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
for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large fiâ—h-pond See Dr. Duveil on Acts 1. 4 5. The learned Casaubon was a Pedo-baptist yet knew better than to assert Baptizo is to Sprinkle or Pour but to Dip or Plunge as you here Friend what do you mean by saying All those metaphorical Baptisms are nearly related to the Ordinance of Baptism if you intend both signifies Sprinkling I deny it for both of them signifie Dipping or Overwhelming and so doth the Baptism of Afflictions also 't is not every small degree of Suffering that is the Baptism of Suffering Great Afflictions are so called and that from the literal and genuine Signification of the Word Baptizo to dip to plunge under and hence as I have elswhere shewed Vossius notes That every light Affliction is not the Baptism of Affliction but like that of David Psal. 32. 6. He drew me out of deep Waters hence also Sufferings and Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me Psal. 42. 7. it refers to Christ's Sufferings who was overwhelmed with Afflictions even unto Blood and Death The same as I have hinted is to be noted as to the Baptism of the Spirit it signifies the miraculous effusion of the holy Spirit like that at the Day of Pentecost Acts 2. 1 2. Now in this respect the Metaphorical Baptisms are nearly related in Signification with the Ordinance of Baptism I do confess for to Baptize in the Name of the Father c. is to dip in the Name of the Father c. and for a more full and clear Demonstration of this from a multitude of learned Men both Ancient and Modern See my late Answer to Mr. Burkiâ— entituled The Rector rectified from page 157. to page 206. Scapula and Stephens Two famous Men for their great Learning and accounted Masters of the Greek Tongue tell us That Baptizo from Bapto as to the first and proper Signification signifies Mergo Immergo item tingo quod fit immâ—rgendo inficere imâ—uere viz. to dip plunge and overwhelm put under cover over to die in Colours which is done by Plunging Grotius saith it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an immersion dipping or submersion it appears you neither know nor enquire after the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Word if you did you would certainly not say You think there is more to be said for Sprinkling for I would have you ask such as can tell you Whether in those Places in the Hebrews where Sprinkling is mentioned the Word signifies Baptizing or whether it is not rantizing another Word and of another Signification And as you regard not the literal so you mind not the mistical Signification of Baptism which is not chiefly to represent the Sprinkling of Christ's Blood but to hold forth in a lively Figure his Death Burial and Resurrection together with our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life as will farther appear in its proper Place See our late Annotators on Matth. 3. 6. And were baptized of him in Jordan A great part of those who went out to hear John say they were baptized that is dipped in Jordan Tho' they would have the Word to signify washing also which we deny not but then say we 't is such a Washing as is by Dipping always when applyed to this Ordinance 5. You seem very bold in saying Dipping over Hâ—â—d and Ears is more like a Punishment of Criminals than the solemnizing of an Ordinance of God 'T is no marvel you reproach us when you dare cast such contempt upon Christ's Sacred Institution it is to me a trembling Consideration thus to arraign the Wisdom of God Nor will it salve the matter should you say You do not think Baptism is Dipping for it may be so as far as you know and if you had read what a multitude of learned Men who were Pedo Baptists do affirm it is Dipping you would not sure have adventured to assert such a thing Suppose it be found at the last Day to be Dipping the Lord give you Repentance that you may have this Evil and all others done away through his Blood Sure there was as much nay more cause for during Men to have cast such a Reflection on that legal ordinance of Circumcision But you say Page 6 7. We do not find that there was either a River or Pond of Water in the Jaylors House for himself and all his Houshold 〈◊〉 be Dipped oâ— Ducked under Water for they were all Baptized the same hour of the Night c. 1. Answer Sir you should take more heed to your words and to what you assert Is it said they were baptized in the Jaylors House if it 〈◊〉 been done in a House our Saviour needed not to have gone to the River Jordan to be Baptized much less into Jordan Nor was there any reason for Philip and the Eâ—â—â—ch to have gone into the Water 2. Moreover doth not the Holy Scripture tell you that John also was Baptizing in Aenon near Salim because there was much water John 3. 23. Pray Reader note this well mind the reason why the Holy Ghost â—aith he Baptized in Aenon 't is poâ—sitively affirmed because there was much Water in that place intimating clearly that a little Water will not serve to Baptize Persons in Also observe what Mr. Pools Annotations say on this place of Scripture thus you will find it expressed viz. It is from this apparent that both Christ and John Baptized by Dipping the Body in Water else they need not have sought places where had been great plenty of Water These are his words that wrote those Annotations And if it be so apparent 't is as apparent you have been too bold to say that Dipping is more like a punishment of Criminals than an ordinance of God 3. What though we do not read that the Jaylor had a River or Pond in his Yard or near his House 't is rediculous to talk of a River or Pond in his House yet we ought to believe there was Water enough by or near his House to Baptize him and all his who believed You see it is granted by your own worthy Brethren Baptizing is Dipping there was nâ— need for the Holy Ghost to speak of the place where this Water was or whether it was a Pond or River And certainly they did not Baptize some and sprinkle or â—antize others Gospel-Baptism being but one and the same as to the subject and mode of Administration 4. How can you say Page 7. that they were all Baptized in his own House when the Text speaks not any such thing 2. How can you presume to assert that they did not go out of the House Reader observe the Text well Acts 16. 30. And brought them out and said Sirs what must I do to be saved Vers. 31. And they said
