A COUNTER-ANTIDOTE To purge out the Malignant Effects Of a Late COUNTERFEIT Prepared by Mr. GYLES SHUTE An Unskilful Person in Polemical Cures BEING An Answer to his Vindication of his pretended Antidote to prevent the Prevalency of Anabaptism Shewing that Mr. Hercules Collins's Reply to the said Author remains unanswered Wherein the Baptism of Believers is evinced to be God's Ordinance and the Baptized Congregations proved true Churches of Jesus Christ. With a further Detection of the Error of Pedo-Baptism To which is added An Answer to Mr. Shute's Reply to Mr. Collins's Half-sheet By BENJAMIN KEACH LONDON Printed for H. Bernard at the Bible in the Poultry M DC XC IV. THE INTRODUCTION I Cannot without Grief and Sorrow of Heart reflect upon the sad Consequences of our present Differences in and about the smaller Matters of Religion whereas we agree in all the Essentials thereof but do much more resent that bitter and censorious Spirit many shew and particularly appeareth in the Person I have now to do with which all that read his Books will quickly perceive Pray do but see what a kind of Advertisement he put twice into the City Mercury of his last Treatise c. wherein he positively denies those he calls Anabaptists to be Churches and their Baptism he affirms to be a Counterfeit which is the Baptism of Believers or adult Persons and that because we do not ground Gospel-baptism upon the Covenant God made with Abraham but upon the great Commission our blessed Saviour gave to his Disciples after he rose from the Dead as it is contained Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. This is such an Attempt that none of our Brethren who are Pedo-baptists nor any that ever I read of assayed to do Whether our Baptism be a Truth of Christ or a Counterfeit will appear in our Answer but why are we no Churches Certainly we are Churches for a Church may consist of wicked Men as well as of good Men but I suppose he means we are not true Churches of Christ he as I judge not knowing from what Theam that word is derived we must be wicked Persons or else Churches of Christ. This Man hath come too near to the Expressions and bitter Reflections John Child uttered against us falsely called Anabaptists who soon after fell under fearful horror of Conscience and Desperation He wrote a Book against us rendring us very odious to the World and casting Contempt upon our saithful Ministers but quickly was convinced of his horrid Design crying out in Despair That he had touched the Apple of God's Eye for said he if God has any People in the World those that I have vilified are his or to that effect The Lord deliver this Man from such a Spirit and dismal end but 't is bad modling as we used to say with edge Tools Our Saviour shews the danger of rash Judgment and what have â—e to do to judge our Fellow Servant much less Churches We may judge of Things and freely speak our Minds according to Light received but to censure a People after this manner and only because 〈◊〉 differ from him about the Subject and Mode of Baptism is hard 〈◊〉 considering that we are in all other things of the same Faith with himself and such that he hath daily Church Communion with is this lovely or just is this the Spirit of Jesus Christ Oâ— doth he appear in the Wisdom that is from above that is first Pure then Peaceable Gentle â—aâ—â—e to be Intreated full of Mercy and good Fruits without Partiality and without Hypocrisie and the Fruits of Righteousness that is sown in Peace of them that make Peace Jam. 3. 17 18. What kind of Scoffing Reproaching Railing and opprobious Language he hath cast on us I shall collect and set down in its proper Place and yet at the same time he bears very hard upon his Antagonists for using such kind of Terms c. p. 4. How will he escape who says a Man should not Steal if he Steals Or that a Man should not commit Adultery if he commits Adultery Rom. 2. 22. Or that says a Man should not scoff or rail on and vilifie his Brother when he doth the same thing and yet pretends he hath not doâ—e it I will not render Railing for Railing these are his Words and again saith I shall labour to declare in the Spirit of Meekness pag. 4. Hath he been as good as his word or hath he not they are proper Judges who have read his Book I think few Men who have had to do with us in this Controversie shewed a more four Spirit than Mr. Eaxter and yet did he ever deny us to be Churches or call our Baptism a Counterfeit Pray take his Sentiments of us when in a coâ—l Spirit these are his words viz. That the Anaebaptists are godly Men that differ from us in a Point so difficult that many Papists and Prelatists have maintained that it is not determined in in the Scripture but dependeth upon Tradition of the Church and I know as good and sober Men of that Mind as of theiâ—s who are most against them c. And again he saith That Augustin and many Children of Christians were baptized at Age and that the Controversie is of so great Difficulty that if in all such Cases none that differ be tollerated we may not live together in the World or Church but endlesly excommunicate or persecute one another Baxter's Book Principle of Love page 7. But Mr. Shute hath appeared so bold and rash as if he had an infallible Spirit and seems to be so lifted up as if he hath done more in his short Tract than all those learned Men who have formerly and of late times asserted Pedo-baptism And that now we are totally confuted and We and our Cause of Believers Baptism gone for ever See his Title Page And in pag. 113. saith he Thus I have given you one Broad side more by which I have brought your whole Opinion by the Lee and all the Carpenters and Calkers in the Nation cannot save it from Sinking I wish he knew his own Spirit and Weakness better and not thus to admire what he hath done Doth he think there is none can answer his Arguments No saving our Baptism and Churches from sinking to the bottom which he hath so furiously attacked sad Case What could Goliah of Gath or proud Rabshaketh say more But he forgot the old Proverb Let not him boast that puts on his Armour as he that puts it off If I or my Reverend Brother Collins have in any Writings of Ours used hard Words we have cause to be troubled for the Truth never gained any thing that way 'T is not hard Words but hard Arguments that must do the Business A soft Answer as Solomon saith turneth away Wrath. I must say I had rather have to do with a Man that hath more Argument and less Confidence than I can find in his Writing or Spirit I am sorry he
