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
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
Original Covenant of works made with Alam and all Mankind in him is not intended for this is undoubtedly a Covenant different in the Essence and Substance of it from the New In Page 219. He saith but it is evident that the Covenant intended was a Covenant wherein the Church of Israel walked with God until such time as this better Covenant was solemnly introduced this is plainly declared in the ensuing context he says it was becâ—me old and ready to disappear Wherefore it is not the Covenant of works made with Adam that is intended when this other is said to be a better Covenant Thus the Doctor Friend doth not he hereby clearly lay down a Covenant of peculiarity made with Abrahams natural Seed as such or a Covenant that only and peculiarly belonged to them and 't is as plain this began in that Covenant God made with Abraham In Page 288. he saith we must grant two distinct Covenants to be intended rather than a twofold Administration of the same Covenant meerly to be intended He also shews that the old Covenant which God made with the natural Seed of Abraham could not be the Covenant of Grace because there was no reconciliation with God nor Salvation to be obtained by vertue of that Covenant Observe the Doctor speaks not of Adams Covenant but of that Covenant God gave to the whole House of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham He further shews that the Covenant of Grace untill Christ came was only contained in promise by which Covenant all that lived under the Old Testament who had Faith in it were saved to Abraham and his Seed was the promise made Gal. 3. 16. That was the Covenant of Grace therefore say we the Covenant of circumcision and Sinai Covenant where there was mutual stipulation betwixt God and the whole House of Israel could not be the Covenant of Grace besides 't is said that that Covenant they broke and by so doing lost all the external blessings of it as the Prophet Zach. Chap. 11. 10 14. shws because of the Jews unbelief and putting the Messiah to Death God broke his Covenant with that People Zech. 11. 10. And I took my Staff even beauty and cut it asunder That I might break my Covenant which I made with all the People What is become now of your everlasting Covenant God made with all the People of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham Is it not gone are his Carnal Seed as such still in Covenant with God or are they not with their external legal Covenant cast out Sir the everlasting Covenant of Grace that stands firm 't is true that is confirmed by the Oath of God and Blood of Christ but the Covenant in which was contained circumcision and all the Legal Rites and Jewish Church and Church-membership is gone and taken away The New Covenant is not according to that Old Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel or Carnal Seed of Abraham if it be not according to it then it was not the same in Essence nature or quality See Jer. 31. 32. 1. This saith the Doctor is the nature and substance of that Covenant which God made with that People viz. a peculiar temporary Covenant c. Page 235. Mark it Reader He adds and concurs with the Lutherans who deny that by the two Covenants is meant only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant but that two Covenants substantially distinct are intended `1 Because in the Scripture they are often so called and compared with one another and some times opposed to one another the first and the last the new and the old 2. Because the Covenant of Grace in Christ is eternal immutable always the same obnoxious unto no alteration no change or abrogation neither can these things be spoken of it with respect unto any Administration of it as they are spoken of the Old Page 226 227. 1. He shews again that by the Old Covenant is not intended the Covenant of Works made with Adam Page 227. When 2. We speak of the New Covenant saith he we do not intend the Covenant of Grace absolutely as though that were not in being and efficacy before the Introduction of that which is promised in this place For it was always the same as to the substance of it From the beginning it passed through the whole Dispensation of times before the Law and under the Law of the same nature and Efficacy unalterable everlasting ordered in all things and sure Again he saith when God renewed the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things Mark it especially the proceedings of the promised Seed from his Loins but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise And as such only is proposed in the Scripture Page 227. it appears that the Doctor understands the Covenant God made with Abraham as we do viz. the promise to Abrahams Seed viz. Christ and all Eternal blessings with him to intend the Covenant of Grace but whereas it is said God made a Covenant with Abraham c. that has respect to other things that which concerned his natural Seed and out of whose Loins Christ was to come That 's the Covenant of peculiarity he proceeds and gives three reasons why the Covenant of Grace could not absolutely in it self but in the promise of it only be called a formal Covenant Page 227. 