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
Church-state by his opinion continues still He may say the invisible Church is the same now as then but not the visible the matter as well as the form is changed Ye also as living Stones are built up a Spiritual House c. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Was not the Gospel Church gathered out of the Jewish and Heathenish Nations consisting only of such Men and Women who made a profession of their Faith let him prove any one Infant was ever received into the Gospel Church if he can In Page 167. he inquires whether a Farmer destroys his Barn or hurts the Floor when he takes a great keap of Corn and Chaff and Winnows the Corn and Fans away the Chaff c. Answer I ask whether or no Christ did not remove by the Gospel Dispensation all the Wheat out of the old Barn nay and pull down that Barn viz. the Jewish Church and Fan quit away the Carnal Seed as such and all the Chaff And erect a new Garner or Gospel Church into which he put his Wheat i. e. Believing Men and Women whether Jews or Gentiles In Page 136. he intimates that the essential part of circumcision is Baptism and that the essential part thereof remaineth in the Flesh still Answer Then say I circumcision could not be circumcision without Baptism nor Baptism be Baptism without circumcision which is such a piece of Stuff and Impertinences as I never met with all can a thing be where the Essence or the Essential Part of it is wanting In Page 130. he intimates because I deny Infants to have right to Baptism or that they can believe that I assert two ways to be saved He also there says viz. there is no saving any Person old or young without the Grace of Faith he Cites Mark 16. 16. Joh. 3. 16. Thus you see saith he there is but one way to Eternal Life either for old or young that is through Faith in the righteousness and merits of Christ. Wo be to poor Infants then say I if they cannot believe as the Adult do if it be thus we say there 's no way to be saved but by Christ's merrits and righteousness imputed and that Infants must be sanctified that are saved also but yet we dare not say they do or can be said to believe as the Adult and if they do not they must be damned according to his notion because that is true of all the Adult that believe not One while he seems to say that the Infants of believers as such have habitual Faith At another time confesses he cannot prove that this or that Infant of believers hath Faith or the habit of it without he had a new Bible Page 45. Doubtless the Tree is known by the Fruit if we speak of the Adult we may know who do believe though I deny not but we may be mistaken in some how did Paul know that the Saints at Thessalonica were Elected 1 Thes. 1. 4 5. Knowing beloved your Election of God He shews how he came to know they had true Faith and were Elected for our Gospel came not to you in Word only but in power c. Mr. Shute says in Page 1. 90 that the Anabaptists Congregations be hath proved no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their opinion Sacrilegious Yet he hath Communion at the Lords Table with some of them who have this counterfeit Baptism and deny Infants to be the Subjects of that Ordinance and Sprinkling to be Baptizing and so are guilty of like Sacrilege with us there being divers Baptists in that Church to whom he belongs AN APPENDIX BEING A Reply to Mr. Shute's last single Sheet in Answer to Mr. Collins's half Sheet wherein the Covenant of Circumcision c. and free Promise of Grace God made to Abraham are further and distinctly opened shewing how they differ from each other SInce I wrote this reply to Mr. Shutes last Book I have met with a single Sheet which he calls an Answer to Mr. Hercules Collins last Shift c. Which discovers more of his bitter Spirit and what ill Influences he is under I thought it not amiss to make some remarks upon this Sheet tho' I suppose Mr. Collins will think himself concerned to vindicate his innocency from his undue Unchristian and false charges This Paper of Mr. Shutes manifesteth very great confidence touching his notions of the Covenant God made with Abraham and as much ignorance As will quickly appear to all discerning Men who shall read it In Page 1st he says I have cleared and vindicated the aforesaid Antidote from that foul Aspersion and totally confuted all the Aspersors in my last Book in the Judgment of all wise Judicious and Impartial Persons that have read it Answer Let those wise persons he speak of first read this precedent answer to his Book and then let them impartially Judg of it In Page 2. he speaks of Mr. Collins his five Arguments to prove the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham To this Mr. Shute says pray where do you find this distinction concerning the everlasting Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed Answer You shall see Friend that there is such a distinction found in the Scripture and that your reverend Ministers confirm the same thing viz. That God made a Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such which is removed and also a Covenant with Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such which runs to Christ and all that are his elect ones See Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made He saith not and to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ. Compared with verse 29. and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and heirs according to the promise Now Friend if you say this promise which the Apostle speaks of which is the everlasting Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham was made with many i. e. both with Abrahams natural and Spiritual Seed as such you contradict the Holy Ghost Paul says And not to Seeds as of many But you say to Seeds i. e. all his natural and Spiritual Seed Page 5. See also Rom. 9. 5 6 7 8. They are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children But in Isaac shall thy Seed be called That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God But the Children of the promise Mark it are accounted for the Seed Is not that distinction Mr. Collins speaks of clearly laid down in these Scripture doth not the Apostle exclude the Carnal Seed of Abraham as such from being included in the Covenant of Grace 2. I need not go about to prove there was a Covenant made with Abraham and all his natural Seed as such since that is so clearly and fully spoken of in the Scripture viz. That the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children were taken into the legal
