some things in one peculiar to his Spiritual Seed that no ways related to his Carnal Seed as such which proved the Covenant contained in promise to be distinct page 15 16. and some things in the other that belonged to his Natural Seed that appertains not to his Spiritual Seed as such of which this Man takes no notice I begin there with those things that belonged to Abrahams Natural Seed as such as peculiar to them 1. The first that I Name is That of Gods multiplying his Seed by Isaac 2. The Birth of Isaac by Sarah Abraham s Wife Gen. 17. 16 19. 3. The continuation of his Covenant with all that should proceed from Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 17. 6. 4. The coming of Christ out of Isaac according to the Flesh. 5. The bringing the Natural Seed of Abraham by Isaac out of Egypt 6. The promise of giving his Natural Seed the Land of Canaan for their Possession Now can any of these things concern or belong to Abrahamâ— Spiritual Seed as such that is do they concern us Gentiles who do believe Observe also that as these things peculiarly appertained to his Natural Seed as such so Circumcision is expresly called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. Thou shalt keep my Covenant every Man Child among you shall be Circumcised verse 10. And ye shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore Skins and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you verse 8. And I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan c. so Gen. 15. 8. Now this Covenant and these promises I affirmed cannot belong to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as such page 16. therefore a Covenant of peculiarity to which he hath given no answer Secondly I have shewed also what those things are that are Peculiar to the Covenant of Grace and so to Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such which Covenant only was by promise not a formal Covenant like the other viz. that of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7. 1. See Gen. 15. 5. Look towards Heaven tell the Stars if thou art able to Number them and he said unto him so shall thy Seed be and he believed in the Lord and it was counted to him for Righteousness This was not in the Covenant of Circumcision and referrs to Abrahamâ— numerous Spiritual Seed 2. So again I have made thee a Father of many Nations meaning Gentile Believers as divers Expositors shew 3. In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed Gen. 12. 3. Gen. 18. 18. Gen. 22. 18. I cited the Apostles words Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached the Gospel to Abraham saying in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed 'T is remarkable the Holy Ghost does not here refer to the Covenant of Circumcision Gen 17. 7 8 9 10. But to the free promise of the Covenant of Grace which Paul says positively Abraham received not in Circumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Now I desire it may be well considered by all Christians that the Covenant of Grace was only by promise and no Formal Covenant with any of the Saints under the Old Testament thus the Covenant of Grace run to Adam to Abraham to David c. 11 12. only by promise not a Covenant where there was a mutual restipulation between God and his Elect ones As in the Covenant of Circumcision there was between God and Abraham in respect of his Carnal Seed this Dr. Owen asserts also on Heb. 8. 6. page 227. When God renewed saith he the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his Loyns but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise 1. It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged to it 2. This was wanting saith he the Spring Rule and Measure of all the Worship of the Church this does belong to every Covenant properly so called that God makes with his Church that it be the entire Rule of all the Worship that God requires of it which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament thus Dr. Owen This is further confirmed by those expressions Jer. 31. 31. I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel c. clearly intimating he had not so made it before with any except it was with Christ as our Head Representive and Mediator with whom it was made for us and in him with us before the Foundation of the World Tit. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 9. Object Does not David say God had made with him an everlasting Covenant c. Answer I answer David was a Type of Christ Psalm 89 28 34 35. with whom the Covenant of Grace was made before the World began this therefore refers to the true David who was only able to answer the Condition agreed upon between the Father and himself as Mediator For the Covenant of Peace was between them both Zech. 6. 13. For unto us the Covenant of Grace is not a Conditional but an Absolute Covenant I will be their God and they shall be my People c. To Adam the promise runs The Seed of the Woman shall Bruise the Sepents Head c. To Abraham In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed In both places it contained only a gracious promise To Abraham and to his Seed the promise was made it is not said Covenant therefore when I say God made a Twofold Covenant with Abraham I mean that there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant Transactings of God with him one a Formal Covenant with him and his Carnal Seed which contained a Covenant upon mutual restipulation which was the Covenant of Circumcision which Abraham and his Carnal Seed subscribed to the other a free promise or Covenant of Grace to him and all is true Spiritual Seed which is confirmed by Christs Blood and which believers consent to and enter into when Baptized upon the profession of their Faith in Gospel days tho' I deny not but that they have actual interest in it as soon as they have Union with Christ or do believe in him Moreover it was through Faith only in the free promise of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace that all the faithful were justified and saved who lived under the old Testament tho' the Covenant it self was not then formerly a Covenant with them it being not Ratified nor confirmed by the Blood of Christ or Death of the Testator nor could it so be till the
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-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