1. Because it wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged unto it before this was done in the Death of Christ it had not the formal nature of a Covenant c. 2. This was wanting saith he it was not the Spring rule and measure of all the worship of the Church i e. this doth belong unto every Covenant properly so called that God makes with the Church that is the intire rule of all the worship that God requires of it which is that they are to restipluate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament for God did require of the Church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto but now under the New Testament this Covenant with its own Seals and appointments is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship wherefore the new Covenant promised in the Scripture and here opposed unto the old is not the promise of Grace Mercy and Life and Salvation by Christ absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a Covenant given unto it in its establishment by the Death of Christ c. Page 227. 1. Now pray observe does not the Doctor clearly hint thereby that no Rite Sign or Seal properly of the Old Testament can be a Rite Sign or Seal properly of the New Covenant how then could circumcision be the Seal of the said Covenant of Grace 2. It is evident in the Covenant of circumcision there
was a restipulation at their entrance into that Covenant with God so that that was a formal Covenant but the Covenant of Grace he tells us was no formal Covenant but only a free promise under the old Testament Therefore there was two Covenants held forth in Gods Transactions with Abraham First a formal Covenant made with him and all his Fleshly Seed of which circumcision was a Sign at their entrance into it which they thereby subscribed unto Secondly The Covenant of Grace held forth only in Gods free promise to him 3. Whilst the Church enjoyed all the Spiritual benefits of the promise faith he wherein the substance of the Covenant of Grace was contained before it was confirmed and made the sole Rule of Worship unto the Church it was not inconsistent with the Holiness and Wisdom of God to bring any other Covenant Mark it or prescribe unto it forms of Worship he pleased Page 228. Then he proceeds further 1. That this Covenant did not saith he disannul or make in effectual the promise but that it doth still continue the only means of Life and Salvation and that this was so our Apostle proves at large Gal. 3. 17 18 189. 2. That this other Covenant with all the worship contained in it or required by it did but direct and lead unto the future establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a Covenant c. By these words and in other places he shews that that Covenant God made with Abrahams natural Seed or whole House of Israel tho' it was not the Covenant of Grace Yet it was given in subserviency unto the Gospel Covenant 3. These things being observed saith he we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expresly make mention of two Testaments or Covenants and distinguishes between them in such a way as what is spoken cannot hereby be accommodated unto a twofold Administration of the same Covenant The one is mentioned Exod. 20. Deut 5. namely the Covenant God made with the People of Israel c. The other promised Jer. 31. 31. Cap. 32. 40. Which is the new Gospel Covenant as before explained And these two Covenants or Testaments are compared with the other 2 Cor. 3. 6 7 8 9 Gal. 4. 24 25. Heb. 7 22. Chap. 9. 15 16 17 18. Page 228. These things being so it follows that the Doctor utterly overthrows what Mr. John Flavel and other Pedo Baptists assert about the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Sinai to which circumcision appertained viz. that it was only Administration of the Covenant of Grace and not a distinct Covenant 1. The Doctor then proceeds in Page 229. to prove that the Covenant made with Israel according to the Flesh did not abrogate the Covenant of Works God made with Adam and substitute that in the room of it 2. But that it revived declared and expressed all the Commands of that Covenant in the Decalogue that being nothing but a Divine Summary of the Law written in the Heart Says he 3. It revived the Sanction of the first Covenant in the curse or sentence of Death which it denounced against all transgressors Death was the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of works ` So say I was Death the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of circumcision the Male-Child the Flesh of whose Fore-skin is not cut off shall dye the Death which clearly shews it was of the same nature of the Sinai Covenant 4. It revived the promise saith he of that Covenant of Eternal Life upon perfect obedience Rom. 10. 