Sir what reason do you give for this have you any ground to run that parallel from any Text of Scripture Is it not of your own making and devising But since you are for plain Texts of Scripture for every thing pray where do you read that any Man or Womanâ— Face or Head was only Baptised or that â—ver John Baptists or Christs Disciples Baptised any person naked You tell us of the immodesty and evil of such a practice and that it may tend to gratifie the Devil and to the sin of Adultery certainly such a thing is utterly to be condemned and never was practised you know well enough by us whom you reproachfully call Anabaptists As touching what Mr. Baxter to which you might have added Dr. Featly hath said concerning Baptizing persons naked we know they as well as you were too much guilty of backbiting vâ—lifying and reproaching of us yet they had no ground in the least to cast this odium upon us we challenge all Men or any person living to produce one instance that ever any Man or Woman by any of our perswasion was Baptized naked As to what Mr. Tombs said to Mr. Baxter of a former custom in some nations of Baptizing naked it affects not us nor do I believe there was ever any such custom used among any godly Christians Nor did Mr. Tombs ever so Baptise any Maids in Bewdeley nor any where else If he said he could do it it was doubtless his weakness so to speak but I am not bound to believe all that Mr. Baxter hath wrote of worthy Mr. Tombs but since they are both dead we will say no more to that but any thing you can catch up you resolve 't is plain to make the greatest use of imaginable to reproach your godly Neighbours and the truth of Christ. In Pape 15. the Anabaptists you say make a great deal of pudder and stir about the Apostles words in Romans 6. 3 4. and have pressed them into their service the words are as followeth therefore we are buried with him by Baptism they will say you have it that this respects burying in Water over Head and Ears in Baptism and therefore they make it an argument for Dipping The Apostle you say seems to have been stirring them up and puting them in mind of their Baptismal vows and Obligations It may be as well to Children of believing parents that were grown up as to themselves for in vers 3 saith he know ye not that so many of us as were Baptised into Christ were Baptized into his Death that is say you as they were Baptized into all the priviledges that were purchased by the Death of Christ so they were baptised also into the sufferings of Christ for they were obliged by their Baptismal Covenant to take up their Cross and follow the Lord Jesus Christ c. 1. Answer You shall now see whether 't is only those whom you call Anabaptists that make such improvement of this Text you say pudder and stir about it or whether others who were and are Pedo Baptists do not make the like use of it viz. to prove Baptism is an Image Symbol or representation of Christs Death and burial and Resurrection together with our Death unto sin and vivification to a newness of Life But before I shall quote the Authors I must tell you the Apostle is not in the context speaking of the sufferings of believers not a word of bearing the Cross Therefore from the Scope and coherence of the Text you cannot infer any such conclusion as you do Pray Reader take notice of the 5th Chapter and the beginning of this 6th and see if I or this Man speak the truth of the Texts in vers 1. of this Chapter the Holy Apostle says thus i. e. What shall we say then Shall we continue in Sin that grace may abound God forbid how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein vers 2. Know you not that so many of us as have been Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death vers 3. Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death That like as Christ was raised up from the Dead by the Glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of Life vers 4. For as we have been planted together in the likeness of his death we shall be also into the likeness of his Resurrection vers 5. Is here a word of the Cross or suffering for Christ or that we are Baptized to shew we must suffer Martyrdom with Christ no no unless it be the Death or mortification of sin or the old Man Tho' I deny not but such that are Baptized must look for suffering You say our Saviour calls his suffering his Baptism and a Blood Bloody Baptism it was but I have a Baptism to be Baptized with and how am I straightned till it be accomplished now you say the Apostle draws his argument from the premises in verses 4 5 p. 16. Answer 'T is very true the Apostle doth draw his argument from vers 4 5. c. but not from Luk. 12. 50. the Text you mention about Christs Baptism of suffering so that 't is evident to all you have abused this Sacred Text also and prest it in to serve your purpose Pray read all the Annotators you can get on the place particularly Mr. Pools and see if any favour your exposition of it 2. Tho' I have said enough to silence this Man or any other upon this Text Rom. 6. 3 4 5. in two Treatises yet left they come not into the Author or Readers Hand I shall repeat some passages once again Let all Men consider in the fear of God and take notice of the gracious design and condescention of our blessed Saviour in his instituting of the two great ordinances of the Gospel viz. the Lords Supper and Baptism for as that of the Lords Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of his Body and the pouring forth of his Blood so the ordinance of Baptism doth as clearly if rightly Administed represent or hold forth the Death Burial and resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Together with our death to sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life and that this appears from this Text and that in Col. 2. 12. shall God assisting be evinced The whole Church of the Romans and every member thereof were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and were bound to live no longer therein because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they had held forth the same thing nay by that Baptismal covenant they were obliged to live and walk in newness of life See Pools Annotations on the place where you will find these words viz. he seems to allude to the manner of Baptizing in those warm Countries which was to Dip or plunge the party Baptised and as it were to bury him for a while under water See the like Phrase Col. 2. 12. Baptism doth not only represent