had no better Counsel or followed no better Conduct at such an hour as this is it sure concerns us all to study the things that make for Peace and that by which we may edifie one another the Breach is too wide already O what want of Love is there in Christians to each other who are all Members of the Mystical Body of Christ and Children of one Father and Heirs of the same glorious Inheritance Sure we shall love one another when we come to Heaven and I hope His Reverend Pastor whom I have more cause both to love and honour than ten thousand Instructors in Christ he being the blessed Instrument in my Conversion all most forty Years ago gave no Encouragement to him thus to write and abuse his Brethren I would he had consider'd the Text He that hateth his Brother is in Darkness Joh. 2. 11. For my part I hope I can say I love them in whom I see the Image of God that differ from me in the like degree as those of mine own Opinion I am persuaded the want of Love to one another is one of the greatest Sins of this Age and that which is a high Provocation to God and if that which this Man hath done is a fruit of Love or tends to promote it I am mistaken True I have may be wrote as much of late as another on the Subject of Baptism but never without Provocation by means of divers Persons who have of late times wrote against us I have not begun the Controversie but have still been on the defensive Side nor can any justly blame us to clear our selves and defend that which we believe to be the Truth of Christ when urged to it As to his Answer to Mr. Collins he hath said something 't is true to one or two of his Arguments but the rest he has passed by in silence and left the chief Argumentive part in a great measure unanswered And as to his Reply to me I cannot see he hath said any thing that deserveth my notice at all but lest the easie unwary and prejudiced Reader should conclude he hath done Wonders should we aot return an Answer I have examined the stress of all that seems Argumentive which contains but a small part of his Book and having studied Moderation and Tenderness I hope it may tend to allay and quench the Fire of his Passion and bring him to a more moderate Temper However I shall leave it to the Blessing of God to dispose of the Issue of it as he shall seem good in his all-wise Providence and to help the Reader I have divided his Book into Chapters in my Answer and since he begins with the form or manner of baptizing there I shall begin also CHAP. I. Wherein it is proved That Baptism is not Sprinkling nor Pouring of Water on the Face nor Dipping of the Head only But that it is Dipping or Plunging of the whole Body under Water I Shall begin with Mr. Sbute's Fifth Page and shall shew him that he hath not yet buried Mr. Collins his answer but that it is still alive and as lively as it was before his pretended Answer came forth In pag. 6. he râ—cited what Mr. Cobins mentioned in the 2d page of his Reply to his Antidote viz. where Mr. Cobins says The right mode of Baptism is by Dipping To which Mr. Shute saith in p. 5. I think there is more to be said for Sprinkling or Pouring Water on the Face in Baptism than there is for Dipping or Ducking over Head and Ears in a River or Pond For the latter is more like a Punishment of Criminals than the Solemnizing of an Ordinance of God pray hear what the Scripture saith of Sprinkling and of Pouring Water upon Sinners to cleanse them Heb 12. 24 And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant and to the Blood of Sprinkling c. â— Pet. 1. 2. Elect according to the Foreknowledge of God the Father through Sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience and Sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ. And Isa. 44 3. For I will pour Water upon him that is thirsty and Fâ—oods upon the dry Ground I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessings upon thine Off-spring Ez â— 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clâ—an Water upon you and ye shall be clâ—an from all your Filthiness and from all your â—â—ols wâ—â— I cleanse you Edâ—d 2â— 8. Here you see say you we do not read of Dipping nor Ducking in all those spiritual Metaphorical Baptisms which are all nearly reâ—ued unto the Ordinance of Baptism and tâ—nâ— to the fam thing but more effectually and perfectly and are accompanied with the same Promises namely the Remission of Sins Sanctification by the Spirit and the Gift of the Holy Ghost compared with Acts 2. 38 39. Answer 1. You might have added many other Places of Scripture where we read of Sprinkling But what would it signify the Sprinkling and Pouring mentioned in these Scriptures refer not to Water Baptism Read your learned Annotators and Expositors and you will find they agree as one Man That Sprinkling and Pouring of Water in Isaiah and Ezekiel c. do refer to the graci us Effusion of the Spirit in the Times of the Gospel and to the Purifying and Purging Vertue of the Blood of Christ and so that in Heb. 12 24. is to be understood you should not only say but prove Baptism to be here intended and then yoù had said something 2. Should the Sprinkling or Pouring in these Scriptures be meant of Baptism then it would follow that Baptism has mighty Vertue in it indeed even to wash away all Sin and Filthiness I thought nothing could cleanse from Sin out Christ's precious blood as it is applyed by the Spirit through Faith Baptism Peter tells you washes not away the Filthiness of the Flesh. Not the putting away of the Filthiness of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3. 20. 3. If you should say Baptism is chiefly a Sign or lively Symbol of our being sprinkled with the Spirit or with the Blood of Jesus Christ we do deny it You have not attempted to prove it 't is evident Baptism is principally a Sign or Symbol of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection see Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. compared with this in 1 Pet. 3. 20. which Sprinkling or Pouring cannot hold forth 4. But you intimate That these Spiritual Metaphorical Baptisms are nearly related to the Ordinance of Baptism I answer by pouring Floods of Water or by the great Effusion of the Spirit I deny not but the Baptism of the Spirit may be held forth and the Baptism of the Spirit signifies Immersion Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost c. Acts 1. 5. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon Is to Dip or Plunge in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be said to have been Baptized
Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the External ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watry Grave a new creature Moreover unto these let me add what Dr. Tillotson the present Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote see his Book stiled Sermons on several occasions 5th Edit Page 188 189. Speaking also of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were Baptised put off their garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signifie their entrance upon a new Life And to these customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death c. Dr Duveil on Act. 8. Page 292 293. cites a most learned Anonimous French Protestant Writer in his answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux speaking thus viz. 