you Children From hence you say 535. that it appears infallibly that little Children of believing Parents are Church Members and have an indubitable right unto the Ordinance of Baptism c. Answer I grant those little Children who do believe in Christ have an indubitable right to Baptism and to the Lords Supper also as soon as they are Baptised But not Infants In Page 28. You say that Timothy was Baptised when he was a Child Answer I am subject to think he was very young when he did first believe and was Baptised may be he was a Child but prove he was Baptised when he was an Infant and I will become a Pedo Baptist. And since his Mother and Grand-Mother were both believers no doubt had he been Baptised when an Infant Christ would have left it upon Record to have put an end to this controversie which he knew and foresaw in after times would arise But this is no whereto be found so that you are wiser then what is written 2. But Sir are your Infants Church Members with you doth the Church you belong unto consists of such as of the Adult I thought none accounted their Infants to be Church Members but those who are for national Churches Infant Baptism seem as if it was continved according to the nature of such a constitution and not for a Gospel Church constitution which consisteth only of a Congregation of godly Men and Wâ—men In Page 34. You positively affirm this is the Church of which aâ— the Seed of Believers are Members as much now as ever the Jews Children were under the Law For it is the same Church state tho' in another dress or under another dispensation Our Saviour did not destroy the Church state when he â—â—communicated the unbelieving Jews c. 1. Answer I thought that the Church you are a Member of was congregational not national and I am satisfied that it is so and that they do own no national Church to be a true Church of Christ I mean such that consisteth of Parents and their Children as under the Law in the national Church of the Jews 2. I deny that all or any Infants of believers are Members of the Gospel Church prove it if you can and also I do affirm the State or Constitution of the Gospel Church is not the same now as it was under the Law 'T is evident all the Jewish Infants were born Members of that Church it being national But now the Church is built up of living Stones consisting of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham only not of the natural or carnal Seed of Believers And I am perswaded tho' your Reverend Pastor is for Infant Baptism yet he will not allow of what you here affirm But Sir if your Infants are all born Church Members How can Baptism be an initiating rite to them I allow not nor you neither any person to be a right regular member of a Gospel Church until Baptized But you in page 35. say that little Children of believing Parents are Church Members and so seem to argue for their being Baptized but if all believers Seed are born Church Members ours are as good Church Members as yours tho' not Baptized You in the last place seem greatly to miss the matter in one great case viz. you distinguish not between the visible and invisible Church under the Law The invisible Church is but one and the same in every age that consisteth only of all the elect we grant but the visible Church is not the same now as it was under the Law That the whole State and Constitution of the national Church of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham is gone and dissolved your learned Brethren will not deny and there is no national Church in its room constituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. So that 't is not an excommunication of the Jewish only but an absolute dissolution of their Church State as Mr. Cotton Mr. Charnock Dr. Owen and many others assert In page 99 100 c. you again positively declare that the State of the Christ is the same now as it was under the Law and hath the same Attributes and made of the same ingredients and hath the same Titles and lives upon the same Food and was a Baptized Church and 〈◊〉 in the same relation to God and Christ as the Gospel Church doth now You proceed to make these things to appear 1. You begin with the Attributes of the Church under the Law viz. if you obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then â—e shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all People c. and ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests and 〈◊〉 holy Nation Exod. 19. 5 6. You quote also Psal. 135. 4. 1. Answer Tho' they upon their obedience and keeping Gods Covenant had such promises yet 't is evident that they were a National Church God took the whole House of Israel into a visible External Covenant Church State and as so considered separated them from all other Nations and People in the World to be a peculiar people and Treasure in that Covenant unto himself and in this sense he was said federally or by Covenant to be Married to the whole House of Israel and became an Husband to them see Jer. 31. 31. God there made a promise to Israel and Judab viz. I will make a new Covenant c. not according to the Covenant I made with y ur Fathers in the day that I took them by the Hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt which Covenant they broke although I was an Husband to them saith the Lord v. 32. Now in that Covenant God made with them when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt he gave them their Legal Church State and many External Earthly Blessings Laws and carnal Ordinances and like as a Husband cares and provides for the Wife so did God care and provide for them and preserve them so long as that Law I mean the Law of their Husband did continue But that Law is now dead Rom. 7.4 And God is now no longer such a Husband to them Nor hath he Married any other External Nation or People as so considered in the World But now God in the Gospel Covenant is an Husband indeed to them he was a Typical Husband nor is the Gospel Church Married to the Lord by that old Covenant Law but by the new Covenant which is not according to the old Moreover they not keeping that Covenant were not such a peculiar treasure to the Lord as Believers are to him in the New Covenant Christ hath undertook for all the true members of his mystical Body they are married to him for ever and they are to him an Eternal excellency therefore the legal Jewish visible Church differed from the Gospel Church Yet 2. I also grant that all those under the Law who were members of the invisible Church or elect ones were as choice a treasure to God as any Believers are now