5. So say I did the Covenant of circumcision in that he that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal 5. 3. Now saith the Doctor this is no other but the Covenant of Works revieved nor had this Covenant of Sinai any such promise of Eternal Life annexed to it as such but only the promise inseparable from the Covenant of works which is revieved saying do this and liâ—ve Hence saith he when our Apostle disputeth against justification by the Law or by the Works of the Law he doth not intend the Works peculiar unto the Covenant of Sinai such as were the Rites and Ceremonies of the Worship then instituted but he intends also the Works of the first Covenant c. Let this be well considered for 't is from hence Paul excludes circumcision Rom. 4. As being a work or duty opposed to Faith and so appertaining to the Old Covenant He then proceeds in sixteen particulars to prove that the two Covenants differ from each other Page 236 237 c. 1. That they differ in circumstance 2. That they differ in the circumstance of place Gal 4. 24 25. 3. That they differ in the manner of their promulgation 4. In their Mediators 5. That they differ in their subject matter both as unto the Precepts and Promises all sin forbid upon pain of Death and gave Promise of Life upon perfect Obedience no promise of Grace to Communicate Spiritual strength to assist in Obedience Had Promises of temporal things in the Land of Canaan in the New Covenant saith he all things otherwise 6. That they differ in the manner of their Dedication and Sanction that they differ in their substance and end the old Covenant was Typical Shadowy removable Heb. 10. 1. That they differ in their extent of their Administration the first was confined unto the posterity of Abraham according to the Flesh c. excluding all others from the participation of the benefits of it But the Administration of the New Covenant is extended unto all Nations under Heaven That they differ in their Efficacy the Old made nothing perfect the first Covenant saith he became a special Covenant unto that People that People were the posterity of Abraham Page 232. Sir What think you now of two Covenants and of a Covenant of peculiarity with Abraham's Carnal Seed You must consult your Ministers better before you write again I doubt not but your Pastor is of Dr. Owens Judgment in this matter In Page 5. you say In my last Book I have clearly made out that whatsoever the Covenant God made with Abraham was to himself and Seed both Spiritual and Carnal that were in the Covenant is the same now to believers and all their Seed c. 1. Answer Then it follows that Abrahams Carnal Seed who were ungodly Persons were in the Covenant of Grace for circumcision belonged to them and their Male Children as far forth as it did appertain to believers and their Male Children who were of his race 2. It will follow then also that we Gentiles that believe and our natural Off-spring have the same Right to the Land of Canaan and all other Priviledges of the Jewish Church with Abrahams Carnal Seed There is no ways to save your self from the greatest absurdities imaginable without distinguishing between those two Covenants and the two Seeds or between the Covenant of circumcision made with Abraham c. and the promise
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
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
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
they are not able to help him c. Doth Mr. Collins question Gods power or intimate God cannot work without help of the Creature 2. That he doth tacitly declare that God is not able to make them capable of the Reception of Grace Because they are not of years to exercise iâ— as if Mr Collins did not know God was infinite in power 3. That Adult persons do qualifie themselves for the reception of Grace or at leastwise are Copartners with the Spirit of Grace in the working of it 4. If this be so saith he then it is not Gods Grace but Mans work c. Which are all false Conclusions and great abuses cast on Mr. Collins and no ways to be inferred from his positions In Page 73. he renders the Baptists to be cunning deceivers take his words i. e. I am not saith he all together ignorant of their devices and stratagems by which they uphold their opinion in which their Principles are enveloped and lie Dormant In Page 115. he says Benjamine Keach doth reckon Abraham of greater antiquity than Christ. Answer This is a false charge likewise and no such consequence can be gathered from my words to which he refers as my Answer shews in this reply In Page 126. he saith this Author is for the saving Elect Dying Infants by some other Covenant and not by the Covenant of Grace Answer This is also false and a great abuse for I no where hint any such thing but say 't is impossible any Infant or Adult Person either should be saved by any other Covenant but that tho' I say they may be saved and not be Members of the visible Church as some Infants were before God made known the Covenant of circumcision and set up the