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
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
Baptism ought the habits of Faith not only to be but the Act confession and fruits of it also True we might plead thus what tho' we see no fruits of Faith in some yet they may be elected and the habit of Faith may be in them Nay this allowed viz. that they may Baptise all the Infants of Believers promiscuously supposing some are true Subjects and have habitual Faith why say I may they not also Baptise by the same argument the Infants of Infidels or Unbelievers since among them may be some elected allo and if so why not as much the habit of Faith as any Elect Infant of Believers To conclude with this take three or four Arguments Arg. 1. That which cannot be proved of this nature from the word of God nothing being directly or indirectly spoken about it is absurâ—d and vain for any person to assert But it cannot be proved from the word of God that one Infant of Believers or any other have habitual Faith there being nothing directly or indirectly spoken about it ergo 'tis absurd and vain for any person to assert that any Infant of Believer hath habitual Faith Arg. 2. 'T is forbid and a sinful thing for any to pâ—y into Gods secrets All they that pry into the way how God applies the merits of Christ to dying Infants and sanctifieth them do pry into God Secrets ergo 'tis forbid and a sinful thing to pry into that c. The Text says positively secret Things belong unto God not unto us That is such secret things which God hath not made known to his dearest Children for we deny not but some things that were kept secret are now revealed and some things also that are made known to the godly are kept secret from the wicked hence 't is said the Secrets of the Lord are with them that fear him and he will shew them his Covenant Psal. 2â— 14. The Covenant of grace that is hid from others is revealed to believers they understand the nature Blessings and duties of it they know no person can be saved but by the Grace of God in this Covenant nor without the merits of Christ and Sanctification But yet how the merits of Christ or the blood of the Covenant is applyed to Infants that die or how they are Sanctified is no where revealed to the godly therefore one of Gods Secrets if this Man knows it let him shew where it is written or hath he it by Revelation But this Man says Page 129. That the Salvation of all the Elect is revealed and Christ saith there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed and hid that shall not be known Answer Sure those words must be taken with restriction for there are many things not revealed and tho' it is revealed that all the Elect are saved and Sanctified by Christ yet shew me where 't is revealed or made known that Infants have habitual Faith Arg. 3. They who have had an Habit of Faith infused into them can never lose it But such Infants that live may lose your supposed Habit of Faith Therefore Such Infants never had an Habit of Faith infused into them For proof of the Major Proposition See 1 John 3. 9. The Seed remains in him Luke 22. 23. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Arg. 4. Those Infants who have your supposed Habit of Faith infused into them are Regenerated and when grown up to maturity need no other Regeneration But those Infants when erown up to maturity do need Regeneration Therefore Those Infants have no such Habit of Faith infused into them If he should say those habits infused in Infancy do regenerate their Soul let him prove it How doth it come to pass then that some of the Children of Believers are not regenerated till they are may be 30 or 40 or 50 years old Strange that such habits should be in them and yet lie asleep so long and evil habits predominate in them till that time This Man in Page 45. positively affirms that some Children have had Faith tho' he cannot prove any Infants have it that are now living If he by Children means Infants I do deny it and bâ—d him prove what he says for the Text he mentions in Luk. 1. 41. proves no such thing What tho` the Babe leaped in the Womb of Elizabeth doth that prove the Babe had faith or the habit of it Neither doth that in 2 Tim. 1. 