice made of the Persons and Conditions in a Covenant Robertson's second Gate And as the learned Leigh in his Critica sacra saith Berith is Fadus pactum and quotes Ainsworth and Buxtorf for his Authority Quod â—â—â—us est ut Aben Ezra scribit mutuus consensus duorum super aliquare That a Covenant as Aben Ezra writes is a mutual Consent of two upon any matter And he further saith it signifieth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Compact or
Covenant made between parties as Aquila translateth it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testiment or disposition of ones last Will as the word is used by the Apostle Heb. 9.15 And the learned Dr. Coxe in his discourse of the Covenants pag. 5. saith Covenant relation to God and interest in him doth not immediately result from the proposal of a Covenant and terms of Covenant relation to man but it is by restipulation that he actually enters into Covenant with God and becomes an interressed party in the Covenant it is a mutual Consent of the parties in Covenant that states and compleats a Covenant-relation and this is called an avouching of the Lord to be their God by consent to the terms of a Covenant proposed to them It includes mutual ingagement But what Rutherford saith is not at all agreeable to the nature of Man's entring into Covenant with God under the Gospel because the Subjects he speaks of viz. Little Infants are not capable of understanding much less of giving themselves up to God in baptism in the way of a Covenant Engagement And I remember a saying of Mr. Richard Baxter in a Sermon I heard him preach some years agoe which is as follows It was the practice of the Church generally for the first five hundred years not to admit any to Baptism but such that did first make a publick profession of their Faith before the Church But for as much as the Church hath alter'd the time of Baptism and doth administer it to such that are not capable to make such a profession of their Faith were I a Pastor of a particular Congregation I would admit none to the Lord's Supper but such who should first make a publick profession of their Faith before the Church for we ought to avouch the Lord to be our God Now by what Mr. Harrison saith in his Book concerning Mr. Baxter I take him to be of that sort of Presbiterians which are called Baxterians And if he will abide by the sentence of his Master then Infants can make no restipulation and so not be actually in the Covenant For they cannot avouch the Lord to be their God and consequently can have no right to Baptism by vertue of the Covenant if they are not actually in it But further Mr. H. saith If this displease we will stand by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame upon the Text viz. That they who have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they also have a right to be baptized by the word of Command But the Infants of Believing Parents have a right to be baptized by the word of promise therefore they have a right by the word of Command Who this Mr. Stephens is I neither know nor care but this I know that his Argument is nothing to the purpose he brings it for For 1. He doth not toll us what this word of promise is Nor 2. Where it is written And therefore we are at as great a loss as before But if there be any consistence betwixt Mr. H. and him it is in Acts 2.39 and if he reads the Text but once more without Mr. Stephens his Spectacles he will not find any promise there that Infants shall be baptized I may with far better Authority argue thus If there be no Command in all the Scripture that Infants should be baptized nor any promise of any blessing to them in being baptized then they have no right to be baptized But there is no Command in all the Scripture that Infants should be baptized nor any Promise of any blessing to them in being baptized Ergo They have no right to be baptized The major is undeniable the minor is proved from that universal silence throughout the whole Book of God there â—ot being the least word spoken concerning it either directly or indirectly of any such command or promise And yet for all this Mr. H. according to his usual way of ludere sacra trifling and fooling with Holy Things saith He hath now answered our desire here is both a word of Command and a word of Promise But it is in his Friend Stephens his Argument and not in the Holy Scripture But seeing he hath promised he will stand by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame we have reason to conclude he values it above any thing that can be said to the contrary tho' never so plain evidence be given him from the Holy Scriptures But if it were not the gain of filthy lucre that incited him thereto perhaps he might as well change his mind about that as he hath done about some other things when he left a small Benefice under Episcopacy to get a better Livelyhood under the form of Presbytery I have said enough to this of the Covenant to satisfie any man that is willing to receive satisfaction either from Scripture or the reason of the thing But if neither of those will prevail we must leave such to stand and fall to their own Masters For all the benefit we can expect from the best of means where it is willfully rejected is that they