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
of the Covenant of Grace made to him and to all his Spiritual Seed as such 3ly That Christ should come out of Abrahams Loins according to the Flesh and of none else was in that Covenant God made with him and a special part it was of the Covenant of circumcision and was that made to the Gentiles that believe or was it not peculiar to Abrahams Seed only according to the Flesh. 4. Also when the Apostle speaks of the Gospel which God preached to Abraham or promise of the Covenant of Grace he doth not mention the Covenant of restipulation in Gen. 17. 7 8 9. But that in Gen. 12. 3. Chap. 18. 18. and Chap. 22. 8. In thy Seed shall all Nations be Blessâ—d Mark it well You say The Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed was never Repealed nor Dissolved nor their Church State taken up by the Roots at the coming in of the Gospel for if it had say you how couâ—d the Blessing of Abraham come upon the Gentiles as promised Gen. 12. 3. 1. Answer Is not the Jewish Church State dissolved and doth not Dr. Owen tell you their Old Covenant is gone Yet 2. Do we say the promise of the New Covenant God made to Abraham is dissolved God forbid for that is unalterable and by the Vertue of which it is that believing Gentiles partake of the Blessings of Abraham But Friend the Gentiles receive not the Blessings of Abraham through the Law nor through the Covenant of Circumcision but by Faith in the Promise of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham viz. in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Nay Abraham himself 't is evident received not that blessedness in the Covenant of circumcision That Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness The Apostle asserts Rom. 4. 9. How was it then reckoned When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision Verse 10. There was no need of this distinction if circumcision appertained to the Covenant of Grace we see how 't is contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith And he received circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith he had yet being uncircumcised That he might be the Father of all that Believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also From hence I argue that circumcision was a Seal to none but Abraham 1. Because it is said to be a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith Abraham had being yet uncircumcised for so it could not be a Seal to others because they were circumcised before they believed 2. Because also it was to assure him of that peculiar Blessing and priviledge of being the Father of all that believe And none had that prerogative but Abraham only 3. Take this Argument If Abraham received the Spiritual Blessing viz. Righteousness and Justification by Faith in the promise of the Covenant of Grace made to him and received not the Blessing of Righteousness and Justification in the Covenant of circumcision then there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant transactions of God with Abraham But the former and latter is true Ergo there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant transactions God made with Abraham In Page 3. Mr. Shute says the Olive Tree or Covenant God made with Abraham was not dissolved For the Jews are to be grafted into their own Olive Tree again but if the Covenant were dissolved and repealed how can they be taken into it again for 't is called their own Olive Tree Rom. 11. 11 12 17. 1. Answer This Man mistakes the Holy Ghost The Apostle speaks not of the Jews as being Abrahams Carnal Seed as such but of thâ—m that belong to the Election of Grace 2. Now who doubts but that the Covenant of Grace was their Covenant or Olive Tree even all of them that shall be taken into it of the Jewish race in the latter days as much as it was their Covenant who were Jews and Elect ones who lived in the Apostles time 3. It might be called their Olive Tree or Covenant because the Covenant of Grace as it was made with Abraham ran first to his natural Seed who were the Children of the promise i. e. the Elect of God hence Christ said he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel That is not first sent they were first to have the offer of all New Covenant Grace and Blessings to them appertained the Covenant and Adoption c. viz. in the first place 4. Do we plead for the dissolution of the Covenant of Grace God made with or promised to Abraham because we say the Legal and external Covenant made with him and his Carnal Seed as such is removed by vertue of which they had their political Church State and visible Church-membership and all other Fleshly and Legal Priviledges Or do we say those Jews that believed or their Elect Infants were cast out of the Covenant of Grace God forbid No for if the Children of unbelieving Jews did believe it shews they are in covenant also In a word All that believe let them be whose Children they will they are all in the Covenant of Grace For there is now no difference Jews and Gentiles Old and young bond and free are all one in Christ Jesus Now no knowing Men after the Flesh i. e. upon the account of Fleshly or external Priviledges by descent from Abraham according to the Flesh Circumcisioa nor uncircumcision availeth nothing but a new Creature old things are past away and all things are become new 2. Cor. 5. 17. Should this Man object and say as to Dr. Owen he speaks of the Sinai Covenant or the Covenant made with the People of Israel after they came out of Egypt and not of the Covenant of circumcision Answer I answer that it is evident where Paul excludes the Law as not being of Faith nor the Covenant of Grace but opposed unit he also excluded upon the same Foot of account circumcision Rom. 4. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Gal. 3. 21. Gal 5. 3. Rom. 2. 25 26 27. Also Mr. Sbute says the Covenant Deut. 29. 11 12 13. is the same Gâ—â— made with Abraham Take his own words â—age 17. note this saith he by the way he hath dropt the 13. verse wherein is the explanation of the Covenant to be the same God made with Abraham and his Seed Which verse doth indeed clearly shew that the Covenant of circumcision was the same and but a farther establishment of it with that given in Horeb thou shalt enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God c. viz. That he may establish thee to day for a People to himself and that he may be unto thee aGod as he hath said unto thee and hath vowed unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. You ask What was the personal actual sin which those young Babes committed at the coming in of the Gospel that provoked God