't is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been Administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this sprinkling is an abuse thus custom which without any accurate examination saith he they retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its institution and ancient use and that nearness of similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith repentance and resurrection This reflection of Mr. Bâ—ssuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Romish Church Calvin also saith l. 4. c. 16. that Baptism is a form or way of burial and none but such as are already dead to sin or have repented from dead works are to be buried But now say we sprinkling and pouring is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial nor can Infants be the subjects of it because as the learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future regeneration 't is an outward sign of that Death unto sin which the party Baptised passed under then or ought to have had before Baptis'd they then professed themselves to be Dead to sin i. e. when they were Buried with Christ in their Baptism for the argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are Dead to sin live any longer therein know you not that so many of us who were Baptized into Christ were Baptized into his Death both in sign and signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says they rise out of that watry Grave as new born Creatures it denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and arguments drawn there from utterly condemn sprinkling and pouring as that which is not Christs true Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the true subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that Watry Grave as new born Creatures I will only quote one Author more and proceed and that is learned Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. There are saith he two parts in regeneration i. e. Mortification and Vivification that is called a burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ the Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are Baptised that they are buried wich Christ and raised with him but only of such who have true faith Thus Zanchy Now Sir see what a stir and pudder as you call it these Pedo-Paptists make on this Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. to prove Baptism is Dipping or a figure of a burial Would you not have us give the true sense of the Word wherein we concur with all learned Men I hope by this time Reader thou art fully satisfied that this Man hath said nothing to weaken our Arguments or Grounds for Dipping tho' ' twice as much we have said on this Account in that Treatise called The Rector Rectified but this shall suffice here as to the Mode of Baptizing CHAP. II. Wherein Mr. Shutes Reply to Mr. Hercules Collins Answer about habitual Faith is considered detected and clearly refuted proving that Infants are not required to believe nor are they without a miracle capable so to do nor are they intended in those places of Scripture that Enjoyns Faith on the Adult BEfore I proceed to take notice of what this Man hath said about Infants having habitual Faith I shall note two or three things by the Way 1. 'T is very remarkable and worthy the Readers observation to see how the asserters of Infant Baptism differ among themselves about that Faith they suppose to be in Infants for as I noted in by Answer to Mr. Smythies Cold resined Page 144 some of them as Thomas Aquinas asserts They have the Faith of the Church that being intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof others say they have the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties thus the Church of England c. Musculus seems to assert they have an Imputed Faith Mr. Blake intimates They have a Dogmatical Faith only Mr. Baxter would have it be a saving Faith but does not tell us how it agrees or differs from the Faith of the Adult some as Mr. Danvers observes say 'T is a Physical some a Metaphysical Faith some a hyperphysical Faith Some say They are born Believers which proceeds from their Patents being in the Covenant and being Believers but this is to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation nay and to assert all are not Children of Wrath by nature or as they are born and come into the World others say They are made Believers by Baptism that Ordinance conveying grace as Mr. Rothwell This Man asserts they have habitual Faith the like do the Athenian Society seem to intimate But which of all these shall we give credit to The Truth is they all speak without Book having no ground from Gods word to say what they do 2. We desire it may be considered and carefully heeded lest we still are abused as Mr. Collins hath been that we stedfastly believe and readlly grant it as an Article of our Faith That all Infants are under the Guilt and stain of original Sin as they come into the World and that no Infant can be saved but through the Blood and Imputation of Christs righteousness And also we do believe That all those dying Infants who are â—aved God doth in some way or
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
Scriptures Yet he has not made either of these things to appear In the said 5 Page he saith here thou hast the Cavils of the adversary Answered In Page 42. Because Mr. Collins saith that the habit of Faith if it be in all Infants of believers it cannot be lost there being no losing the habits of Grace c. Mr. Shute says this Gentleman meaning Mr. Collins doth as little Boyes that make a thing of Rags in Imitation of a Cock and when they have set it up throw at it But gives no other Answer as appears to me than by denying that he asserted all Infants of believers have habitual Faith yet 't is from that Topick he seems to plead for the Baptising of all believers Infants In Page 46. he says Mr. Collins is troubled with a grumbling in his gizzard Are those comely expressions He says in Page 57. that Mr. Collins is pleased to mock at habitual Faith because he compares Faith Potential and habitual Faith in the Infants of believers as such with Transubstantiation c. He renders me worse then the Devil Page 116. The Devil left out part of a Scripture once to tempt our Saviour with but in my weak Judgment saith Mr. Shute this Author had done it three times successively to maintain this error c. the better to beguile and deceive poor ignorant bigotted Souls c. The Lord knows I did not leave out part of the Text at any time to avoid answering their objection or to favour our cause But quoted then what was to the purpose in Hand And that objection I designed to answer afterwards as I did in the second part in order As the Reader may see that hath the Book In Page 82. he saith speaking of Mr. Collins was there ever such Legerdemain played with the Sacred Scripture In Page 23. he speaking to Mr. Collins crys out O for shame cease from bringing your Carnal reason c. Whereas 't is he himself that infers false conclusions from Mr. Collins words and then cries out O for shame Page 24. Where are you now with your humane invented Lame Decrepit Salvation c. Are not these Unchristian Reflections Resides he had no ground given him thus to abuse Mr. Collins as if his Salvation was lame and decrepid In Page 56. he abuses Mr. Danverse who is dead who was cleared by several Learned Ministers upon the answer of an Appeal of his Adversaries Mr. Shâ—â—â—s's abusive and false Representations of us and false Interpretation of several places of Holy Scripture and Gods Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in the Name c. FIrst in Page 6 he calls Dipping Ducking and the like in several other places as iâ— we had Believers to a 〈◊〉 when we Baptise â—â—â—m And again to viliâ—â—â— that Holy Ordinance in the same 6 Page he says Dipping is more like a punishment of criminals than the 〈◊〉 of an Ordinance of God Yet Dipping was generally owned by all Pedo-Baptists formerly and by many of late In Page 7 he says The Jaylor and his House were Baptized the same hâ—ur of the Night whereas the Text only says he washed their Sâ—ripes the same hour of the Night and was Baptized he and all his straight way Act. 16. 