will still persevere in their old practises contradicting and blaspheming the way of the Gospel as the Jews did in opposition to the Apostles Doctrine to their own Destruction CHAP. V. Shewing that the right manner how Baptism ought to be administred is by Dipping Plunging or Overwhelming the whole Body of the Person baptized under Water And that it is not by sprinkling or otherwise applying Water to the Person baptized as Mr. Harrison saith MR. H. tells us The Anabaptists confidently affirm the right manner is dipping the whole body under water and say they if not so performed is no baptism at all Answ There are many who do thus affirm and that truly but that the Anabaptists do so I know not for I do not know of any Anabaptist in the World If he means those that do baptize believers upon profession of Faith they cannot be called Anabaptists because they do not baptize any who were before baptized and I hope he is so good a Master of the Word himself uses as to know the Etymology thereof For the word Ana signifies again and we do not baptize any that were baptized before And indeed it 's neither like a Man much less a Scholar to beg the Question but to prove it Besides he knows we deny sprinkling to be Baptism and till he hath proved himself or any of those he sprinkles to be baptized he hath no reason to call us Anabaptists Now for dipping in Baptism saith he they plead 1. That the Greek Word signifies to Dip. 2. The manner of baptizing in the primitive times was by dipping 3. John's baptizing at Aenon 4. The word Burial being buried in Baptism Answer A man would suppose that this plea were good but it seems not pleasing to Mr. Harrison For 1. He saith we say the word baptizing in Greek signifies to be Dipped They say to baptize in English is to dip And what
So that the main design of the Apostle among other Mercies of God bestowed upon that People is to commemorate that great and wonderful deliverance at the Red Sea and then to shew us what an ungrateful People they were thus to sin against him and to cause him for their sins to destroy them in the Wilderness And if this be the Scope of the place as I believe it is that so we might be warned by their fall to avoid falling into Apostacy against God as they did and had our translators so rendred the word as it imports in our English Tongue no Man would ever have dreamt of an Ordinance of Baptism from this Text. If notwithstanding all that I have said upon the Text Mr. H. will still insist upon it that it was a Baptism and that by sprinkling I shall oppose thereto the Dutch Translators to shew him their Opinion to the contrary who being Presbyterians their words may possibly have the greater force upon his Understanding They read it thus Ende alle in Mosen gedoopt Zin And they were all dipt unto Moses So that you may see the Learned Men in Holland of his own perswasion do directly contradict what he saith I will only offer one Consideration more and so pass it viz. That by the same Argument that in the word all their Infants were included their Cattle were included also for they all passed under the Cloud and thro' the Sea as well as their Little Ones for it is written Exod 10.26 Our Cattle also shall go with us there shall not a hoof be lest behind And altho' the Papists are for baptizing of Bells I hope Mr. H. will not be also for baptizing of Cattle even the Beasts of the field But let him avoid the consequence if he can in case it be not restrained to the Fathers as in the Text. The next thing Mr. H. insists upon is That there are three sorts of Baptism that of Water that of the Spirit and that of Afflictions to which I concede And whereas he saith it 's expressed by one Greek Word I do also agree but that those three as he saith are but one Baptism that I deny He is the first that I ever knew affirm it But pray Sir consider what you say Is Water the Spirit and Fire Is Affliction the Spirit or Water Affliction or Fire Water Take it which way you will I believe you will find it attended with difficulties Indeed Sir it 's one of the most intricate Metaphors that you have yet sported your self with in your whole Book and if you understand it no better than I do you might have forbore to acquaint the World with the conceited fineness of the thought But Sir I suppose I may have the same liberty to give you my thoughts as you had to impart yours The Text you have brought to prove that these three Baptisms are but one and exprest by one word is Eph. 4.5 One Lord one Faith one Baptism How this proves that those three Baptisms are but one Baptism I see not Sir you are very unhappy in one thing to lay down Assertions and when you come to prove it you urge such Texts that do not conclude the thing in Question but altho' this doth not prove three to be one and so afford us a new sort of Trinity I will not be so ungentile as not to give you my thoughts upon the Text before I pass it There is a threefold Baptism spoken of in the New Testament viz. That of Water that of Affliction and that of the Spirit and yet the Apostle here speaks after this manner one Baptism as there is one Lord one God c. Now my thoughts are these That it is water-Water-baptism only that is here intended And my Reason is this because to speak