Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the External ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watry Grave a new creature Moreover unto these let me add what Dr. Tillotson the present Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote see his Book stiled Sermons on several occasions 5th Edit Page 188 189. Speaking also of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were Baptised put off their garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signifie their entrance upon a new Life And to these customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death c. Dr Duveil on Act. 8. Page 292 293. cites a most learned Anonimous French Protestant Writer in his answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux speaking thus viz. 't is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been Administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this sprinkling is an abuse thus custom which without any accurate examination saith he they retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its institution and ancient use and that nearness of similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith repentance and resurrection This reflection of Mr. Bâ—ssuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Romish Church Calvin also saith l. 4. c. 16. that Baptism is a form or way of burial and none but such as are already dead to sin or have repented from dead works are to be buried But now say we sprinkling and pouring is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial nor can Infants be the subjects of it because as the learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future regeneration 't is an outward sign of that Death unto sin which the party Baptised passed under then or ought to have had before Baptis'd they then professed themselves to be Dead to sin i. e. when they were Buried with Christ in their Baptism for the argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are Dead to sin live any longer therein know you not that so many of us who were Baptized into Christ were Baptized into his Death both in sign and signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says they rise out of that watry Grave as new born Creatures it denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and arguments drawn there from utterly condemn sprinkling and pouring as that which is not Christs true Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the true subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that Watry Grave as new born Creatures I will only quote one Author more and proceed and that is learned Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. There are saith he two parts in regeneration i. e. Mortification and Vivification that is called a burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ the Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are Baptised that they are buried wich Christ and raised with him but only of such who have true faith Thus Zanchy Now Sir see what a stir and pudder as you call it these Pedo-Paptists make on this Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. to prove Baptism is Dipping or a figure of a burial Would you not have us give the true sense of the Word wherein we concur with all learned Men I hope by this time Reader thou art fully satisfied that this Man hath said nothing to weaken our Arguments or Grounds for Dipping tho' ' twice as much we have said on this Account in that Treatise called The Rector Rectified but this shall suffice here as to the Mode of Baptizing CHAP. II. Wherein Mr. Shutes Reply to Mr. Hercules Collins Answer about habitual Faith is considered detected and clearly refuted proving that Infants are not required to believe nor are they without a miracle capable so to do nor are they intended in those places of Scripture that Enjoyns Faith on the Adult BEfore I proceed to take notice of what this Man hath said about Infants having habitual Faith I shall note two or three things by the Way 1. 'T is very remarkable and worthy the Readers observation to see how the asserters of Infant Baptism differ among themselves about that Faith they suppose to be in Infants for as I noted in by Answer to Mr. Smythies Cold resined Page 144 some of them as Thomas Aquinas asserts They have the Faith of the Church that being intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof others say they have the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties thus the Church of England c. Musculus seems to assert they have an Imputed Faith Mr. Blake intimates They have a Dogmatical Faith only Mr. Baxter would have it be a saving Faith but does not tell us how it agrees or differs from the Faith of the Adult some as Mr. Danvers observes say 'T is a Physical some a Metaphysical Faith some a hyperphysical Faith Some say They are born Believers which proceeds from their Patents being in the Covenant and being Believers but this is to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation nay and to assert all are not Children of Wrath by nature or as they are born and come into the World others say They are made Believers by Baptism that Ordinance conveying grace as Mr. Rothwell This Man asserts they have habitual Faith the like do the Athenian Society seem to intimate But which of all these shall we give credit to The Truth is they all speak without Book having no ground from Gods word to say what they do 2. We desire it may be considered and carefully heeded lest we still are abused as Mr. Collins hath been that we stedfastly believe and readlly grant it as an Article of our Faith That all Infants are under the Guilt and stain of original Sin as they come into the World and that no Infant can be saved but through the Blood and Imputation of Christs righteousness And also we do believe That all those dying Infants who are â—aved God doth in some way or
or first Testament and not of the Gospel or second Testament See Rom. 3. 29. 7. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for righteousness was not the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant but Faith was not reckoned to Abraham in circumcision ergo See Rom 4. 9 10. See more Page 22. 1 Part. Arg. 8. That Law or Covenant that is contra-distinguished or opposed to the Covenant of Faith or Gospel Covenant could not be one and the same in nature and quality with it But the Apostle lays down the Covenant of circumcision as contra-distinct or opposed to Faith or the Covenant of Grace ergo 9. That Covenant or precept that could profit none unless they keep the whole Law perfectly it could not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but so 't is said of circumcision Sâ—e Rom. 2 25. 10. That Law or Covenant that obliged those that conformed to it to keep the whole Law could not belong to the Covenant of Grace but so did circumcision oblige See Gal. 5. 3. See our last Annotators on that Text. 11. That Covenant that is called a Yoke of Bondage could not be the Covenant of Grace But circumcision is called a Yoke of Bondage ergo See Act. 15 Gal. 5. 1 2. 12. All those that are in the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham have an undoubted right to all the saving Blessings of the said Covenant but all those that were in the Covenant of circumcision had not an undoubted right to all the saving Blessings of the Covenant of Grace ergo c. 13. All those that are in the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham have a sure and strong ground of consolation that is Spiritual Consolation and they should be saved Heb. 6. 13 14 15. But many of them that were in the Covenant of circumcision had no sure ground of consolation that is Spiritual nor have many of our Children who are Believers any such ground of consolation but some of them may perish ergo Sir why did you not answer these arguments you have said nothing that is worth regard to me Also shew if you writ again what profit your Infants receive by Baptism and in what sense they are in the Covenant of Grace and how they can be Members of your Churches and yet are not Members nor received as such until they actually believe and repent But remember if you could prove them in the Covenant of Grace yet that doth not prove you ought to Baptise them Baptism is of mere positive right You must have authority from Christ to Baptise them or you sin if you do it In Page 136. You tell us That the form of circumcision was transient and is ceased Yet the Essential part thereof remaineth in the Flesh for nothing could be more a Type of Baptism than Circumcision c. Answer I promised to forbear hard words but a Man that argues thus should be severely dealt with one way or another i. e. either by writing or rather in a Church way be severely reproved Does the Essential part of circumcision remain in the Flesh then the mark it made in the Flesh doth no doubt remain for I know not what was else the essential part of it remaining in the Flesh save that the form was the cutting off the fore-skin If you had said the essential thing signified by it doth remain in the Heart of true believers you had said some thing to the purpose But. Did ever any Man before now intimate that Baptism is the essential part of circumcision If this were so circumcision could not be circumcision in the Flesh without Baptism because a thing cannot be where the essential part of it is wanting He proceeds to give a reason why the essential part of circumcision remains in the Flesh Page 136. viz. how saith he could this token of the Covenant be everlasting if the Essence thereof was dissolved upon the coming in of the Gospel This cannot be for it is a contradiction in it self for everlasting and dissolution are opposites 1. Answer This Man by this argument gives cause to fear he may erelong plead for circumcision and turn Jew for he is for the essential part of it and that in the Flesh too already I am sorry he understands no better the difference between a Type and the Antitype for there can no part of the Type remain much less the essential part of it when the Antitype is come But he runs into this error from his ignorance of the word Everlasting which as I have shewed is sometimes to be taken with restriction and refers to a long period of time He may as well say Aarons Priesthood remains or the essential part of it because called an Everlasting Priesthood Numb 25. 