they affirm they do perform it by their Sureties Answ. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretiship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful Undertaking But Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo. Do they or can they cause the Child to sorsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a Word Can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want Power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the Case and will not God one Day say Who has required these things at your Hands Arg. 7. If there be no Precedent in the Scripture as there is no Precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no Precedent that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any Precedent or Example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith It is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Iustit c. 16. Book 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Ludov. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the baptizing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient Proof from Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. p. 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous Dispositions of Baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. Proph. p. 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever which is necessary to Faith and Practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant-Baptism is not of God But whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the Consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasius saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Chrysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost. on 2 Thess. and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That 〈…〉 ould be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de Fide Augustine saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour lest a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness Arg. in his 198 Epistles to Fortunat. Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. Paschal Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. c. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great Use against the Lutherans forasmuch as they use that Rite every where having no Command or â—xample theirs is to be reâ—ected yet is it of no Force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bellarm. in his Book de Bapt. 1 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what End the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his Answer to the New-England Eâ—â—ns p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we adâ—â—â—â— of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet noâ— in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-Baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism But the Pedo-Baptists are at a great Loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ. As touching the Major I argue thus That which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance â—s the Subject and Manner of it But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of Pedo-Baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ. The Minor is undeniable Some affirm as we have shewed p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin Some say it is their Right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers Others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right Others say They have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties Some ground their Right from an Apostolical Tradition others upon the Authority of Scripture Some say All Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it Sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his Word would soon end this Controversy Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can
had no better Counsel or followed no better Conduct at such an hour as this is it sure concerns us all to study the things that make for Peace and that by which we may edifie one another the Breach is too wide already O what want of Love is there in Christians to each other who are all Members of the Mystical Body of Christ and Children of one Father and Heirs of the same glorious Inheritance Sure we shall love one another when we come to Heaven and I hope His Reverend Pastor whom I have more cause both to love and honour than ten thousand Instructors in Christ he being the blessed Instrument in my Conversion all most forty Years ago gave no Encouragement to him thus to write and abuse his Brethren I would he had consider'd the Text He that hateth his Brother is in Darkness Joh. 2. 