properly there is no other real baptism for the other two are figurative and metaphorical But besides The Apostle is there speaking of those Believers as incorporated into one body and as having been called into one hope of their calling having Christ for their one Lord and one Faith to unite them to this one Lord and one Baptism to make them visible Members of this one body the Church which Mr. H. owns to be an initiating Ordinance and God as their one common Father to supply all their wants and that these Persons that were members of this Church were baptized with water upon believing you may see Acts 19. beginning And this seems to me the most probable sense of those words One Baptism Now that it is a real Baptism is evident For as the word signifies to dip plunge or overwhelm them in the water and as it signifies the Burial and Resurrection of Christ so in respect of the thing done it 's a real act for that every person who is truly baptized as I have shewed above is plunged into the water and also raised up again out of the water the thing is really performed But that of Affliction is only metaphorical alluding to this of water as likewise also that of the Spirit and of Fire But perhaps Mr. H. may imagine that to be the Baptism of Affliction which is not and therefore let us hear what he saith about it As to the Baptism of Affliction saith he some soffer more some less some suffer lighter crosses as Mocks c. some loss of goods and liberty others Death when he hath said this he then delivers his Opinion about it in these words Now he that suffers least for Christ in a Christian manner doth as truly partake of the Baptism of Afflictions as he that suffers most Now suppose I deny this as I must how doth he prove it why he quotes no Text here but in the foregoing page Mark 10.39 Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of and with the baptism that I am baptized withall shall ye be baptized That this is the Baptism of Affliction I own We must now enquire what this hath a principal respect unto for there is something more than common intended in these words In Luke 12.50 our Saviour saith I have a Baptism to be baptized withall and how am I strained till it be accomplished Now this can be no other than that Death and bitter Agony he was to undergo for our sins that he might bring us to Glory And by his prediction to his Disciples in Mark 10.39 he foretold their deaths also for his sake Now as a Person that is baptized in water is overwhelmed therewith even so that bitter Agony our Lord endured in the Garden and upon the Cross when his Soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death before wicked men had so much as laid their hands upon him it pleased the Lord so to bruise him and put him to grief that his sweat was as it were drops or clotters of blood falling down to the ground And when he was upon the Cross how did he cry out by reason of that sorrow that overwhelm'd his Soul
preaching to hear him tell them Beloved If your Children dye in their Infancy unless they are elected I can assure you they shall go to Hell and be punished there to all Eternity for that they could never help God hath so ordered it by his Secret Decree unknown to me and all the World Do you think God ever sent him of this Message Especially when he tells you in his Book he knows not who belongs to the Election of Grace Now Mr. H. might have been truly inform'd of this matter if he had minded what Mr. Collins told him in page 35. of his Book in answer to Mr. Mence and him That one of the first Arguments of the Church of Rome for Infant-Baptism is which I suppose is Mr. Harrison's also if he knows what he is talking of that it washes away Original Sin We can saith Mr. H. Collins tell you of a better way of washing away Original Sin namely by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Infants dying in Infancy Add to this what Mr. Claridge saith in his Epistle to the same Book And here I would inform all the Readers of Mr. Mence's Book that whereas he charges Mr. Collins for maintaining Infant-damning Doctrine it is altogether a mistake for Mr. Collins is rather inclined to think That all dying Infants are saved by the imputed Righteousness of Christ Notwithstanding all this and much more that hath been said before upon this Subject he still goes on in his confident way of writing and saith he will prove That all by Birth or Nature are by the sin of Adam liable to the condemnation of Hell by plain Scripture He is a bold man at asserting but he commonly fails in his Proof Let us now examine those Scriptures he alledges for probation of this confident assertion Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Now this was the threatning but in Gen. 3.17 18 19. we have the Sentence denounced against Adam by God himself which serves to explain the former threatning to be only the first Death with its Concomitants Cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life Thorns also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee and thou shalt eat the Herb of the field In the sweat of thy Face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground for out of it wast thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return Here you see that