13. 2. We deny Baptism was the Antytipe of circumcision To prove it was not I have given many reasons which he answers not 1. Both Circumcision and Baptism were in full force together for some time even from the time John Baptized until the Death of Christ. 2. Because one thing that is a figure or shadow cannot come in the room of as the Antitype of another thing that is a figure See 12 Reasons more in Rector Rectifiea Page 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 c. One of them Mr. Shute takes notice of which is this viz. Circumcision belonged only to Male Children Baptism belongs to Males and Females who believe To this he answers that the Females was included in the Males because Man is the head and representative of the Woman and Woman is a part of Man Answer Why then let your Females be Baptized in your Males for from hence it will follow when your Males are Baptized your Females are Baptized also as much as the Jews Females were circumcised Neither need your Wives eat the Lords Supper for when you receive they receive it But sure Sir you mistake your learning fails you Will the food you eat feed your Wife or will your Faith serve her Doth she believe when you believe because she is part of you as here you intimate In page 12. 7. he reflects on me for saying God may have many ways to save dying Infants which we know not He can apply the Benefits and Merits of Christ's Blood to them in ways we are wholly ignorant of c. For this I Quoted Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down Take his answer viz. Pray take notice this Man contradicts himself for in page 21. he saith They must believe and repent and bring forth good Fruits c. Yet here â—e saith God hath many ways to save dying Infants And in page 30. for this Mr. Shute says There is no saving of any Person Old or Young without the Grace of Faith Thâ— you see there is saith he but one way to eternal Life 1. Answer I cannot see but that you have by your arguing thus excluded all Infants that dye out of the Kingdom of Heaven for if no Infant can be saved unless they Believe
but answered the argument that is raised from thence See Part 2. Page 9 10. Now that Mr. Shute hath left part of the words in some Texts and added words in other he hath quoted See Page 120. Where he mentions the words of that Text 1 Cor. 15. 22. For as in Adam aâ— dye so in Christ shall all be made alâ—ve he has wrote thus for as in Adam all the Elect dye so in Christ they shall all be made alive this is all in the same Italick Letter Where he adds Elect and they rendring the sense as if none should have a resurrection but the Elect which is against the Sense of the Apostle So in Page 133. mentioning Mark 16. 16. viz. He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned He hath wrote it thus viz. He that believeth shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Baptized is left out to favour his design I fear for tho' faith be the same in every age yet the the Ordinances are not the same under the Gospel as under the Law for Baptism is no legal Ordinance nor the Lords Supper c. Also he has given a false exposition on several Verses in Rom. 11. and hath in so doing abused Mr. Collins also these are Mr. Collins words as repeated by Mr. Shute Page 75 76. The natural Branches are broken off ergo Childrens visible incovenanting is repealed the Antecedent of this Enthymem is clear from the Apostles assertion Rom. 11. 19 20 21. by the natural Branches without controversie is to be understood the natural Seed of Abraham Now Mr. Shute leaves out Mr. Collins demonstration following to prove his argument i. e. by the branches saith he without controversy is to be understood the natural Seed of Abraham and the breaking off must either be meant from visible Church-membership and external priviledges thereunto belonging or the Everlasting Covenant of grace It cannot saith he be the latter because that Covenant is immutable therefore it must be the former Thus Mr. Collins And he argues to the purpose for 't is impossible for any to be broken off from the Covenant of Grace who were once in that and 't is as clear that the Jews or natural Seed of Abraham as such are broken off from being any more a visible Church and that the legal Covenant for their incovenanting i. e. both Parents and Children as such is gone and taken away he took away the first that he might establish the Second Heb. 10. 9. There is a First and a Second an Old and a New Now the first is only taken away as a Covenant of works do this and thou shall live and as it was given to the whole House of Israel by vertue of which they held their Church-State and Church-membership and all their external Rites Ordinances and Priviledges for the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the whole Law Heb. 7. 