11. For my part I hope I can say I love them in whom I see the Image of God that differ from me in the like degree as those of mine own Opinion I am persuaded the want of Love to one another is one of the greatest Sins of this Age and that which is a high Provocation to God and if that which this Man hath done is a fruit of Love or tends to promote it I am mistaken True I have may be wrote as much of late as another on the Subject of Baptism but never without Provocation by means of divers Persons who have of late times wrote against us I have not begun the Controversie but have still been on the defensive Side nor can any justly blame us to clear our selves and defend that which we believe to be the Truth of Christ when urged to it As to his Answer to Mr. Collins he hath said something 't is true to one or two of his Arguments but the rest he has passed by in silence and left the chief Argumentive part in a great measure unanswered And as to his Reply to me I cannot see he hath said any thing that deserveth my notice at all but lest the easie unwary and prejudiced Reader should conclude he hath done Wonders should we aot return an Answer I have examined the stress of all that seems Argumentive which contains but a small part of his Book and having studied Moderation and Tenderness I hope it may tend to allay and quench the Fire of his Passion and bring him to a more moderate Temper However I shall leave it to the Blessing of God to dispose of the Issue of it as he shall seem good in his all-wise Providence and to help the Reader I have divided his Book into Chapters in my Answer and since he begins with the form or manner of baptizing there I shall begin also CHAP. I. Wherein it is proved That Baptism is not Sprinkling nor Pouring of Water on the Face nor Dipping of the Head only But that it is Dipping or Plunging of the whole Body under Water I Shall begin with Mr. Sbute's Fifth Page and shall shew him that he hath not yet buried Mr. Collins his answer but that it is still alive and as lively as it was before his pretended Answer came forth In pag. 6. he râ—cited what Mr. Cobins mentioned in the 2d page of his Reply to his Antidote viz. where Mr. Cobins says The right mode of Baptism is by Dipping To which Mr. Shute saith in p. 5. I think there is more to be said for Sprinkling or Pouring Water on the Face in Baptism than there is for Dipping or Ducking over Head and Ears in a River or Pond For the latter is more like a Punishment of Criminals than the Solemnizing of an Ordinance of God pray hear what the Scripture saith of Sprinkling and of Pouring Water upon Sinners to cleanse them Heb 12. 24 And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant and to the Blood of Sprinkling c. â— Pet. 1. 2. Elect according to the Foreknowledge of God the Father through Sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience and Sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ. And Isa. 44 3. For I will pour Water upon him that is thirsty and Fâ—oods upon the dry Ground I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessings upon thine Off-spring Ez â— 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clâ—an Water upon you and ye shall be clâ—an from all your Filthiness and from all your â—â—ols wâ—â— I cleanse you Edâ—d 2â— 8. Here you see say you we do not read of Dipping nor Ducking in all those spiritual Metaphorical Baptisms which are all nearly reâ—ued unto the Ordinance of Baptism and tâ—nâ— to the fam thing but more effectually and perfectly and are accompanied with the same Promises namely the Remission of Sins Sanctification by the Spirit and the Gift of the Holy Ghost compared with Acts 2. 38 39. Answer 1. You might have added many other Places of Scripture where we read of Sprinkling But what would it signify the Sprinkling and Pouring mentioned in these Scriptures refer not to Water Baptism Read your learned Annotators and Expositors and you will find they agree as one Man That Sprinkling and Pouring of Water in Isaiah and Ezekiel c. do refer to the graci us Effusion of the Spirit in the Times of the Gospel and to the Purifying and Purging Vertue of the Blood of Christ and so that in Heb. 12 24. is to be understood you should not only say but prove Baptism to be here intended and then yoù had said something 2. Should the Sprinkling or Pouring in these Scriptures be meant of Baptism then it would follow that Baptism has mighty Vertue in it indeed even to wash away all Sin and Filthiness I thought nothing could cleanse from Sin out Christ's precious blood as it is applyed by the Spirit through Faith Baptism Peter tells you washes not away the Filthiness of the Flesh. Not the putting away of the Filthiness of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3. 20. 3. If you should say Baptism is chiefly a Sign or lively Symbol of our being sprinkled with the Spirit or with the Blood of Jesus Christ we do deny it You have not attempted to prove it 't is evident Baptism is principally a Sign or Symbol of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection see Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. compared with this in 1 Pet. 3. 20. which Sprinkling or Pouring cannot hold forth 4. But you intimate That these Spiritual Metaphorical Baptisms are nearly related to the Ordinance of Baptism I answer by pouring Floods of Water or by the great Effusion of the Spirit I deny not but the Baptism of the Spirit may be held forth and the Baptism of the Spirit signifies Immersion Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost c. Acts 1. 5. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon Is to Dip or Plunge in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be said to have been Baptized