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-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
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
refers to the Act or exercise of Faith you may as well say the Jaylor had no more than the habit of Faith for read the words again viz. be rejoyced believing in God with all his House 6. If Infants believe they know the object of their Faith can any believe in him whom they know not Faith all Men I think agree has its Seat in the will and understanding the understanding is illuminated and sees the need necessity and excellency of Jesus Christ and so assents that he is the only Saviour as well as the Will consents bends and bows down in subjection to him And can any either young or old be said to be Believers or to have Faith and yet in them is nothing of this But say you Page 22. For as much as the Creature is wholly passive in the reception of grace and Christ is all in all from the foundation of Mans Salvation to the topstone therefore a young Child in the Womb or Cradle is as capable of being born again as well as an old one for both young and old are dead in sin and Trespasses before they are converted Answer You seem to refer to the Almighty power of God 'T is very true he can if he please infuse grace into a Babe in the Womb or Cradle nay of Stones raise up Children to Abraham but the question is not what God can do but what God doth do Though we do believe the creature is passive in the first reception of Grace yet how do you prove God doth regenerate Infants in the Womb or Cradle Gods Grace is infused into fit and proper subjects and tho the Grace by which we believe is from God yet 't is the Creature that doth believe Why do we say that Irrational creatures are not fit Soil for the Seed of the word is it not because they have no understanding and tho' Infants have rational Souls yet till they come to maturity they have no knowledg nor understanding the design of God in sowing the Seed or Habit of Grace is that the Fruits thereof may be produced and brought forth But you must say the Fruits of grace do not appear in Babes which is Love Joy Peace Longsuffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meckness Temperance c. Gal. 5. 22. Nor is it possible it should without a Miracle Such as is the Cause such is the effect or product of it How God doth Sanctify dying Infants I speak as to the Mode of it no mortal Man I am sure can tell if it is by infusing Grace let it be so tho' it can't be proved whilst the World stands yet Gods design therein could not be the same in them as it is in others he expecteth no such fruit from them Nor can any Gospel ordinance be the right of such Infants nor any other without a precept or example from Gods word Baptism as you have heard is a significant ordinance 't is an outward sign of mortification of sin and of Vivification to a new life and â—aith is required in respect of the act of it touching the gracious promise of God made to all such who are the true subjects thereof see what Dr. Taylor Late Bishop of Down speaks about this notion of Infants having habitual faith viz. are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended habit this strange invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority And further saith he if any run for succour to that exploded Cresphuâ—eton that Infants have faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against reason common sense and all experience Again he saith how can any Man know they have faith since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Thus Dr. Taylor In Page 22. He strangely reflects upon Mr. Collins and endeavours to infer that from his Arguments which no way can in honesty be drawn therefrom viz. that the whole strength of his arguments against Infant Baptism naturally tends to the making Adult Believers the Authors of their own Faith and Eternal Salvation Answer Let all Men consider the nature of this Mans Spirit what little ground there is for this Conclusion will soon appear to all that read Mr. Collins arguments doth he deny the infusion of Sacred habits in Believers or that 't is not by the grace of God alone that they are quickened and regenerated because he knows not that Infants have the like Sacred habits infused into them We say the same with worthy Mr. Marshal in Page 78. of his Book which you recite in the 24th Page of yours viz. that Union between Christ and the Soul is fully accomplished by Christ giving the Spirit of Faith to us even before we can Act Faith in the reception of him because by this grace or Spirit of Faith the Soul is inclined to an active receiving of Christ. What of this tho' 't is thus in the Adult must this Spirit of Faith or the Habit of Faith be therefore in Infants of Relievers also Sir let me ask you two or three questions here before I leave this Is Regeneration in your Infants that are Regenerated the fruit or product of that Spirit of Faith or Habits which you plead for to be infused into them when Infants sure if they had any such Habits when Infants they need no other inspired Habits when they are grown up 2. I would know since you speak only of those habits to be in Believers Infants whether they were infused before they were born or after 3. Seeing some Infants of Infidels or Unbelievers may be elected nay and it appears to us by Gods working upon the Hearts of such when grown up that they were comprehended in his electing love had not they likewise when Infants habitual Faith and so an equal right to Baptism In Page 26 you say all the Seed of Believers under the Gospel do partake of all the benefite and priviledges of the Covenant of Grace as much as ever the Seed of professing Jews did under the Law Answer I say so too and more All our Children partake of greater benefits and priviledges of the Gospel of the New Covenant than theirs did of it under the Law as to outward dispensation and revelation when grown up set under the clear and plain Revelation and Ministration of it But of what this therefore say you they have as good a right to the initiating Seal or Token of the Covenant namely Baptism as ever the Jews Children had to the initiating Seal of the Covenant namely Circumcision Answer You go too fast how do you prove that Baptism is an initiating Seal of the Covenant some call it an initiating rite into the visible Church but is it indeed an Ordinance of initiation into the Covenant of Grace then your Infants are not in the Covenant before Baptized I know nothing to be the