what is called Death in the threatning is called returning to the Ground and unto Dust in the Sentence but not one word of punishment in Hell so much as intimated therein As for the other Texts he mentions they are no proofs of what he brings them for and therefore I shall pass them and proceed to his three Arguments Argu. 1. If Children need Regeneration and a Second Birth before they can go to Heaven then they are liable to Eternal as well as Temporal Death But Children do need Regeneration therefore c. John 3.3 5. Except a man be born again c. Now it 's plain Nicodemus understood our Saviour in this sence by his answer viz. not of Children newly born but of adult Persons for he saith How can a man be born when he is old But to answer directly to his Argument I deny his Minor and say they do not need Regeneration and a second Birth in the Sence there intended before they can go to Heaven and if they did they were in a bad Case indeed for they are not capable either of Repentance or Faith both which are comprehended in those words Except a Man be born again Thus you see when he should have brought a Text to have proved Infants must be born again this only proves that a Person of grown years a Man must be born again Let him not imagine that I feign an Interpretation of my own for Mr. Firmin a great Pedo-baptist saith They must be regenerate they must have Faith c. They who are regenerated have Faith and Repentance all saved Infants are regenerated therefore they have Faith and Repentance they must be born of Water and of the Spirit according to John 3.6 else there is no Heaven for them Now that God does cleanse dying Infants from all Impurity and fits them for Heaven I readily grant But this Regeneration they talk of from this Text and apply to Infants I positively deny And certain I am if he had read those Quotations upon that Argument given by Mr. Claridge he might have been sensible of this his Error before he had wrote this his 2d part Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question saith Dr. Taylor to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove which is the very case of Mr. Harrison when he hath denyed them to have either personal and actual or habitual Faith he concludes thus This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the men are to be excused unless there were a better And again we desire saith he no more advantage in the World against such men than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason Common-sence and all the Experience in the World Dr. Taylor 's Liberty of Prophecy page 240 242. Mr. H's 2d Argum. is this If Infants are not liable to the damnation of Hell for Adam's sin then they may be saved without Christ by vertue of the Covenant of Works But c. This is a strange Assertion What can Infants be saved by Works that are wholly uncapable to Perform any this is meer trifling But I shall deny the Consequence of his Major For If Infants by virtue of Adam's sin must return to the dust and cannot raise themselves to life again but must have remained in that state for ever unless Christ had come in the flesh dyed and rose again and by vertue of his Resurrection raised them again by his mighty Power then it had been impossible for them to have been saved So that it 's a Non-sequitor for altho' they are not condemned to eternal Punishment in Hell yet there is a necessity for them to be saved by Christ if ever they get to Heaven But besides this they stand in need of Christ to purifie their Natures from Original Corruption as I have shewed above His 3d. Argu. is this Such as are by Nature Children of Wrath are liable to the Condemnation of Hell but all are so therefore Infants Eph. 2.1 2 3. Answ In this he hath dealt very unfairly and neither like a Gentleman nor a Scholar for his Argument is not in due form For 1. Infants are no where expressed but in the Conclusion 2. He hath put the word all into the Minor tho' he hath not told us what all he means And in the major it 's only such as are c. I suppose he would have framed a Categorical Syilogism if
he had known how and then it should have run thus All such as are by Nature Children of Wrath are liable to the Condemnation of Hell All Infants are by Nature Children of Wrath Ergo All Infants are liable to the Condemnation of Hell which is the thing I suppose he meant And then I deny his minor Proposition and let him prove it if he can As for his Text he brings for probation thereof I deny that Infants are either expressed or intended therein For the design of the Apostle in that place is to set before them what a miserable condition they had been in before Conversion by their own personal transgressions viz. Dead in trespasses and sins who in times past walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the Air the Spirit that now worketh in the Children of Disobedience Among whom also we all had our Conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh fulfiling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature i. e. by the corrupt and fleshly Inclinations that were within us Children of wrath even as others Meaning thereby other Gentiles who were still in an unregenerate Estate wallowing in their Iniquities So that as Infants are not here exprest neither can they be intended as being free from all personal transgressions and not capable to transact those Evils there spoken of I shall now offer some Reasons why I do not believe that any Infants dying in their Infancy shall be tormented for ever in Hell-fire 1. Because there is no such thing exprest either in the Threatning or Sentence Gen. 2.17 Gen. 3.17 18 19. as I have already shewed 2. Because God himself hath disclaimed such an Opinion as Erroneous and declared the contrary Ezek. 18.2 3 4 20. 