of Grace that God promised to Abraham Friend we say all the Elect Infants of believers or of unbelievers were Included in that Covenant and they are not nor can they be cast out of it But you mistake the Argument `t is not about the Spiritual Seed but the Natural Seed of Abraham the Controversie lies not about who are Members of the Invisible but who are Members of the Visible Church in Gospel days the Argument is about Childrens Visible in Covenanting I am sorry you distinguish no better either you do not see where the Stress of the Point lies or else will not see it I ask you whether there was no Covenant made with Abraham that belonged to his Natural Seed as such only and whether Circumcision did not belong to that Covenant and so a Covenant of Peculiarity i. e. in which Gentile believers and their Seed were no ways concerned was not Christ to come only of Abraham and his Seed according to the flesh Besides if this were not so Circumcision could not be said to be an advantage to the Jews upon the account of the Law above the Gentiles Rom. 3. 1 2. is it not said â—nto them that is the Jews appertained the Covenants c. Rom. 9. 4. is not here more Covenants than one 't is not Covenant but Covenants Now the Covenant of Circumcision that belonged to them as they were the Natural Seed of Abraham tho' wicked Persons and so did the giving of the Law and Service of God under that dispensation but the Covenant of Grace belongs only to Abraham Spiritual Seed First such of them that proceeded from his Loyns and Secondly those of the Gentiles also that were comprehended in Gods Election of Grace hence Christ saith he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel that is to all that God hath given him among the Jews not sent that is not first the promise runs first to the Jews to the Jews first and also to the Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. 1. Let this therefore be carefully considered viz. that God made a twofold Covenant or two Covenants with Abraham and his Seed one a formal Covenant the other held forth in promise which by and by I shall further evince 2. That the Gospel Covenant run first to all the Elect that were the Natural off-spring of Abraham and then to the Gentiles and from hence 't is said Rom. 11. That when the Jews are called and brought in again they shall be grafted into their own Olive-Tree Their own because the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant first in the blessings of it was to them or to such amongst them that were Gods Elect 2. Because the true Olive doth according to God 〈…〉 rnal pupose and free Grace Peculiarity belong to all the Elect and called ones of God but 3. Let it be consider'd that there was a National Covenant of Peculiarity also made with Abrahams Carnal Seed as such in which Circumcision the Land of Canaan the giving sorib of the Law on Mount Sinai their Visible Church and Church-membership and all the Statures Ordinances and Services of the Law did appertain and this brings me to what Mr. Shute hath said by way of answer to my Sermon on Maâ—h 3. Now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees Where I do not only assert but prove that two Covenants were continued in Gods Transactions with Abraham but first observe Reader his abuses and misconstructions of my words as in page 115. as if I had left out on purpose the 7. verse in Gen. 17. where the Covenant of Circumcision is called an everlasting Covenant 'T is evident I did not only mention that verse but answered Mr. Flavels Argument drawn there from as in part 2. page 13. But still he affirms positively again that in all my Discourse I have not so much as named this viz. an Everlasting Covenant and so compares me with the Devil who left out part of a Scripture see his Book page 116. Now this being a matter of Fact let such who are in Communion with him consider it for if they read my Sermons page 13 14. they will see that 't is a great untruth What tho' I left it out at such times when the writing it was not to my purpose in Hand seeing I mention it at another and answer what our opponents draw there from In page 117. he says If there were two Covenants made with Abraham then there would have been three Covenants in being at once two of Works and one of Grace Answer This I have fully answered in those Sermons called the Ax layd at the Root see page 14 15 16 18. Second Part. Thus you will find I express my self viz. Tho' there is but one Covenant of Work 's yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident altho' given upon a different End Purpose and Design by the Lord The Covenant of Works was primerly made with Adam yet another addition or ministration of it was given on Mount Sinai and to that Covenant I there prove Circumcision did appertain Ax 2d Part page 17 18. Also I there shewed that tho' there is but one Covenant of Grace yet there were several distinct Additions or Administrations of that Also in page 125. he misrepresents my words again he cites an Objection I mention in page 25. part 1. viz. Object If Infants as such were not included in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham how can dying Infants be saved My Answer is Must Infants of believers as such be comprehended in that Covenant God made with Abraham or else can they not be saved how then were any dying Infants saved before Abraham's days or before the Covenant was made with him Now Mr. Shute says page 125. That I have answered this Objection as if there had been no Covenant of Grace before that time God did