and in the like safe condition 3. 'T is evident that the legal Church of the Jews was not made up of the same matter or ingredients as the Gospel Church is for according to the Institution of the Gospel Church none ought to be made members of it but Believers only But in the Jewish Church the fleshy or carnal Seed were admitted by Gods ordination and appointment God did allow of the fleshy Seed as such then to be members of that Church but he doth not allow of such to be in the Gospel Church You mention in Page 100. that in Exod. 25. 31. And thou shalt make a Candlestick of pure Gold c. and you hint this was the Church and the ordinances of God And therefore the ingredients are the same under the Gospel as the Church was under the Law Answer I Though the Candlestick of pure Gold had been a shaddow or Figure of some thing to come and that it referred not to the legal Church but to the Church under the Gospel and this being so how can this prove that Church consisted of the same matter and ingredients as the Gospel Church does 3. You say that the Church of God under the Mosaick Law lived upon the same Spiritual Food as the Church of Christ doth now c. Page 93. 1. Answer All that were of the mystical Body of Christ then 't is true did feed on the same spiritual food 2. But pray consider what you say Can any of those that feed on the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood perish for 't is evident many who are said to Eat of the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink perished in the Wilderness 1 Cor. 10. 5 6 7 8. 3. They all Eat the same Manna that Caleb and Joshua did which is called Heavenly or Spiritual Meat and Drank of the Water out out of the Rock that was a Typ of Christ The Jews say our Annotators Eat the same Spiritual Meat that we do now they in the Type we in the Antitype they as a Church had but the Shell comparatively and we the Kernel they had the shadow we the substance their Ordinances were called Carnal Ordinances and their promises Earthly ours are Spiritual Ordinances and better promises Therefore the Church under the Gospel does not feed on the same food which the Church did under the Law 4. You say the Church under the Law was Baptised Men Women and Children And there can be no true Church but what is so now You mention that in 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. Here is a Church say you Baptized c. and not one of them Dipped or Duck'd over Head and Ears Answer You mistake the Jewish Church was no Baptized Church they had no Ordinance of Baptism this was but a Typical Baptism but if they were as they passed through the Sea Baptised and yet only Sprinkled by Rain faling upon them from the Cloud then you will make the Church of Israel all Anabaptists for they were all Sprinkled after they passed through the Sea see Exod. 24 â— and Moses took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the People both the Book and all the People Heb. 9. â—9 'T is evident you by this render them to be all Rebaptised should what you say be granted 2. But Sprinkling is not Baptising nor was that a real but a Typical Baptism i. e. when they passed through the Sea nor was their Children any more Baptised than was that mixt People which were with them for so 't is said and much Cattel also But that Typical Baptism bears great Analogy with Dipping as Mr. Pools Annotations well observes on the place The Apostle useth that term in regard say they of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was 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 tho' the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water This they give from some as the most probable sense of the place And This being so you need not call the Anabaptists to wonder at what you thought you had got here Do you think that among the Jews that passed through the Sea there were not some Unbelievers as well as among that mixt People will you plead for the Baptising of Prophane and ungodly persons for this will justify their being Baptised as far forth as that of the Infant Seed of Believers Thus I have answered all your arguments to prove there is no difference betwixt the State and Nature of the Gospel Church and that under the Law and further to convince you of your mistake in pleading for such a Church take Dr. Oâ—â—ens sentiments and some other Reverend Independents of a Gospel Church and of the Dissolution of the Jewish Church Question What is an Instituted Church of the Gospel he answers Answer A society of persons called out of the world or their natural Worldly state by the Administration of the Word and Spirit unto obedience of the Faith or knowledg and Worship of God in Christ joyned together in an Holy Band or by special agreement for the exercise of the Communion of Saints in due observation of all the Ordinances of the Gospel Catech p. 19. See also Page 91. how he distinguishes a Gospel Church from the Church under the Law which he calls a National Church Again he saith Page 93. the National Church of the Jews with all the Ordinances of it being removed and taken away the Lord Christ hath appointed particular Churches or united Assemblies of Believers c. See Reverend Mr. Fords Gospel Church opened Chap. 1. Page 5. where he gives a right discription of a Gospel Church Instituted by Christ viz. a society of Godly Christians who give themselves first to the Lord and then to one another c. In Chap. 3. Page 22. he shews the matter of a Gospel Church more fully and that it doth consist only of regenerate and converted persons Such as are Married to and have put on Christ such that are savingly and powerfully enlightned and enlivened quickened and convinced of Sin of Righteousness and Judgment Now are Infants capable of these things again he says Page 25. that all Church Members ought to be sincere hearted Believers c. Where is your Infant Church Membership if what these worthy Ministers say be right as be sure it is I cite these Authors to convince you that you have not a right notion of a Gospel Church in that you say it differs not from the Church of the Jews which was national if you are no Independent but are for a National Church bring forth your arguments but first consult Dr. Owen c. The Dr. saith further viz. that God doth require regeneration as an indispensable condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stonâ—s â— Tet. 2.