legal Church of Israel In Page 134. he calls our Doctrin a fallacious Doctrin and knows not which to wonder at most viz. our boldness and confidence Or our Peoples ignorance to be so horribly deluded and imposed upon What Enemy could reproach us worse In Page 113. saith he Thus I have given you one broad side more by which I have brought your opinion by the Lee and all the Carpenters and Calkers in the Nation cannot save it from sinking Answer Friend you mistake our cause and opinion is an firm and as sound as ever and needs no Carpenters nor Calkers to mend those Breaches you have made In Page 140. he says Thus you see the Covenant God made with Abraham and all his Seed both Spiritual and Carnal stands fact and firm to Gospel Believers and all their Seed both Spiritual and Carnal notwithstanding Hercules with his Club and Benjamin hewed it with his broad Ax they cannot destroy it because it is an everlasting Covenant 1. Answer Are these Savoury expressions my Ax Friend is Gods word the Title of that Book was the words of the Text viz. the Ax laid at the Root and this Ax will cut down all your Thorns and Briers do what you can 2. How he hath proved that Covenant God made with Abraham and his Carnal Seed as such doth remain let the Reader now Judg. 3 How came if this be so Abraham's natural Seed to be unchurched as he himself confesses in Page 37. nay that they unchurched themselves In his Postscript Page 190. he says tho he has thus written concerning the Anabaptists and proved their Congregations to be no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their Opinion Sacrilegious in that they Rob the Church of her treasure c. These are very hard words and also false for he has not done what he says and never will nor can he do it An Account of some of Mr. Shute's Impertinences Inconsistences and Self-contradictions IN the last place take a few of his Impertinences c. In Page 49. If you can prove saith he by plain Scripture Testimony that ever Christ or any of his Apostles c. did forbid the Baptising the infant Seed of Believers c. Answer Now how impertinent is this Where did Christ forbid Infants of Believers the Lords Supper and indeed they may have that as well as Baptism and the first Fathers that established Infant Baptism gave them the Lords Supper also 2. Where is crossing in Baptism forbid or Popists Salt Spittle or Crisom or other Popish rites These in plain words are not forbid are they therefore lawful If Christ would have them to be Baptized it would have been expressed in the affirmative and is this horribly to impose our own uncouth notions as you affirm in the said 49. Page of your Book Where hath Christ forbid Baptizing of Turks and Insidels or the Children of unbelievers In Page 98. he says the Church of the Jews was not a legal Church take his words viz. the Church of God under the Mosaick Law was not a Carnal legal Church Strange contradiction What a Church under the Law and not a legal Church he may as well say the Church of God under the Gospel is not a Gospel Church In Page 97. he distinguishes not on the Covenant made with Abraham but positively asserts that off from that Covenant God made with Abraham viz. The Covenant of Grace some of the natural Branches were broken yet in contradiction to this he shews in Page 74. from Psa. 89. That the Covenant of Grace is firm and abideth for ever and else where shews that there 's no final falling from grace all those therefore say I that are in that Covenant cannot fail of Salvation therefore those Branches never were in the Covenant of Grace In Page 25. he says God saves Elect dying Infants in no ways or means differing in any one point or part from that wherein he saves Adult believers Yet in Page 65. he owns Infants cannot exercise grace in an ordinary way and that nothing is required of them personally but passive Obedience Is nothing required say I of Adult believers but passive Obedience If there is then the way or mode of Gods saving dying Infants differs in some part or point from the way or means of saving the Adult and clear it is that more than passive obedience is required of Adult persons One while he says all Abrahams Seed are in the Covenant of Grace God made with him and he denies final falling out of that Covenant yet in Page 12. he says one of Abrahams Sons or Seed is praying to him in Hell And to be Abrahams Seed will not serve their turn He is for a Congregational Church and yet in Page 34. Speaking of the Gospel Church he says all the Seed of believers are Members as much now as the Jewish Children were under the Law And that it is the same Church State tho' in another dress and denys the dissolution of the Jewish Church Page 35. Can a natural Church consisting of whole Parishes Families and Provinces be all one with Gospel Congregational Churches of believers only Why did this Man leave the Church of England also then the Jewish
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
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