33. In Page 7. he says They were all Baptized in the Jaylers House which is a palpable abuse of the Text that they did not go out of his House to a River Yet the Text clearly intimates Act 16. 34. that after they were Baptized he that is the Jaylor brought them into his House Doth not that imply they went out of it And it might be to a River as far as he knows He also says That we read not of one Soul of the Jaylors House that did believe before Baptized besides the Jaylor himself Whereas we read that all his House believed as well as himself and as soon too as we read of the Jaylors own Faith so that he may as well say the Jaylor did not believe himself before he was Baptized as so to affirm concerning his House He says Page 11. John Baptiâ—â— Baptized all that came unto him yet the Text clearly Implies he rejected the Pharisees and Sadducees bidding them to bring forth Fruits meet for repentance He asserts in Page 33. that those little Children our Saviour saith did believe on him were little Infants calling them Infant Believers He vilifies Mr. Collins for leaving out in his quotations a word in one or two Texts of scripture whereas he destroys not the Sense of the Texts by so doing nor done to favour his own â—â—tion as that in Isa. 44. 3. where his Seed 〈◊〉 put for thy Seed and that in Acts 2. 39. Nor doth he wrong his Antagonist in the least and therefare no cause of complaint But palpable 't is Mr Shutes abuses that Text greatly Act 2. 39. for the promise is to you and to your Children and to all that are afâ—r off even so many as the Lord our God shall call Now see this Mans exposition of these worth in Page 71. viz. That was to all the Elect Gentiles and their Children for the promise runs in the same Channel to the Gentiles and their Children in the Text without any variation as is â—id to the Jews and their Children Answer If he had said to the Elect Gentiles and to their Children or off-spring also that are elected and called then he had not wronged the Text for the promise that is that of remission of Sâ—n and of the Holy Ghost which runs first to the Jews that are called and to their Children or Off-spring that are called and so in like manner also unto the Gentiles that are called and to their Off spring that shall be called not to the Jews and their Children as such i. e. whether Effectually called or not but to no more of the Jews nor Gentiles themselves nor their Children but even so many as the Lord our God shall call Dr. Hammond confessed this Text is to little purpose brought to prove Infant Baptism Seeing by Children is meant off-spring and refers not to Infants as such It certainly intends no Children of Jews or Gentiles but such only who are elected and called ones Besides this Man hath left out words in several Texts of Scripture quoted by himself in his Book yet blames his Antagonists for so doing at a strange manner For because I left out the words Everlasting Covenant he comparies me to the Devil See Page 116. in Page 21. he 〈◊〉 Ger. 17. 9. 10 11. but saith he neither in these â—â—â—ee quotations nor in his whole Book hath 〈◊〉 so much as named that which is the quintessence of the Covenant c. namely as Everlasting Covenant The Devil left out part of a Scripture c. Answer I fear he saw but part of my Book for 't is a great untruth which he affirms viz. that I never named Everlasting Covenant for I as you have heard in this Answer did not only name it
to make every believing Parent a like Root to his posterity with Abraham to his Seed as some have done and this Man seems to do is a great abuse of the Sacred Text. For this would be to set up another wall of separation or partition betwixt believers and their seed and unbelievers and their Seed as the Old one waâ— which is now broken down between Jews and Gentiles according to Eph. 2. 14 15. as also a knowing of Men after the Flesh i. e. after fleshly Descent external Priviledges c. 2. The first Fruit spoken of we understand to refer to Isaac Jacob and the Holy Partriachs who were given to Abraham as the first Fruit of the Covenant of Grace God made with him who were all Holy as Abraham their Root was Holy that is Spiritually and Inherently Holy 3. By the Lump may be meant the whole Body of the Elect or Spiritual Seed of Abraham who lived from the time the first Fruit was given him until the Gospel Days who were all Holy as the Root also By Lump cannot be intended the whole Nation of the Jews as Mr. Shute positively affirms in Page 82. for it so what consistency can there be in the Apostles words and Argument The Apostle speaks of the Elect Israel not of the fleshly and Carnal Israel take this Mans words the first Fruit the Jews c. the Lump or whole Nation of them and here is the same Root on which the Gentiles are grassed Page 82. He confounds the first Fruit and Lump together and says by it is meant the whole Nation of the Jews What Text can be wronged worse We grant 't is the same Root that all Gentile believers partake of the fatness of which the godly Jews pertook of under the Law viz. the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made with the Root Abraham but what is this to our Carnal Seed as such 4. By the Branches who are said to be Holy also certainly is to be understood those Elect ones of Israel who were living in the Apostles Days as vers 5. even so then at this time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace Now observe the Apostle speaks in vers 17. of some Branches that were broken off and of the Gentiles who were like a Wild Olive Tree being grassed in these Branches that were broken off were the unbelieving Jews who at that time comprehended the whole national Church of Israel for all that believed that were Jews were transplanted into the Gospel Church these Branches that were broken off sprang from the same Root as Abraham was their Father according to the Flesh and Legal Covenant and for a time seemed true Branches they were of Israel though not Israel Rom. 9. 6. they were the Children of the Flesh but not the Children of the promise they were in the external Covenant but being not in the Covenant of Grace by Faith and the Old Covenant being now gone and taken away they were cut off and no more lookt upon as Branches in any sense They were Branches in the Old Testament Church but there is a new will made a new and last Testament confirmed and ratifie by the Death of the Testatour Jesus Christ and the fleshly Seed as such have no such legacy left them as in the Old Testament viz. to be Members of the New Testament Church that running to none but to such who believe c. but they not believing or for their unbelief were cut or broken off 1. Not broken off the Covenant of Grace as Mr. Shute intimates because they never were in that Covenant 2. Not broken off Gods Election for to that they did not belong But 3ly They were broken off and their Children as such or as so considered so that they are no more a visible Church of God nor a People in any Covenant relation to him Yet we are not to conceive although those unbelieving Jews were in this Sense broken off from their old standing and Church state that their Children who believed were rejected and lost no no they that did believe in Christ and submit to the new dispensation were by Faith grafted into Christ and