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
they are not able to help him c. Doth Mr. Collins question Gods power or intimate God cannot work without help of the Creature 2. That he doth tacitly declare that God is not able to make them capable of the Reception of Grace Because they are not of years to exercise iâ— as if Mr Collins did not know God was infinite in power 3. That Adult persons do qualifie themselves for the reception of Grace or at leastwise are Copartners with the Spirit of Grace in the working of it 4. If this be so saith he then it is not Gods Grace but Mans work c. Which are all false Conclusions and great abuses cast on Mr. Collins and no ways to be inferred from his positions In Page 73. he renders the Baptists to be cunning deceivers take his words i. e. I am not saith he all together ignorant of their devices and stratagems by which they uphold their opinion in which their Principles are enveloped and lie Dormant In Page 115. he says Benjamine Keach doth reckon Abraham of greater antiquity than Christ. Answer This is a false charge likewise and no such consequence can be gathered from my words to which he refers as my Answer shews in this reply In Page 126. he saith this Author is for the saving Elect Dying Infants by some other Covenant and not by the Covenant of Grace Answer This is also false and a great abuse for I no where hint any such thing but say 't is impossible any Infant or Adult Person either should be saved by any other Covenant but that tho' I say they may be saved and not be Members of the visible Church as some Infants were before God made known the Covenant of circumcision and set up the legal Church of Israel In Page 134. he calls our Doctrin a fallacious Doctrin and knows not which to wonder at most viz. our boldness and confidence Or our Peoples ignorance to be so horribly deluded and imposed upon What Enemy could reproach us worse In Page 113. saith he Thus I have given you one broad side more by which I have brought your opinion by the Lee and all the Carpenters and Calkers in the Nation cannot save it from sinking Answer Friend you mistake our cause and opinion is an firm and as sound as ever and needs no Carpenters nor Calkers to mend those Breaches you have made In Page 140. he says Thus you see the Covenant God made with Abraham and all his Seed both Spiritual and Carnal stands fact and firm to Gospel Believers and all their Seed both Spiritual and Carnal notwithstanding Hercules with his Club and Benjamin hewed it with his broad Ax they cannot destroy it because it is an everlasting Covenant 1. Answer Are these Savoury expressions my Ax Friend is Gods word the Title of that Book was the words of the Text viz. the Ax laid at the Root and this Ax will cut down all your Thorns and Briers do what you can 2. How he hath proved that Covenant God made with Abraham and his Carnal Seed as such doth remain let the Reader now Judg. 3 How came if this be so Abraham's natural Seed to be unchurched as he himself confesses in Page 37. nay that they unchurched themselves In his Postscript Page 190. he says tho he has thus written concerning the Anabaptists and proved their Congregations to be no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their Opinion Sacrilegious in that they Rob the Church of her treasure c. These are very hard words and also false for he has not done what he says and never will nor can he do it An Account of some of Mr. Shute's Impertinences Inconsistences and Self-contradictions IN the last place take a few of his Impertinences c. In Page 49. If you can prove saith he by plain Scripture Testimony that ever Christ or any of his Apostles c. did forbid the Baptising the infant Seed of Believers c. Answer Now how impertinent is this Where did Christ forbid Infants of Believers the Lords Supper and indeed they may have that as well as Baptism and the first Fathers that established Infant Baptism gave them the Lords Supper also 2. Where is crossing in Baptism forbid or Popists Salt Spittle or Crisom or other Popish rites These in plain words are not forbid are they therefore lawful If Christ would have them to be Baptized it would have been expressed in the affirmative and is this horribly to impose our own uncouth notions as you affirm in the said 49. Page of your Book Where hath Christ forbid Baptizing of Turks and Insidels or the Children of unbelievers In Page 98. he says the Church of the Jews was not a legal Church take his words viz. the Church of God under the Mosaick Law was not a Carnal legal Church Strange contradiction What a Church under the Law and not a legal Church he may as well say the Church of God under the Gospel is not a Gospel Church In Page 97. he distinguishes not on the Covenant made with Abraham but positively asserts that off from that Covenant God made with Abraham viz. The Covenant of Grace some of the natural Branches were broken yet in contradiction to this he shews in Page 74. from Psa. 89. That the Covenant of Grace is firm and abideth for ever and else where shews that there 's no final falling from grace all those therefore say I that are in that Covenant cannot fail of Salvation therefore those Branches never were in the Covenant of Grace In Page 25. he says God saves Elect dying Infants in no ways or means differing in any one point or part from that wherein he saves Adult believers Yet in Page 65. he owns Infants cannot exercise grace in an ordinary way and that nothing is required of them personally but passive Obedience Is nothing required say I of Adult believers but passive Obedience If there is then the way or mode of Gods saving dying Infants differs in some part or point from the way or means of saving the Adult and clear it is that more than passive obedience is required of Adult persons One while he says all Abrahams Seed are in the Covenant of Grace God made with him and he denies final falling out of that Covenant yet in Page 12. he says one of Abrahams Sons or Seed is praying to him in Hell And to be Abrahams Seed will not serve their turn He is for a Congregational Church and yet in Page 34. Speaking of the Gospel Church he says all the Seed of believers are Members as much now as the Jewish Children were under the Law And that it is the same Church State tho' in another dress and denys the dissolution of the Jewish Church Page 35. Can a natural Church consisting of whole Parishes Families and Provinces be all one with Gospel Congregational Churches of believers only Why did this Man leave the Church of England also then the Jewish