12. Tho' it was for the Jews unbelief they were broken off yet the dispensation being changed it was impossible for them to keep their Church-State and external Legal Rites and Priviledges any longer for 't is evident that those Jews that believed in Christ abode no longer members of their Old Church but were transplanted into the Gospel Church what can be more clear than this viz. the Old House and Old legal Right of Church-membership is overturned and râ—oted out for ever And say I if the Covenant for incoveannting of the fleshly Seed as such is abolished and no new Law is given forth for the bringing in again professing Parents and their Carnal Seed as such what is it this Man contends for yet what a mighty stir he makes about that in Rom. 11. you may See in Page 76 c. This Man makes it his main business to prove that the Covenant of Grace is not taken away which we assert with as much Zeal as he but see how he abuses the Text Rom. 11. 17. viz. as those Jews which were these Branches were broken off and their Children with them were cast out of the Covenant So the Gentiles and all their Children were taken into Covenant in their room and did partake of the same Priviledges with those â—ews that did abide firm in the Covenant c. 1. Answer This Man doth not distinguish one Covenant from another i. e. the Legal from the Gospel Covenant nay he owns but one so that he assâ—rts the unbelieving Jews were broken off of the Covenant of Grace and their Children too by which he seems to plead for Arminianism or final falling oâ—â— of the Covenant of Grace Nay worse i. e. that the Children were broken off from the Covenant of Grace for their Parentâ— Sin and unbelief 〈…〉 For if the first Fruit be Holy the lump is also Holy and if the Root be Holy so are the branches vers 16. â— the Root is doubtless meant Abraham but then know that Abraham was a twofold 〈◊〉 as well as a twofold Father viz the Root of all his natural Seed and the Root or Father of all his true Spiritual now for a Man to say that the Apostle here refers to Abraham as a natural Root and so to his natural or Carnal Seed as such is to destroy the whole scope and drift of the Holy Ghost in this Chapter in the close of the 10 Chapter the Apostle shews the Jews were rejected and the Gentiles called and in the beginning of this 〈◊〉 Chapter he prevents an objection some might be ready to say if this be so then God hath cast away his Covenant People To this he Answers vers 2. God hath not cast away his People whom he for knew that is his Elect or the Spiritual Seed of Abraham that were among the Jews See vers 5. even so then oâ— this present time there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace Again in vers 7 what then Israel had not obtained c. that is the natural seed as such but the Election hath obtained it and the rest were blended and tho' the main Body of the Jews were rejected for their unbelief yet in the Latter Days God will call all those and bring them in who belong to the Election of Grace and so all Israel that is the Spiritual Israel shall be saved See vers 15. and â—6 And from hence the 16. verse is brought in viz. for if the first Fruit be Holy the lump is also Holy 〈◊〉 Is the Apostle speaking here of a Legal Federal Holiness No not a word of any such matter But of such a Holiness as was in the Post i. e. in Abraham who was Spiritually Holy being an Elect Person and to that Holiness the Apostle refers viz. first in respect of Gods Election Personal and inherent in Gods intention Now then to apply the Holiness and Infection here to outward Dispensation only in the whole Church which is meant of saving Grace in the invisible and
another which is not known to us Sanctify them for no unclean thing can enter into the Heavenly Jerusalem See our confession of Faith 3. We do believe that no dying Infant can be saved that is not in the Covenant of Grace for t is through or by the Grace Mercy and Inconceivable Love of God as 't is contained in the Covenant of Grace that Christ and all Blessings of Christ are made over to all the Elect whether Adult or little Infants We therefore never asserted That no Infants of Believers or of unbelievers either are in the Covenant of Grace but we do assert all Elect Infants are in it Yet we do deny that the Infants of Believers as such or as so considered as bring their Natural Offspring are in the Covenant of Grace Having noted these three Things I shall proceed First take what Mr. Collins hath asserted in his Answer to Mr. Shutes pretended Antidote See Page 3. viz. That Infants are saved by Christ we have asserted because we know of no other Name but Jesus but that they are saved by Faith habitual Faith in Christ I must confess I never read in all the Book of God I could wish he could shew me the Chapter where Christ said any such thing i. e. that Infants are saved by habitual Faith And what would this Man make a new Bible have a new rule to tell us of things never heard of These are Mr. Collins's words Take Mr. Shutes reply pray look into that Chapter saith he where you find that God hath declared two ways for saving Elect persons one for the saving of aying Infants without the Grace of Faith and the other for saving adult Believers by Faith And then he asketh two other as impertinent Queries But 〈◊〉 last he sixes uâ—on one Text to prove habitual Faith in Infants viz Joh. 3. 9. whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God Answer We say there is but one way to be saved and that one way is Jesus Christ 't is by his Sacrifice by his Blood by his merits that is by the imputation of his righteousness but that there is the same Way or Mode and no other for the Application of the Blood and Merits of Christ respecting elect dying Infants as there is for the Adult and that God doth not cannot sanctify dying Infants any other way but by infusing the same habit of Faith which he infuseth into the Adult who believe he should prove God is a free Agent and may have ways to apply the Blood of Christ and Sanctify dying Infants that we know not of 2. As to the Text he brings to prove habitual Faith in Infants of believers if it be not brought to prove that that Seed or divine Habit is in infants of believers as such it does not concern the present controversie 't is Joh. 3. 9 which we will now consider and examine And let it be well noted That the Seed remaineth in him that sacred habit abides in him that hath it it remains and shall remain in every Soul in whom it is infused grace in the habit can't be lost 'T is a Well or Spring of living Water that springeth up unto Eternal Life Joh. 4. 14. Christ hath prayed That our Faith fail not that is the Seed or Habit thereof for the Act in the exercise of it in part may fail now and then if the Infants of Believers have the Habit of Faith in them be sure those Habits will appear and they must be true Believers and be saved because the Seed remaineth in them 3. Why do you not answer Mr. Collins Argument Page 7. of his reply to you faith he those Children of Believers which die in an unconverted state either never had the Habits of grace or else if they had them they have lost them but there is no losing Habits of grace ergo they never had them Reader see what Mr. Shute hath said to this Argument in Page 42. of his last Book these are his words viz. Therefore I will put it to a fair issue which shall be this produce me but one place in all my Book where I have asserted this you have charged upon me and I will turn Anabaptist immediately c. Answer If you have not said that the Infants of Believers as such have habitual Faith what is it you argue for why do you plead for the habit of Faith to be in them if you say you plead only for habitual Faith to be in Elect Infants 1. Then I hope you will only have Elect Infants to be Baptised and how do you know which they are since they can make no confession of Faith 2. Moreover I also conceive you may allow Baptism to the Infants of Unbelievers For sure you dare not deny but some of their Seed are comprehended in Gods Eternal Election 3. The controversie or difference between us and you lies not how dying Elect Infants are Sanctified c. whether by the habit of Faith or by some other way by which God may apply Christs Merits to them c. But whether the Infants of Believers as such have the habit of Faith or Faith in any sense by which they come to have right to that ordinance what have we to do with dying Infants did you Baptise no Infants but such that dye and were sure that all the dying Infants of Believers were elected it might seem some what to the purpose tho' not so much neither as you may Imagin for I do affirm you have as much ground to give them the Lords Supper as you have to Baptise them because such who are the proper subjects of Baptism have an immediate right according to the order of the Gospel to the Lords Supper You must have a command or Authority from Christs word to Baptise them or you ought not to do it but you have no such command nor Authority 4. The habit of Faith without the Act gives not a right to that Sacred ordinance for Faith and a confession of Faith is required But I must confess I see not how there can be the habit and not the Act for tho' the habit may be Antecedent to the Act in order of nature yet not in order of time in any Believer Prove if you can any person that was a Believer had the habit of Faith and yet not the Act of Faith at the same time For as all learned Men generally agree as soon as life is infused into a dead sinner there is Heat Motion Activity c. the habit of grace is a Vital Principle and as they say 't is naturally active it is a Spring of perpetual motion as Mr. Charnock shews 5. You say Infants may believe And you would have them to be such Children of the Jaylors Houshold who are said to believe and yet would have it to be only Faith in the habit But all Men of understanding know believing