5. Mâ—n Spiritual and savingly quickened from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are made partakers made a meet habitation for God Eph. 2. 21 22. 1 Cor. 3. 16. c. Page 106. Also see Reverend Mr. Cotton of New England on the Covenant speaking of the Ax being laid to the Root of the Trees Mat. 3. 9. Page 177 178. The first is saith he the Root of Abrahams Convenant which this People much trusted upon and that is that which John Baptist speaks of is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees think not to say with in your selves we have Abraham to our Father vers 8. So that all their confidence they had in Abrahams Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such things is burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon But 2ly The Lord he saith hath cut us off from the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of his Ordinances Again he saith it is spoken of the Ministry of John Baptist which did burn as an Oven and left them neither the Root of Abrahams Covenant nor the Branches of their own good works he cutteth them off from the Covenant of Abraham and so by cutting them off from the root he leaveth them no ground to trust to Page 21 22. you say the new creature in the Womb or in the Cradle is as perfect and compleat in all its lineaments as in the oldest Saint on Earth Page 40. c. Answer Sir do not mistake your self if Infants are any of them regenerated in the Womb then Regeneration in them is the first birth but Regeneration is a being born again or a second Generation which is wrought by the Holy Spirit therefore it can't proceed from believing Parents in any wise they can by their Faith contribute nothing to the second Birth Now shew at what time 't is that regeneration is wrought in your Infants O take heed for tho' God doth regenerate the Souls of dying Infants that are saved Yet what is this to the Infants of Believers as such Besides if John Baptist or Jeremiah the Prophet were Regenerated in the Womb or any other Infants then it would follow they were not born Children of wrath as others Nor could their Regeneration be called a being born again as I hinted before but their first Birth must be so called You I see apply those Scriptures where our Lord Jesus Speaks of the Adult to Infants as that Mark 16. 16. John 3. 3. So that Infants by your notion are required to believe and to be born again nay you in Page 24 25 Châ—llenge Mr. Collins in the name of the Lord to produce â—at one Text of Scripture that dâ—â—h discover any other way or means wherein God hath ordained and appointed to save Elect. dying Infants in differing in any point or part of it from that wherein he saves Adult believers Again in Page 19. say you where will you find two ways for the saving Elect Persons c. Answer As to the way of Salvation 't is we gâ—ant but one viz. Christ is the way nor is there Salvation in any other But the mode or manner may differ about the Application or means of that one way in some points as may appear to all viz. 1. The Adult except Ideots are not saved without the Act and exercise of Faith dying Infants are 2ly The Adult are not saved without actual repentance but dying Infants are 3ly The Adult are not saved without Mortification of Sin taking up the Cross and following of Christ. But Infants are saved without any of these or any other Sacred Acts of obedience whatsoever and yet will you say the way as to the Mode or manner of the Salvation of dying Infants differs in no one point from Adult persons How will you prove that 't is the habit of Faith and not the Act of Faith that applies Christs merits and Righteousness to the Soul in adult persons is it not from the habit the Soul is enabled to believe and say hold on Christ and is it not thus that Christ saves the Adult and doth he just so and in the same mode or manner save dying Infants As to the producing one Text in the Case I say the Holy Ghost is wholly silent as touching the way or manner of the application of Christs merits to dying Infants or how their sinful natures are sanctified yet that the modes differ in many respects as I have shewed is evident As to what you say in Page 4â— I ask how do you knâ—â— but that some of the dying Infants of â—fiâ—â—ls may be elected as well as some Infants of believers and so in as good a condition â—â—y â—â—w 〈◊〉 on know but that all Infants dying in Infancy may be elected sure I am naturally all are born in â—in and I know no difference in that respect nor is there any when grown up till grace is infused ' 〈…〉 e and not the natural Birth that makes any difference between the Children of Believers and the Children of unbelievers and I do affirm till Children have actual Faith or do believe and repent they have no right to the Ordinance of Baptism nor have you proved the contrary nor ever will The Church of England acknowledg the same viz. that Infants are not able to perform Faith and Repentance the two great prerequisits of Baptism by reason of their tender age therefore they have found out sureties to ingage for them In Page 57. you greatly abuse Mr. Collins in saying that he allows not Elect dying Infants to be in the Covenant of Grace Doth it follow because he denies the Infants of believers as such to be in the Covenant of grace therefore he denies elect Infants to be in the Covenant of Grace Sir you ought not to bear false witness against your neighbour as you have done he will tell you and hath told you that all that are saved are in the Covenant of Grace Reader Pray note how disengenuous this Man seems to be and how he hath strangely encumbred the present controversie in talk of habitual grace in dying Infants for what is that to the purpose since he refers not to such Infants of believers that live he himself acknowledges that all their Infants who live have not the habit of Faith Nor can he prove any of them have it or such that die either therefore unless no other but dying Infants were baptized by the Pedo Baptists this can no ways concern the controversie 2. Consider that since those supposed habits in Infants of believers do not appear to us nor do we know which they are what ground it there to Baptise any of them For what appears not is not as to us Shouâ—d we Baptise any Adult persons in whom no Fruit Sign or demonstration of Faith appears than what appears in Infants certainly we should be worthy of the greatest blame imaginable For 't is evident that in all whosoever that are the true subjects of