mayest not meet with them I shall give thee here the heads or sum of them as followeth see Page 18. 1. Part. Arg. 1. Because the Law or Covenant of circumcision was made as to the design and end of it to separate the natural Seed of Abraham in their national Church state from all other Nations and to give them the Land of Canaan so that they might not mixt themselves with the Heathen 1. Will any say the Gospel Covenant or any precept of it in the end and design of it is institured to separate all believers and their fleshy Seed as a national Church from all other People in the World if this be so farewel to all Spiritual incorporated congregations of Christians See Dr. Owen 2. Doth any Gospel ordinance assure us and our Children of the Land of Canaan or any worldly and earthly Blessings or is not the new Covenant established upon better promises Arg. 2. Because some who were not in the Covenant of promise had a positive right to and where commanded of God to be circumcised as Ishmael Esau c. and all the Male-Children tho' wicked Mens Children that sprung from Isaac in their generations c. also some of Abrahams Spiritual Seed were not to be circumcised nor had they any right there too 1. As all his Male-Children who died before eight days old 2. All his Females who were elected persons and some others who lived in Abrahams Days as Melchisedeck and Lot c. Arg. 3. Because some of Abrahams natural Seed to whom circumcision did belong were nevertheless denied Gospel Baptism tho' their plea was Abraham is our Father 1. From hence it follows circumcision was no Gospel Law for that which gave right to circumcision was not sufficient to give right to Gospel Baptism 2. It also appears that the Covenant of Grace was not the adequate reason of circumcision but the mere positive command of God to Abraham So that if they could prove the Children of believers in the Covenant of Grace it would nevertheless be no argument to Baptise them unless they had a command or ground from Christ so to do For the Covenant God made with Abraham speaks nothing of Baptism And had not our Blessed Saviour given it forth as an instistution of the Gospel we had never heard of it nor known it had been a duty or ordinance should we have read the Covenant made with Abraham a thousand times over Therefore if all they say about the Infant Seed of Believers as such should be granted being in the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham which cannot yet it would not follow from thence Infants ought to be Baptized for none ought to be Baptized but such that Christ's Commission and positive command doth authorize so to be which are none but those who by preaching and the working of the Holy Ghost are made Disciples or do believe and make a confession of their Faith in maters of mere positively right We must always keep to the direct will and words of the Law-giver like as Abraham did in circumcision No adding nor altering no pleading for Females to be circumcised if Males only are expressed in the institution of it Arg. 4. Circumcision could not be a Gospel rite because all in the Gospel Church 't is expresly said shall know the Lord Jer. 31. 31. And shall not need to be taught to know him Now under the old Legal Covenant Infants were admitted Members of the Jewish Church who did not know the Lord but had need when grown up to understanding to be taught to know him in this the old Covenant differs from the new and old Church Membership from new Church Membership for our Children before admitted into Gods Church must know the Lord we and they too must believe or be made Disciples by teaching we must know Christ or fix our Faith on him in saving knowledg which Infants cannot do To the last of these arguments he seems to say some thing see Page 119. where he cites these words out of my Sermons Page 21. viz. in the old Covenant Infants were Members who did when taken into that Covenant and made members of that Legal Church not know the Lord. Mr. Shute says here I mention but one Covenant and acknowledg Infants were in that one Covenant So that he hath confused himself and let him or any of their opinion prove by Scripture God did â—ast young Infants out of that one Covenant he hath destroyed his two Covenants by thus contradicting himself a Man under his circumstances had need to have a good Memory Answer That Covenant which I mention was I tell you the Legal Covenant that God made with the whole Church and House of Israel and how do I contradict my self Infants I own were Members of the Jewish Church and doth not the Scripture say cast out the Bond woman and her Son c. is not the old Covenant the Jewish Covenant gone did not God take away the first that he might establish the second what Covenant is that which the Apostle says is took away and difanulled 't is not you will say the Covenant of Grace I also ask you whether the Jewish Church that was founded upon that Old Covenant is not gone and dissolved if so what doth your arguing prove nor is there a new Gospel national Church like the Church of the Jews instituted in the room of the old since you plead for Infants Church-membership you must come to the new and last Will and Testament if Christ hath not willed Infants their right to Baptism and Church-membership in the Gospel they can't have it by the former Testament which is disannulled Tou ask if faith and repentance was not required under the Law Page 119. I answer Not to make any Members of the Jewish Church you are in Page 120. 