upon the profession of their Faith were united also to the Gospel Church and became members thereof And so with the believing Gentiles did partake of the fatness of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and of the Blessings and Priviledges of the Gospel Church and doubtless this is the very truth of the matter according to the main Scope and design of the Holy Ghost in this Chapter Now then Mr. Shute greatly wrongs this place of Sacred Scripture 1. Whilst he argues that the Jews were broken off from the Covenant of Grace 2. He wrongs the Text whilst he says it was no dissolution of the Jewish Church but an excommunication of those unbelieving Persons out of it by which he intimates as if the Jewish Church state still remains and that the believing Gentiles are grafted into that old Legal Church that is removed and gone for ever 3. He wrongs this Text whilst he would have all unbelievers Children of the Jews broken off the Covenant of Grace for to that he seems to refer For those of them that were in it were not broken off from that Covenant nor could be and those of the Jewish Children that believed were in the like good Estate with believing Gentiles and their believing Children and many of the Children of the unbelieving Jews did no doubt own Jesus Christ believe in him and were implanted into the Gospel Church 4. Whilst he pleads for believing Getiles and their Infants as such to be taken into the Covenant of Grace and so made Members of the Church of Christ now as the Children of the Jews were Members of the Church under the Law for this he affirms Page 81 82. 5. Whilst he applies the Holiness and Infection here meant to outward Dispensation only in the visible Church which is meant of saving Grace in the invisible 6. Whilst he makes every believing Parent a like root to his posterity with Abraham to his Seed he may as well say every believer is a common Father to all that believe as Abraham was For both these Conclusions I infer from his notion 1. Reader Pray observe that the Jews that believed not were broken off from being any more the People of God in any Covenant relation to him and this was for their unbelief and their Church State being gone by the Dispensation of the Gospel and by the bringing in the Gospel Church 2. That whosoever either Jews or Gentiles who are grafted into Christ the true Olive and into the Gospel Church must believe or be grafted in by Faith i. e. by their own Faith and own consent not by the Faith of their Parent be made Members of the Church under the Gospel no but must believe themselves as well as their Parents 't is not enough now to say we have Abraham to our
Church-state by his opinion continues still He may say the invisible Church is the same now as then but not the visible the matter as well as the form is changed Ye also as living Stones are built up a Spiritual House c. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Was not the Gospel Church gathered out of the Jewish and Heathenish Nations consisting only of such Men and Women who made a profession of their Faith let him prove any one Infant was ever received into the Gospel Church if he can In Page 167. he inquires whether a Farmer destroys his Barn or hurts the Floor when he takes a great keap of Corn and Chaff and Winnows the Corn and Fans away the Chaff c. Answer I ask whether or no Christ did not remove by the Gospel Dispensation all the Wheat out of the old Barn nay and pull down that Barn viz. the Jewish Church and Fan quit away the Carnal Seed as such and all the Chaff And erect a new Garner or Gospel Church into which he put his Wheat i. e. Believing Men and Women whether Jews or Gentiles In Page 136. he intimates that the essential part of circumcision is Baptism and that the essential part thereof remaineth in the Flesh still Answer Then say I circumcision could not be circumcision without Baptism nor Baptism be Baptism without circumcision which is such a piece of Stuff and Impertinences as I never met with all can a thing be where the Essence or the Essential Part of it is wanting In Page 130. he intimates because I deny Infants to have right to Baptism or that they can believe that I assert two ways to be saved He also there says viz. there is no saving any Person old or young without the Grace of Faith he Cites Mark 16. 16. Joh. 3. 16. Thus you see saith he there is but one way to Eternal Life either for old or young that is through Faith in the righteousness and merits of Christ. Wo be to poor Infants then say I if they cannot believe as the Adult do if it be thus we say there 's no way to be saved but by Christ's merrits and righteousness imputed and that Infants must be sanctified that are saved also but yet we dare not say they do or can be said to believe as the Adult and if they do not they must be damned according to his notion because that is true of all the Adult that believe not One while he seems to say that the Infants of believers as such have habitual Faith At another time confesses he cannot prove that this or that Infant of believers hath Faith or the habit of it without he had a new Bible Page 45. Doubtless the Tree is known by the Fruit if we speak of the Adult we may know who do believe though I deny not but we may be mistaken in some how did Paul know that the Saints at Thessalonica were Elected 1 Thes. 1. 4 5. Knowing beloved your Election of God He shews how he came to know they had true Faith and were Elected for our Gospel came not to you in Word only but in power c. Mr. Shute says in Page 1. 90 that the Anabaptists Congregations be hath proved no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their opinion Sacrilegious Yet he hath Communion at the Lords Table with some of them who have this counterfeit Baptism and deny Infants to be the Subjects of that Ordinance and Sprinkling to be Baptizing and so are guilty of like Sacrilege with us there being divers Baptists in that Church to whom he belongs AN APPENDIX BEING A Reply to Mr. Shute's last single Sheet in Answer to Mr. Collins's half Sheet wherein the Covenant of Circumcision c. and free Promise of Grace God made to Abraham are further and distinctly opened shewing how they differ from each other SInce I wrote this reply to Mr. Shutes last Book I have met with a single Sheet which he calls an Answer to Mr. Hercules Collins last Shift c. Which discovers more of his bitter Spirit and what ill Influences he is under I thought it not amiss to make some remarks upon this Sheet tho' I suppose Mr. Collins will think himself concerned to vindicate his innocency from his undue Unchristian and false charges This Paper of Mr. Shutes manifesteth very great confidence touching his notions of the Covenant God made with Abraham and as much ignorance As will quickly appear to all discerning Men who shall read it In Page 1st he says I have cleared and vindicated the aforesaid Antidote from that foul Aspersion and totally confuted all the Aspersors in my last Book in the Judgment of all wise Judicious and Impartial Persons that have read it Answer Let those wise persons he speak of first read this precedent answer to his Book and then let them impartially Judg of it In Page 2. he speaks of Mr. Collins his five Arguments to prove the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham To this Mr. Shute says pray where do you find this distinction concerning the everlasting Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed Answer You shall see Friend that there is such a distinction found in the Scripture and that your reverend Ministers confirm the same thing viz. That God made a Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such which is removed and also a Covenant with Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such which runs to Christ and all that are his elect ones See Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made He saith not and to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ. Compared with verse 29. and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and heirs according to the promise Now Friend if you say this promise which the Apostle speaks of which is the everlasting Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham was made with many i. e. both with Abrahams natural and Spiritual Seed as such you contradict the Holy Ghost Paul says And not to Seeds as of many But you say to Seeds i. e. all his natural and Spiritual Seed Page 5. See also Rom. 9. 5 6 7 8. They are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children But in Isaac shall thy Seed be called That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God But the Children of the promise Mark it are accounted for the Seed Is not that distinction Mr. Collins speaks of clearly laid down in these Scripture doth not the Apostle exclude the Carnal Seed of Abraham as such from being included in the Covenant of Grace 2. I need not go about to prove there was a Covenant made with Abraham and all his natural Seed as such since that is so clearly and fully spoken of in the Scripture viz. That the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children were taken into the legal
Covenant and all were Members of the Jewish Church read Gen. 17. 9 10 12 Dent. 29. 9 10 11. 12 13. But that legal Covenant we affirm is abrogated and taken away If it were not so what is it which our Apostle speaks in Heb. 10. 9. He took away the first that he might establish the Second Compared with Heb. 8. 7 8 13. Sure none can once Immagin that this Covenant was the Covenant of Grace Also what doth the Apostle mean when he says cast out the Bond Woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Doth he not tell us by the Bondwoman is meant the Old Covenant given to the whole House of Israel or the lineal Seed of Abraham not the Covenant given to all Mankind in the first Adam and doth he not tell us by the Son of the Bond-woman is meant the fleshly Seed of Abraham as such Who were all taken into Covenant with God under the Old Testament And yet is there no Covenant that peculiarly was made with Abrahams natural Seed as such In Page 7. Mr. Shute repeats Gen. 17. 7. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee Here he leaves out the following verse wherein the Covenant is Mentioned which he charges as an high crime in others viz. this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be circumcised Verse 10. and ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you verse 11. He that is born in thy House and he that is bought with thy Mony must needs be circumcised And my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant verse 13. these Verses he Cites not Now Mr. Shute Judges this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and that for two reasons as I suppose 1. Because 't is called an everlasting Covenant 2. Because God promised in this Covenant to be the God of Abraham and the God of his Seed after him in their Generations which no doubt refers to his natural Seed as such Taking in both those of his off-spring that did believe in Christ to come and such also that did not so believe that proceeded from Abrahams Loins by Isaac 1. As to the Term everlasting I have shewed in the precedent Answer that some times in the Scripture it is taken with restriction and denotes only a long period of Time viz. during that Dispensation or until the Mâ—ssiâ—s should comeâ— the Priesthood of Aaron is upon the same account called an everlasting Priesthood Indeed this Covenant could continue no longer than the Token of it abode or was to abide in their Flesh Read the words again verse 13. and my Covenant shall be in your Flesh for an everlasting Covenant 2. Circumcision being as our Adversaries say the Seal of the Covenant now say I since the Seal namely Circumcision is broken off and gone as it was it at the death of Christ I ask what is become of that Covenant it was a Sign or Seal of is not the Covenant gone and dissolved when 't is cancelled 〈◊〉 read your Annotators on Gen. 17. 13. And â—â—r the sign of it say they it is so called because it was to indure through all Generations till the coming of the Messias the word Olim here and elsewhere rendred everlasting or for ever being 〈◊〉 used to express not only simple Eternity but any long continuance for maâ—â—ages 〈◊〉 some time for a Mans Life Exod. 21. â— Deut. 15. 17. â— King 9. 3. thus Mr. Pools Annotations This being so to what purpose do you make such a stir about the word Everlasting â—ly As to this second reason viz. God in that Covenant gave himself to Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed in their Generations 1. Answer I would know whether God is now in Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such or are they not rejected how then could this be the unchangeable Covenant of Grace Read my 14. Arguments in the precedent Answer to prove the Covenant of circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace 2. Was God the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed as such by way of special interest if so they shall no doubt be all Eternally saved as well as all the Children or Carnal Seed of Believers Which you will not admit of Therefore consider that God may be said to be the God of a People two manner of ways 1. By the free promise or Covenant of Grace in a Spiritual Sense Or by Divine Union with him through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit 't is this gives special interest in God to all Adult Persons and thus he was not the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed no but of a few of them only comparatively for tho' the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sands of the Sea yet but a Remnant shall be saved 2. God may be said to be the God of a People by entring into an external outward or legal Covenant with them and thus he was the God of Abraham and of all his Carnal Seed or Off-spring or whole House of Israel Under the Old Covenant or Dispensation of the Law God made them as a Nation a peculiar People unto himself and was said to be married to them See Dr. Bates one of your own Ministers in his Sermon preached at Mr. Baxters Funeral 1. He shews that God is the God of all Mankind by Creation 2. God is the God of a People upon the account of external calling and profession and thus saith he the posterity of Seth are so called and the intire nation of the Jews c. Friend This I desire you to weigh well for God was not by way of special interest in a Spiritual Sense the God of Abrahams Carnal Seed as such Therefore it was this external Covenent no doubt that Mr. Cotton intends when he says the Ministry of John the Baptist did burn as an Oven and left the Jews neither the Root of Abrahams Covenant nor the Branches of their own good works Coâ—ton on the Covenant Page 21 22 Friend you speak as if your Ministers had 〈◊〉 those notions of yours into you about the Covenant God made with Abraham I am satisfied you abuse your Ministers I am sure Dr. Owen taught you no such Doctrin as I have already shewed and I shall here again faithfully cite two or three passages more of that Reverend Minister of Christ See his Exposition on the 8th Chapter to the Hebrews Page 219 c. 1. He shews that the Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel was not that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God made with all Men in the first Alam 2. That it was not the Covenant of Grace 1. Saith he Page 224. the Old Covenant the