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy House and they spake unto him and to all that were in his House vers 32. And he took them the same hour of the Night and washed their Stripes and was Baptized â—e and all his straight way Now from these words Mr. Shute affirms that they were all Baptized in his House that is in the Jaylors House 2. That they were Baptized the same hour of the Night 3. That they did not go out of the House to a River If you can see these three Things in these Verses you have better Eyes than I have As to what was done the same hour of the Night 't is directly in plain words asserted viz. He washed their Stripes As to the time when Baptized it is said Straight way If you will have the same Hour and Straight way to intend both the washing their Stripes and their being Baptized it is more than can be gathered therefrom but if that be granted might they not in that hour go a little way out of the House and be Baptized 't is evident he abuses the Sacred Text. 4. What reason hath he also to affirm that none believed but the Jaylor himself for so he asserts These are his words Page 7. We do not read of any one Soul of them that did believe besides the Jaylor himself before they were Baptized nor of any one act of Faith they exerted 1. Answer We do read in vers 34. And when he had brought them into his House he set Meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his House 2. He will say may be this was after they were Baptized I answer we read not one word of the Jaylors believing himself tell then I mean tho' he believed before and all his House believed before either were Baptized yet 't is not expressed by the Holy Ghost until after they had been Baptized and were come into his House and he set Meat before them believing in God with all his House So that here is as much mention made of that act of Faith his whole House exerted as of the Jaylors own Faith and as soon also 3. And is it not evident likewise that they were before out of the Jaylors House else why is it said when he had brought them into his House c. that is after they were Baptised take heed how you write at another time lest you provoke God by adding and diminishing from his Sacred Word In Page 12 you say you believe that there were more modes in Baptism than one for some went down into the Water and others were Baptised in their Houses but say you I understand not that any were Ducked all under Water it is possible their Faces might be Dipped without Plunging the whole Body under Water or by pouring Water on their Faces 1. Answer That which you again assert I again affirm is not true viz. That some were Baptised in their Houses what you have said of the Jaylors being Baptised in his own House all may see is without Book and without the least shadow of proof nor do you nor can you prove it of any other 2. If there were more modes of Baptism than one then there were different significations of the same ordinance and all of them could not be held forth in the Baptism of each person for such that were Dipped tho' it was but the Head only were taught the proper Mysteries represented thereby and those that were sprinkled only with Water or had Water poured upon them were taught the proper Symbols or signification of that mode but how absur'd that would be I leave to all impartial wise Men to consider 3. And if this was so how then was the way and ordinance of God in their Holy administration one and the same in all the Churches of the Saints you may as well say the modes of the Administration of the Lords Supper were more than one and so allow of the Popish mode therein who deny the Laiâ—y the Cup. Is this to make the Holy God a God of order or of confusion 4. If Dipping was one mode and Sprinkling another then would Baptism and Rantism be both ordinances of Christ ask the learned what the word for Sprinkling is in the Greek Tongue and if they do not tell you if they speak the truth 't is Rantising I will confess I have in this done you wrong and mistook my self But we deny Sprinkling is Baptism for Dipping of the whole Body is an essential not an accident of Baptism Baptism is compared to a burial that 's clear from Rom. 6. 3 4. as it is confessed by a multitude of learned Men who were Pedo Baptists as you shall hear anon Now will you say if the Face or Head only of a Dead Corps was covered with Earth and not the whole Body that the Corps was buried if you should would you not be laught at Our Saviour was buried not his Head only but his whole Body also in the Heart of the Earth and he whose whole Body is not covered all over in the Earth is not buried no more is he whose whole Body is not covered all over in the Water-Baptised Baptism is a lively Figure of the Burial of our Blessed Lord and of our Death to Sin and being Buried with him both in Sign and signification In Page 12. say you produce one positive command or example to prove that ever any Woman went down into a River or Pond to be Dipped or Ducked all under Water in Baptism throughout the Book of God or else take your human invention to your self these are your words Answer If we prove that a Woman by name was Baptized then we prove a Woman was Dipped because Baptized in Greek is Dipped in English and the Dutch as I have elsewhere shewed have so Translated the Word viz. Dooped or Dipped in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Now in Act. 16. we read of Lydia who was Baptized that is Dipped and in Act. 8. 12. when they believing Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were Baptized both Men and Women That is saith the Dutch Translation they were Dooped both Men and Women our Translators have left the Greek word untranslated into our Tongue What difference is there between Baptisma Greek and Baptism 2. But Sir I cannot but take notice how often you add Ducking to Dipping Is not this to reproach and cast contempt upon us and on the ordinance of Christ of Dipping believers in his name The Lord open your Eyes and give you repentance in mercy to your poor Soul In Page 13. because every Sinner God draws to Christ must come to him naked c So you say it must be in Baptism viz. that part of the Man Woman or Child that is Baptized must be naked and so plead only for the Baptizing of the Face 1. Answer
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