now than ever we were and we did and do believe that those who preach the Gospel ought to live of the Gospel He renders Mr. Collins no better than a Jesuite take his words this Man hath confidence and deceit enough to make a swinging Jesuite c. Page 16. Again he says This deceitful Man hides the Sense and meaning of them from the World Doth not this saviour of great malice Page 16. He says Infants have Faith yetin Page 10. of his Book he asketh what personal Faith a Child is capable of acting in an ordinary way or what good Fruit such Children are capable to bring forth 1. In Page 8. he renders those false Teachers who say that the Covenant God made with Abraham is repealed viz. the Covenant of circumcision he may see that we deny that the promise or Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham is repealed tho' we say the Covenant of circumcision God made with him is repealed 2. Such he says are false Teachers who say the Church State under the Law was Carnal 3. Such as deride and Scoff at habitual Faith in dying Infants Mr. Collins owns not such Faith to be in Infants is he therefore a false Teacher But how does he prove he derides or Scoffs c. 4. Such who take upon them the Work of the Ministry without Gods Call or being gifted or qualified he says are false Teachers Such we grant are not true Ministers but doth not he think you refer to such who were not trained up in School Learning I doubt not but our call from God to the Ministry is as good as others have tho' may be not every ways so well qualified as we ought yet humane learning is no qualification left by the Holy Spirit in the Scripture In Page 7. he says In this Authors former Book he hath by excluding Infants from Baptism exclud them from Eternal Life and Salvation dying in their Infancy How false that is let all Men Judg who have read Mr. Collins Book he refers unto Page 41. In Page 10. he says How wilfully blind and dishonest are you thus falsly to quote my words I can see no reason for those Unchristian expressions in Page 11. he says I suppose he means a long White Shift as if we Baptized Persons in a White Shift What sport is here for the Enemies of Religion Tho' I deny that Women were Baptized in that undecent immodest shameful way and manner saith he He means by Dipping the whole Body God saith he never appointed an ordinance to draw out and gratifie Mens lusts Page 11. O see what contempt he doth cast upon that way of Baptising which all Christians used for many hundred of years in the Church and which Christ appointed to the end of the World You represent to the World as if our way of Baptising were immodest and done not as comely or of good Report for this you are to be accountable to the most high God Friend if you please to come and see our Order in the Administration of that Ordinance I doubt not but you will be convinced of your Error and be forc'd to say That the Subject goeth with more Sobriety and Modesty to the Sacrament of Baptism than thousands do to the hearing of Gods Word or to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper In Page 12. Therefore saith he there is no more work for the Club nor the Ax you may lay them by as useless or hang them up in Merchant Taylors Hall You may know what he intends and is not this like those who said is not this the Carpenter c. see what a strange Prayer he makes in Page 15 Where he pleads his Innocency God is a gracious God and I think the Man is acted in Zeal but not according to knowledg in Page 11. he says Our Author hath Coined a brand new Epithet to cover that unseemly Luxurious way of tripping and Dipping Women c. In Page 18. he would suggest that Mr. Collins is possessed with a Devil People say there is a Maid saith he possessed in Wapping for my part I think there is a Man possâ—ssâ—d also hard words In Page 20. he boasts as if Anabaptism it self hath resigned up the Ghost and this may serve for its Funeral Sermon In Page 21. he breaks out I cannot tell what to think of this Man meaning Mr. Collins That should dare to have the confidence as to put out such scuâ—rilous abominable false and scandalous things Friend what shall we think of you and your Papers In Page 23. he renders the answering Books that are put out against Infant Baptism a raking in Dunghils and therefore such a one as he he thinks is fit to do it In Page 191. of this last Book he says that they meaning the Independant Congregations are not true Churches or else we are not I know no reason for this for I doubt not but they are true Churches as well as we they being godly Christians tho' I do believe they may be less compleat Churches Then those who are Baptized upon the profession of Faith or not so orderly in their constitution besides they have received as we Judge a Tradition of Man in the stead of Christs Institution This man says he can have Communion with those of our opinion yet says our Baptism is a counterfeit and we guilty of Sacriledge Page 190. But Friend I see not how they can have Communion with you without repentance considering all the hard words uttered by you You know who saith Men must give an account of all their hard Speeches c. God grant those I have mentioned and these following may not be laid to your charge calling our Baptism a mock Baptism and us diving Anticovenanters preaching without a call suggesting as if under Diabolical possession calling Jesuite swinging Jesuite calling Dipping which was the Apostolical way of Baptising more like a punishment of criminals c. Asserting that we make no better of Infants than Dogs calling our Doctrin Mountebank c. and a Minister a C C by which 't is concluded you intend Coxcomb asserting we have crasty positions uncouth glosses that we mince and limit the fundamental Doctrin of Mans Salvation To conclude let the Reader take notice of this viz. Were it not more for the Honour of God and Love to Truth I had not concerned my self with so linâ—le an Antagoniâ—â— as this is â— and in reproach call some Arminians Sacinians others gone back to Judaism some gormandisers feasting on Legs of Muiton in some places reflecting on Mens honest callings God by his providence called them once unto that our Doctrin damns Infants c. whether these Speeches he ought not publickly to acknowledg as evil Is not this as bad as to call his Brother Raca i. e. a vain person in anger or malice Cant Men write upon controversible points without such bitterness and reviling language I desire Friend you would go to God in Prayer and intreat for pardon
through Christs Blood and no longer rest in such a Spirit and practice Christ is at the Door take heed of smiting your fellow Servant But should you instead of answering our arguments proceed still after the same manner we shall find out another way to deal with you viz. Bring our Charge against you for Right and Justice to the Congregation you belong unto The Lord send and increase Love and Charity among his People and unite them together in one Spirit which he will suddenly do and wipe off our reproach to whom be glory and praise for ever and ever Amen ERRATA IN Page 5. line 7. for Burkie read Burkit p. 8. l. 20. blot out Blood p. 16. l. 37. f. contained r. contrived p. 19. l. 28. f. Comma r. Period Also in several other Places you will find false Pointing or Stops P. 22. blot out the comma in l. 21 22 23 24 25. they being this Authors words p. 27. l. 10. add Gen. 17. 8 9. there begins the Covenant of Peculiarity p. 32. l. 29. f. purity r. parity p. 38. l. 3. f. usurp'd r. absur'd p. 39. l. 18. f. ratifie r. ratified p. 41. l. 39. f. have r. have had p. 42. l. 3. f. tho' r. the p. 29. l. 31. add as to outward dispensation p. 43. l. 1. f. Natural Church r. National FINIS POSTSCRIPT Containing several Arguments to disprove Pedo-Baptism and to prove Believers only the Subjects thereof For Mr. Gyles Shute to Answer Friend IF you will not desist but write again you are desired to answer these Arguments the stress of the Controversy lying in them Arg. 1. If none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour Matth. 