121. c. upon your old argument that both young and old Infants and the Adult are saved by faith We have answered that already Such that can believe that Infants do believe or know the Lord let them I believe it not nor can he nor all the Men of the World prove it I shall repeat the substance of my other arguments to prove that circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace Arg. 5. Because the Terms of it runs according to the Sinai Covenant which is said not to be of Faith But the Man that doth these things shall live in them Gal. 3. 22. Life was promised to their obedience death threatned to their disobedience The promises were earthly c. and thus runs the Covenant of circumcision Gen. 17. 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant c. and I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land of Canaan And the uncircumcised Man-Child whose Flesh of his Fore-â—â—in is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off c. vers 14. 6. The covenant of circumcision was of the Letter and not of the Spirit that is of the Law
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
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
to cast them out of Covenant for you do own that the Seed of believers were once in Covenant and were Church-members but if you cannot prove what the transgression was then all your arguments ought to be committed to the custody of the Essex Jayl Keeper thus Mr. Shute Answer You Should first prove it was a gracious priviledge to Babes or the Carnal Seed of Abraham that they were in the Legal Covenant and national Church of Israel before you ask that question The Apostle says not that circumcision was a Priviledg unless they kept the Law and by it they were obliged to keep it perfectly and hence it is called a yoke of Bondage 2. It was not for the Sins of little Babes that the Legal Covenant and Legal Church was dissolved at the coming in of the Gospel But it was the will and pleasure of God to take that Covenant away that he might establish the second and better Covenant And God it appears hath done Infants no hurt hereby since the promise of God made to Abraham touching Salvation by Christ in the Covenant of Grace stands fast for ever and is brought in and established to all the Elect both of Jews first and also of the Gentiles True the unbelieving Jews were cast off for not believing for had they believed they had pertaken of like Gospel Grace with those that did believe But the believing Jews and their Children did no longer abide in that national Church to which they once belonged nor were their Children until they believed received into the Gospel Church yet I affirm that was no Spiritual loss to those Babes seeing there was no righteousness nor Salvation to be had by the Law Legal Covenant nor circumcision Mr. Collinâ— will not say that believers and their Seed only were in the Legal Covenant and in the Legal Church but all unbelievers also and their Children who sprung from Isaacs Loyns were in the same Covenant and were Church-members and that by Gods appointment too as far forth as were the godly or believing Jews and their Children And Friend it should appear that among Abrahams Carnal Seed there were but a very small remnant that were believers Tho' all were in the Legal Covenant then and where Churhmembers 3. Say you You must prove that the Gospel brought less Grace with it than the Abrogated law carried way Answer The abrogated Law had no Grace in it at all Grace came not by the Law but by Jesus Christ the Law is not of Faith 4. Here say you you confound â—nd contradict your self for you say the Church is established upon better promises which I do own and have proved in my Book but the Church State is the same and therefore that of it self is a sufficient argument to prove that all Children of Christian believers are still in Covenant Answer Must the Carnal Seed be Members of the Gospel-Church as under the Law or is it else not a better Covenant that God has established Friend many other external Priviledges as well as that is gone the Sons of our Minishers as such have no right to the Ministry now yet all the Sons of Ministers as such had that right under the Law Besides we have no Land of Canaan nor glorious external Temple no promise of gathering earthly riches no Political State of Government among our selves yet is the Gospel Church State Gospel Covenant better than that under the Law An Account of Mr. Shutes scurrilous language as to the rest of this Sheet I shall only make some remarks on his hard reproachful and Opprobrious words and abuse of Scripture IN Page 2. he compares Mr. Collins with the Jews as if his Arguments were of like nature with theirs who said we have a Law and by our â—aw he ought to dye In Page 5. You do but beat the Air and Shoot all your Arrows against a Brazen Wall and there is no more Work for the Club nor Ax. Answer He may perceive he was mistaken for the Ax hath not done with him yet He in the said 5. Page abuses that Text better promises these are his words viz. for the promises are better and that chiefly because circumcision was changed for Baptism Answer Doth the Holy Ghost there refer to this change or is Baptism a promise or a precept He abuses that Text in Acts 15. 10. the former saith he meaning circumcision wherein Infants were chiefly concerned was such a Yoke as they nor their Fathers were able to bear they were not able to see their Childrens Flesh cut off and we have an Instance of this in Zipporah what made her in such a passion with Moses her Husband as that she called him a Bloody Husband twice Why she tells you her self it was because of the circumcision Answer In this he seems to charge the Holy God who appointed and commanded circumcision as if it was more like a punishment of criminals than an ordinance of God as he calls Diâ—ping of Believers in the Name c. 2. Was it from the pain that circumcision put the Infants to that the Apostle calls it a Yoke that neither they nor their Fathers could bear or was it not rather because it lay them under an obligation to keep the whole Law for our Apostle so says in Gal. 5. 