1. Hear what the first Founder of your Sect from whence you have your denomination viz. John Calvin saith upon this Subject speaking of all others besides the Elect so many Nations of Men together with their Infants were involved without remedy in eternal punishment by the fall of Adam for no imaginable reason but that so it seemed good in the sight of God Calvin's Instit l. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 7. 2. Hear what God saith in the fore-mentioned place The soul that sinneth shall dye the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father this must intend eternal punishment for as to temporal punishment Children do often suffer for their Fathers faults and we all suffer for the fault of Adam both temporal Miseries and Death it self But whereas these People of Israel had such a blind Notion as that of Mr. H. That the Fathers had eaten sowre grapes and the Childrens Teeth were set on edge God tells them As I live saith the Lord God ye shall not have occasion any more to use this Proverb in Israel for the Son shall not bear the Fathers iniquity the soul that sinneth it shall dye 3. Because the Lord who best knew hath declared that Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 4. I will add to these the Opinion of the Learned Poole that he would rather believe that all Infants dying in their Infancy were elected than conclude that any of them were damned and his reason was because as no man knew the contrary so they ought not to affirm what they did not know But I suppose Mr. Poole must be a blasphemous Heretick in Mr. H's Opinion as well as the poor Anabaptists But it 's our mercy he is not to be our Judge in the Great Day The 2d Heresie or Error this man of might charges us with is 2. That Christ dyed alike for all men and that all Persons in the World c. This doth necessarily divide it self into two General Parts 1. That Christ dyed alike for all men 2. That all Persons in the World are by the Death of Christ put into a Capacity of Salvation I shall answer to both of them distinctly 1. That Christ dyed for all men I do with the Pen-men of the Holy Scripture affirm and that it 's a great and fundamental Truth this appears from these following positive assertions 1 Tim. 2.6 He gave himself a ransom for all 2 Cor. 5.14 15. He dyed for all Heb. 2.9 He tasted death for every man 1 Tim. 4.10 Who is the Saviour of all men 1 John 2.2 He is a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world So that to deny this is to deny the very express words of Scripture And therefore Mr. Harrison being aware of this hath owned it to be true in some sence but not content with this he puts in the word alike thinking to puzzle us with that and lays down some Arguments to prove he did not dye for all alike and thinks we are obliged to prove it I answer It 's an Unscriptural term a man of Straw of his own setting up for in all our Confessions of Faith that I remember to have been published there is not the word alike to be found in any of them As for that last he refers to printed 1691. the words are these Article 3. That Christ freely gave himself a ransom for all tasting death for every man a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole World So that the word alike is not by them inserted And it being a term of Art of his own Coyning I return it to the mint from whence it came The Question therefore betwixt us is this not whether Christ dyed for all men for that he owns but whether all persons in the World are by the death of Christ put into a capacity of Salvation This he denyes and we affirm Article 4. Of the aforesaid Confession of the Baptists they have these express words No man shall eternally suffer in Hell that is the second death for want of Christ that dyed for them but as the Scripture saith for denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2.1 or because they believe not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God John 3.18 Unbelief therefore being the cause why the just and righteous God will condemn the Children of Men it follows against all contradiction that all men at one time or other are put into such a capacity as that through the Grace of God they may be eternally saved 1. The Scriptures of Truth do affirm this in as plain words as a matter of this kind can well be exprest John 3.14 15 16 17. here is set down the design of God in the Gift of Christ for the World 1. Negatively that they should not perish that God sent not his Son to condemn the World 2. Affirmatively That whosoever believeth in him should have eternal life and everlasting life and that the World through him might be saved And in 1 Tim. 2.4 speaking of God our Saviour he saith who will have all men to be