28. but such who are first made Disciples by being taught than Infants who are not capable to be taught ought not to be baptized But none aâ—e to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour but such who are first made Disciples by Teaching Ergo Little Babes ought not to be baptized Arg. 2. If Infant-Baptism was never instituted commanded or appointed of God Infants ought not to be baptized But Infant-Baptism was never instituted commanded or appointed of God Ergo They ought not to be baptized As to the Major If one thing may be practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 't is either contained in the great Commission Matth. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not to be found in the Commission nor any where else Ergo. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore are to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be baptized before discipled then Turks Pagans Unbelievers and their Children may be baptized because they are a great part of the Nations But Turks Pagans and Unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo. Besides that Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before Baptizing we have proved which generally alâ— Learned Men do assert if the Institution is to be found any where else they must shew the Place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized Infants are not required to believe and repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters and 't is also asserted by the Church of England What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question The Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the Promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denied Arg. 5. That Practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor to the Profit of the Child when done nor in after-times when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him caâ—â—câ— be a Truth of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor to the Profit of the Child when baptized nor in after-times when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo. See Levit. 10. 1 2. where Moses told Aaron because his Sons had done that which God commanded them not that God would be sanctified 〈◊〉 all that drew 〈◊〉 unto him intimating that such who did that which God commanded not did not sanctify or glorify God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Matth. 16. 9. In vain do you worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men and that that Practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after-times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christ's Church Sure all understanding Men know Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Child's Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful and dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great Error How can Water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul physically Nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so many Years c. is not easily conceived On Regen p. 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speak truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Object If it be objected That
Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive Times were baptized upon the Profession of Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the Profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus also are not Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major These are his very Words â— â— As many as have been baptized â—ivâ— put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promisâ— Gal. 3. 27 28 20. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the Probability grounded on a credible Profession c. Baxter's Confirm Reconcil pag. 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible Profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a Saving-Faith If any object We read of some who were baptized who had no Saving-Faith but were Hypocrites I answer Had they appeared to be such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage-Union with Christ which Marriage-Contract absolutely requires an actual Profession of consent Infants are not capable to enter into a Marriage-Union with Christ noâ— to make a Profession of Consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our Opposits generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is the solemniâ—ing of our Marriage with Christ. These are his Words p. 32. The Minor none can deny No Man sure in his right Mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage-Relation with Christ and to make a Profession of a Consent And the Truth is he in the next Words gives away his Cause viz. And 't is saith he a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent p. 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a nâ—w and strange kind of Marriage Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized or rather rantizeâ— to make a Profession of Consent to be married to Jesus Christ. If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his Words are these ` Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-Baptist say that the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our Opposits are forced sometimes to speak the Truth â—â—ough it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted then they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves to be converted but the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted Ergo No Person ought to be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess they are converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the Substance of this Argument also take his own Words i. e. As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse and non-appareâ—â— is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both these must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. And evident it is say I from hence none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eâ—â—ugh to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare Profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. p. 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mâ—â—k 16. 16. p. 16. He might have added by the Foâ—â—â— of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the Priviledges for â— argue thus 〈…〉 Arg. 2â— If there is but one Baptism of Water leâ—t by Jesus Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. But there is but one Baptism in Water lest by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the Adult and as to any other Condition I am sure the Scripture is silent the Way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Ephes. 4. 4. If Profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter coram Ecclesiâ to Church-Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be consounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Membership c. Ergo 'T is a granted Case among all Christians saith he that Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Ancient Church admitted none without it pag. 2â— And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are capable to make no Profession He adds Yâ—â— Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and tâ—en baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he saith Iâ— as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in Newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this Mortification and a Consent to be buried c. Iâ— our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our