was a restipulation at their entrance into that Covenant with God so that that was a formal Covenant but the Covenant of Grace he tells us was no formal Covenant but only a free promise under the old Testament Therefore there was two Covenants held forth in Gods Transactions with Abraham First a formal Covenant made with him and all his Fleshly Seed of which circumcision was a Sign at their entrance into it which they thereby subscribed unto Secondly The Covenant of Grace held forth only in Gods free promise to him 3. Whilst the Church enjoyed all the Spiritual benefits of the promise faith he wherein the substance of the Covenant of Grace was contained before it was confirmed and made the sole Rule of Worship unto the Church it was not inconsistent with the Holiness and Wisdom of God to bring any other Covenant Mark it or prescribe unto it forms of Worship he pleased Page 228. Then he proceeds further 1. That this Covenant did not saith he disannul or make in effectual the promise but that it doth still continue the only means of Life and Salvation and that this was so our Apostle proves at large Gal. 3. 17 18 189. 2. That this other Covenant with all the worship contained in it or required by it did but direct and lead unto the future establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a Covenant c. By these words and in other places he shews that that Covenant God made with Abrahams natural Seed or whole House of Israel tho' it was not the Covenant of Grace Yet it was given in subserviency unto the Gospel Covenant 3. These things being observed saith he we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expresly make mention of two Testaments or Covenants and distinguishes between them in such a way as what is spoken cannot hereby be accommodated unto a twofold Administration of the same Covenant The one is mentioned Exod. 20. Deut 5. namely the Covenant God made with the People of Israel c. The other promised Jer. 31. 31. Cap. 32. 40. Which is the new Gospel Covenant as before explained And these two Covenants or Testaments are compared with the other 2 Cor. 3. 6 7 8 9 Gal. 4. 24 25. Heb. 7 22. Chap. 9. 15 16 17 18. Page 228. These things being so it follows that the Doctor utterly overthrows what Mr. John Flavel and other Pedo Baptists assert about the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Sinai to which circumcision appertained viz. that it was only Administration of the Covenant of Grace and not a distinct Covenant 1. The Doctor then proceeds in Page 229. to prove that the Covenant made with Israel according to the Flesh did not abrogate the Covenant of Works God made with Adam and substitute that in the room of it 2. But that it revived declared and expressed all the Commands of that Covenant in the Decalogue that being nothing but a Divine Summary of the Law written in the Heart Says he 3. It revived the Sanction of the first Covenant in the curse or sentence of Death which it denounced against all transgressors Death was the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of works ` So say I was Death the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of circumcision the Male-Child the Flesh of whose Fore-skin is not cut off shall dye the Death which clearly shews it was of the same nature of the Sinai Covenant 4. It revived the promise saith he of that Covenant of Eternal Life upon perfect obedience Rom. 10. 5. So say I did the Covenant of circumcision in that he that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal 5. 3. Now saith the Doctor this is no other but the Covenant of Works revieved nor had this Covenant of Sinai any such promise of Eternal Life annexed to it as such but only the promise inseparable from the Covenant of works which is revieved saying do this and liâ—ve Hence saith he when our Apostle disputeth against justification by the Law or by the Works of the Law he doth not intend the Works peculiar unto the Covenant of Sinai such as were the Rites and Ceremonies of the Worship then instituted but he intends also the Works of the first Covenant c. Let this be well considered for 't is from hence Paul excludes circumcision Rom. 4. As being a work or duty opposed to Faith and so appertaining to the Old Covenant He then proceeds in sixteen particulars to prove that the two Covenants differ from each other Page 236 237 c. 1. That they differ in circumstance 2. That they differ in the circumstance of place Gal 4. 24 25. 3. That they differ in the manner of their promulgation 4. In their Mediators 5. That they differ in their subject matter both as unto the Precepts and Promises all sin forbid upon pain of Death and gave Promise of Life upon perfect Obedience no promise of Grace to Communicate Spiritual strength to assist in Obedience Had Promises of temporal things in the Land of Canaan in the New Covenant saith he all things otherwise 6. That they differ in the manner of their Dedication and Sanction that they differ in their substance and end the old Covenant was Typical Shadowy removable Heb. 10. 1. That they differ in their extent of their Administration the first was confined unto the posterity of Abraham according to the Flesh c. excluding all others from the participation of the benefits of it But the Administration of the New Covenant is extended unto all Nations under Heaven That they differ in their Efficacy the Old made nothing perfect the first Covenant saith he became a special Covenant unto that People that People were the posterity of Abraham Page 232. Sir What think you now of two Covenants and of a Covenant of peculiarity with Abraham's Carnal Seed You must consult your Ministers better before you write again I doubt not but your Pastor is of Dr. Owens Judgment in this matter In Page 5. you say In my last Book I have clearly made out that whatsoever the Covenant God made with Abraham was to himself and Seed both Spiritual and Carnal that were in the Covenant is the same now to believers and all their Seed c. 1. Answer Then it follows that Abrahams Carnal Seed who were ungodly Persons were in the Covenant of Grace for circumcision belonged to them and their Male Children as far forth as it did appertain to believers and their Male Children who were of his race 2. It will follow then also that we Gentiles that believe and our natural Off-spring have the same Right to the Land of Canaan and all other Priviledges of the Jewish Church with Abrahams Carnal Seed There is no ways to save your self from the greatest absurdities imaginable without distinguishing between those two Covenants and the two Seeds or between the Covenant of circumcision made with Abraham c. and the promise
Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive Times were baptized upon the Profession of Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the Profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus also are not Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major These are his very Words â— â— As many as have been baptized â—ivâ— put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promisâ— Gal. 3. 27 28 20. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the Probability grounded on a credible Profession c. Baxter's Confirm Reconcil pag. 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible Profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a Saving-Faith If any object We read of some who were baptized who had no Saving-Faith but were Hypocrites I answer Had they appeared to be such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage-Union with Christ which Marriage-Contract absolutely requires an actual Profession of consent Infants are not capable to enter into a Marriage-Union with Christ noâ— to make a Profession of Consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our Opposits generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is the solemniâ—ing of our Marriage with Christ. These are his Words p. 32. The Minor none can deny No Man sure in his right Mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage-Relation with Christ and to make a Profession of a Consent And the Truth is he in the next Words gives away his Cause viz. And 't is saith he a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent p. 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a nâ—w and strange kind of Marriage Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized or rather rantizeâ— to make a Profession of Consent to be married to Jesus Christ. If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his Words are these ` Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-Baptist say that the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our Opposits are forced sometimes to speak the Truth â—â—ough it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted then they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves to be converted but the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted Ergo No Person ought to be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess they are converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the Substance of this Argument also take his own Words i. e. As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse and non-appareâ—â— is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both these must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. And evident it is say I from hence none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eâ—â—ugh to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare Profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. p. 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mâ—â—k 16. 16. p. 16. He might have added by the Foâ—â—â— of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the Priviledges for â— argue thus 〈…〉 Arg. 2â— If there is but one Baptism of Water leâ—t by Jesus Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. But there is but one Baptism in Water lest by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the Adult and as to any other Condition I am sure the Scripture is silent the Way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Ephes. 4. 4. If Profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter coram Ecclesiâ to Church-Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be consounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Membership c. Ergo 'T is a granted Case among all Christians saith he that Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Ancient Church admitted none without it pag. 2â— And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are capable to make no Profession He adds Yâ—â— Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and tâ—en baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he saith Iâ— as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in Newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this Mortification and a Consent to be buried c. Iâ— our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our
prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ. But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor Promise to such who do it nor Threatnings to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes nor Promise made to such who are baptized nor Threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized let them prove it since it is denied Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing of their Children or reproved for neglecting to baptize them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children c. Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel But under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denied The Minor is clear See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an ignorant Babe Add thou not into his Word c. Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the Practice of Infant-Baptism opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship Ergo to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil and to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture-ground for it no Command nor Example for such a Practice in God's Word And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition others say it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great Asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say Those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without Demonstration and so prove nothing I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ who was more faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matter of Duty tho the Precepts and external Rites of his Law were numerous two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say Is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that runs may read it And shall one positive Precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the ground and end of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the end and ground thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo It was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority And evident it is as Sir Norton Knatchbul shews That the Jewish Rabbiâ—s differed among themselves also about it for saith he Rabbi Eliâ—zer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews For Eliâ—zer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended Proofs of Pedo-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loins till he received Commandment from God to circumcise them Had he done it before or without a Command from God it would have been Will-Worship in him so to have done Moreover this further appears to be so Because no godly Man's Children nor others in Abraham's Days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no