3. I testifie again to every Man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law compared with Rom. 2. 25. 3. He abuses that Text Exod. 4. 15 16. Let him read his Annotators she called her Husband a bloody Husband or a Spouse of Blood because she by Blood as it were redeemed her Husbands Life God being provoked against Moses as the 14. verse shews and she prevented his danger by circumcising her Son 2. If she referr'd to circumcision it self as he takes it yet she being a Midianitisb Woman tâ—â—t would not Justifie him thus to reflect on that Holy Rite and Ordinance of God In Page 6. says he so this question may be sent to Essex among the Barren Jayl Keepers Is it safe to Scoff and make a sport when we write about Sacred things He also reflects upon the whole party of the Baptists as if we were fallen from our former Principles about humane learning I cannot says he but observe how much this People are swerved from their first Principles For it is not long since they decried humane learning and also making a trade of preaching But if they can get a few Shreds or broken fragments of learning or a learned Man on their side they are ready to make an Idol of it and now they make a Trade of Preaching Page 16. c. Answer It appears 't is the whole party he strives to bring into contempt But let him take heed of belying so gracious a People as the Adversaries themselves confess them to be did we ever decry humane learning because we believe and ever did that it is not an essential qualification in a Minister We are no more for it
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
Trespasses forgiven Col. 2. 11 12 13. And will any Man says he yeâ— will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Inâ—â—nt that cannot make a Profession that he is a Christian pag. 31 32. He proceeds Arg. 23. The Baptized are in 〈…〉 called Men washed sanctified justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1 2. all Christians-are sanctified oâ—â—eâ— pag. 33. Now let me add the Minor But Infants baptized are not in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor sanctified ones Ergo Infanâ—s ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these Assertions of Mr. Bâ—â—tn's whilst he was living I answer More then twelve Years ago I did recite and print these Assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same Purpose â—o which he gave no Answer Arg. 24. If there is but â—ne way for all both Parents and Children to be adâ—iâ—â—â—d into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that it is upon the Profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parâ—â—â—s and Children must upon the Profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all boâ—â— Paâ—eâ—â—â— and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that is upon the Profession of their Faith to be baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true Baptism wherein there is not 〈…〉 â—e â— lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death 〈◊〉 Sâ—â— and V 〈…〉 tion to a new Life But in the Baptizing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Ergo. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that tends to 〈…〉 the glorious 〈◊〉 and Design of Christ in his 〈…〉 of Gospel Baptism or cannot answer it is none of Christ's Baptism But the pretended Baptism of Infants â—enâ—â— to 〈…〉 the glorious end and design of Christ 〈…〉 of Gospel Baptism Ergo. The Mâ—â—â—â— will now 〈…〉 As to the M 〈…〉 all generally conâ—â—â—â— the End or Design of Christ i◠〈…〉 the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figâ—â—e to represâ—â—â— his Death Burial and Resurrection with the Person 's Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his Blood was shed But that a liverly Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection appears in sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to Sin and rising again to walk in newness of lâ—â—e be signified And therefore-Christ's Design and End therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual Signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to â—ip c. we have proved which is also confessed by the Learned in that Language 2. The Figurative Baptism was 1st That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Pools Annotations on 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized c. The 2d was that of Noah's Ark. See Sir Norton Knatchbull The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith be were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not the Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ of this Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of Affliction the first signifies not a sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be baptized c. on which Words Casaubon speaks thus See Dr. Duveil on Acts 2. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip or plunge as it were to die Colours in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Also Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of Affliction are those great depths or overwhelmings of Afflictions like that of our Saviour's suffering i. e. no part free Matth. 20. 22. where you have the same Greed Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of great Waters 4. The spiritual Signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life This being so it follows undeniably Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last Place Finally To confirm that Baptizo is to dip both from the literal and spiritual Signification thereof as also from those typical and metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidently appears from the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Riuers and where there was much Water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the Water not down to the Water and came up out of the Water John Baptist is said to baptize them into Jordan as the Greek Word renders it which shews it dipping and not sprinkling Would it be proper to say He sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things FINIS