5. What tho' St. Paul was perswaded that Timothy had when an Adult person like unfeigned saith that was in his Gran mother Lois and in his Mother Eunice doth that prove he had the habit of Faith in him when an Infant If you say that the habit of Grace may be in a person and yet nor appear act nor influence or dispose the person according to the nature and quality of it you may as well say there may bâ— a principle of life in a person and yet he may be dead or have no Life Sense feeling or motion in him or there may be Fire and no Heat a Sun and no light Water and no moisture also you contradict all Divines and wise Men in the World in their notions about a habit of Grace or vital Principle they say where these habits are there is Divine Life there is a Spirit of love and other Graces whereby as their understandinâ—s are possessed with knowledg of the excellencies of Gods ways so their wills are seasoned by the power of those habits and as the old nature is the habit of Sin so the new nature is the habit of Grace where the habit of Faith is they tell you there is a ready disposition to every good work and as 't is ready in respect of disposition so it is in the activity of motion yea that 't is naturally active according to its Divine nature and voluntary active And where these habits are there is a kind of natural necessity of motion from life and habit c. Now if these habits do remain in any Infants of Believers that live How comes it to pass there is none of these effects and Operations but the direct contrary till new habits be infused If you say these habits may be quite lost then there is a possibility of falling quite from true Grace Reverend Dr. Owen in his discourse of the Holy Spirit Page 416. saith That the habit of Grace is a vertue a Power a Principle of Spiritual Life wrought created infused into our Souls and laid in all the faculties of them constantly abiding and unchangeably residing in them And again saith this abideth always in and with all that are sanctified And hereby are they prepared disposed and enabled unto all duties of obedience Thus you see that there is not in any Infants of Relievers that live any habit of Faith and if you still affirm it you will run upon one Rock or another which will sink your Ship down to the bottom without remedy In Page 41. Mr. Shâ—te
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
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
Trespasses forgiven Col. 2. 11 12 13. And will any Man says he yeâ— will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Inâ—â—nt that cannot make a Profession that he is a Christian pag. 31 32. He proceeds Arg. 23. The Baptized are in 〈…〉 called Men washed sanctified justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1 2. all Christians-are sanctified oâ—â—eâ— pag. 33. Now let me add the Minor But Infants baptized are not in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor sanctified ones Ergo Infanâ—s ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these Assertions of Mr. Bâ—â—tn's whilst he was living I answer More then twelve Years ago I did recite and print these Assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same Purpose â—o which he gave no Answer Arg. 24. If there is but â—ne way for all both Parents and Children to be adâ—iâ—â—â—d into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that it is upon the Profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parâ—â—â—s and Children must upon the Profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all boâ—â— Paâ—eâ—â—â— and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that is upon the Profession of their Faith to be baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true Baptism wherein there is not 〈…〉 â—e â— lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death 〈◊〉 Sâ—â— and V 〈…〉 tion to a new Life But in the Baptizing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Ergo. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that tends to 〈…〉 the glorious 〈◊〉 and Design of Christ in his 〈…〉 of Gospel Baptism or cannot answer it is none of Christ's Baptism But the pretended Baptism of Infants â—enâ—â— to 〈…〉 the glorious end and design of Christ 〈…〉 of Gospel Baptism Ergo. The Mâ—â—â—â— will now 〈…〉 As to the M 〈…〉 all generally conâ—â—â—â— the End or Design of Christ i◠〈…〉 the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figâ—â—e to represâ—â—â— his Death Burial and Resurrection with the Person 's Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his Blood was shed But that a liverly Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection appears in sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to Sin and rising again to walk in newness of lâ—â—e be signified And therefore-Christ's Design and End therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual Signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to â—ip c. we have proved which is also confessed by the Learned in that Language 2. The Figurative Baptism was 1st That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Pools Annotations on 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized c. The 2d was that of Noah's Ark. See Sir Norton Knatchbull The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith be were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not the Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ of this Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of Affliction the first signifies not a sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be baptized c. on which Words Casaubon speaks thus See Dr. Duveil on Acts 2. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip or plunge as it were to die Colours in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Also Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of Affliction are those great depths or overwhelmings of Afflictions like that of our Saviour's suffering i. e. no part free Matth. 20. 22. where you have the same Greed Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of great Waters 4. The spiritual Signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life This being so it follows undeniably Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last Place Finally To confirm that Baptizo is to dip both from the literal and spiritual Signification thereof as also from those typical and metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidently appears from the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Riuers and where there was much Water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the Water not down to the Water and came up out of the Water John Baptist is said to baptize them into Jordan as the Greek Word renders it which shews it dipping and not sprinkling Would it be proper to say He sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things FINIS