declare and make that Covenant with Abraham Answer I will appeal to all Men whether or no the very purport of my Answer is not to signifie that the Covenant of Grace was from the beginning made primarly with Christ before the World begun for us and that those Infants that were saved before Abraham's time were saved by the said Covenant of Grace otherwise I had said nothing the very Stress of my Argument lyes upon that foot of account In page 132. Mr. Shute he says if God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham and his Seed then 1. There must be that in the one that is peculiar to his Spiritual Seed 2. There must be that in the other that is peculiar to his Carnal Seed but we find saith he it is altogethor unscriptural for 1. Both the Seeds of Abraham had a right to all the External Benefits and Priviledges of the everlasting Cevenant which God made with Abraham very few excepted Answer I have largely proved in the said Sermons called The Ax layd to the Root That there were
some things in one peculiar to his Spiritual Seed that no ways related to his Carnal Seed as such which proved the Covenant contained in promise to be distinct page 15 16. and some things in the other that belonged to his Natural Seed that appertains not to his Spiritual Seed as such of which this Man takes no notice I begin there with those things that belonged to Abrahams Natural Seed as such as peculiar to them 1. The first that I Name is That of Gods multiplying his Seed by Isaac 2. The Birth of Isaac by Sarah Abraham s Wife Gen. 17. 16 19. 3. The continuation of his Covenant with all that should proceed from Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 17. 6. 4. The coming of Christ out of Isaac according to the Flesh. 5. The bringing the Natural Seed of Abraham by Isaac out of Egypt 6. The promise of giving his Natural Seed the Land of Canaan for their Possession Now can any of these things concern or belong to Abrahamâ— Spiritual Seed as such that is do they concern us Gentiles who do believe Observe also that as these things peculiarly appertained to his Natural Seed as such so Circumcision is expresly called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. Thou shalt keep my Covenant every Man Child among you shall be Circumcised verse 10. And ye shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore Skins and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you verse 8. And I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan c. so Gen. 15. 8. Now this Covenant and these promises I affirmed cannot belong to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as such page 16. therefore a Covenant of peculiarity to which he hath given no answer Secondly I have shewed also what those things are that are Peculiar to the Covenant of Grace and so to Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such which Covenant only was by promise not a formal Covenant like the other viz. that of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7. 1. See Gen. 15. 5. Look towards Heaven tell the Stars if thou art able to Number them and he said unto him so shall thy Seed be and he believed in the Lord and it was counted to him for Righteousness This was not in the Covenant of Circumcision and referrs to Abrahamâ— numerous Spiritual Seed 2. So again I have made thee a Father of many Nations meaning Gentile Believers as divers Expositors shew 3. In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed Gen. 12. 3. Gen. 18. 18. Gen. 22. 18. I cited the Apostles words Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached the Gospel to Abraham saying in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed 'T is remarkable the Holy Ghost does not here refer to the Covenant of Circumcision Gen 17. 7 8 9 10. But to the free promise of the Covenant of Grace which Paul says positively Abraham received not in Circumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Now I desire it may be well considered by all Christians that the Covenant of Grace was only by promise and no Formal Covenant with any of the Saints under the Old Testament thus the Covenant of Grace run to Adam to Abraham to David c. 11 12. only by promise not a Covenant where there was a mutual restipulation between God and his Elect ones As in the Covenant of Circumcision there was between God and Abraham in respect of his Carnal Seed this Dr. Owen asserts also on Heb. 8. 6. page 227. When God renewed saith he the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his Loyns but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise 1. It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged to it 2. This was wanting saith he the Spring Rule and Measure of all the Worship of the Church this does belong to every Covenant properly so called that God makes with his Church that it be the entire Rule of all the Worship that God requires of it which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament thus Dr. Owen This is further confirmed by those expressions Jer. 31. 31. I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel c. clearly intimating he had not so made it before with any except it was with Christ as our Head Representive and Mediator with whom it was made for us and in him with us before the Foundation of the World Tit. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 9. Object Does not David say God had made with him an everlasting Covenant c. Answer I answer David was a Type of Christ Psalm 89 28 34 35. with whom the Covenant of Grace was made before the World began this therefore refers to the true David who was only able to answer the Condition agreed upon between the Father and himself as Mediator For the Covenant of Peace was between them both Zech. 6. 13. For unto us the Covenant of Grace is not a Conditional but an Absolute Covenant I will be their God and they shall be my People c. To Adam the promise runs The Seed of the Woman shall Bruise the Sepents Head c. To Abraham In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed In both places it contained only a gracious promise To Abraham and to his Seed the promise was made it is not said Covenant therefore when I say God made a Twofold Covenant with Abraham I mean that there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant Transactings of God with him one a Formal Covenant with him and his Carnal Seed which contained a Covenant upon mutual restipulation which was the Covenant of Circumcision which Abraham and his Carnal Seed subscribed to the other a free promise or Covenant of Grace to him and all is true Spiritual Seed which is confirmed by Christs Blood and which believers consent to and enter into when Baptized upon the profession of their Faith in Gospel days tho' I deny not but that they have actual interest in it as soon as they have Union with Christ or do believe in him Moreover it was through Faith only in the free promise of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace that all the faithful were justified and saved who lived under the old Testament tho' the Covenant it self was not then formerly a Covenant with them it being not Ratified nor confirmed by the Blood of Christ or Death of the Testator nor could it so be till the
Scriptures Yet he has not made either of these things to appear In the said 5 Page he saith here thou hast the Cavils of the adversary Answered In Page 42. Because Mr. Collins saith that the habit of Faith if it be in all Infants of believers it cannot be lost there being no losing the habits of Grace c. Mr. Shute says this Gentleman meaning Mr. Collins doth as little Boyes that make a thing of Rags in Imitation of a Cock and when they have set it up throw at it But gives no other Answer as appears to me than by denying that he asserted all Infants of believers have habitual Faith yet 't is from that Topick he seems to plead for the Baptising of all believers Infants In Page 46. he says Mr. Collins is troubled with a grumbling in his gizzard Are those comely expressions He says in Page 57. that Mr. Collins is pleased to mock at habitual Faith because he compares Faith Potential and habitual Faith in the Infants of believers as such with Transubstantiation c. He renders me worse then the Devil Page 116. The Devil left out part of a Scripture once to tempt our Saviour with but in my weak Judgment saith Mr. Shute this Author had done it three times successively to maintain this error c. the better to beguile and deceive poor ignorant bigotted Souls c. The Lord knows I did not leave out part of the Text at any time to avoid answering their objection or to favour our cause But quoted then what was to the purpose in Hand And that objection I designed to answer afterwards as I did in the second part in order As the Reader may see that hath the Book In Page 82. he saith speaking of Mr. Collins was there ever such Legerdemain played with the Sacred Scripture In Page 23. he speaking to Mr. Collins crys out O for shame cease from bringing your Carnal reason c. Whereas 't is he himself that infers false conclusions from Mr. Collins words and then cries out O for shame Page 24. Where are you now with your humane invented Lame Decrepit Salvation c. Are not these Unchristian Reflections Resides he had no ground given him thus to abuse Mr. Collins as if his Salvation was lame and decrepid In Page 56. he abuses Mr. Danverse who is dead who was cleared by several Learned Ministers upon the answer of an Appeal of his Adversaries Mr. Shâ—â—â—s's abusive and false Representations of us and false Interpretation of several places of Holy Scripture and Gods Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in the Name c. FIrst in Page 6 he calls Dipping Ducking and the like in several other places as iâ— we had Believers to a 〈◊〉 when we Baptise â—â—â—m And again to viliâ—â—â— that Holy Ordinance in the same 6 Page he says Dipping is more like a punishment of criminals than the 〈◊〉 of an Ordinance of God Yet Dipping was generally owned by all Pedo-Baptists formerly and by many of late In Page 7 he says The Jaylor and his House were Baptized the same hâ—ur of the Night whereas the Text only says he washed their Sâ—ripes the same hour of the Night and was Baptized he and all his straight way Act. 16. 33. In Page 7. he says They were all Baptized in the Jaylers House which is a palpable abuse of the Text that they did not go out of his House to a River Yet the Text clearly intimates Act 16. 34. that after they were Baptized he that is the Jaylor brought them into his House Doth not that imply they went out of it And it might be to a River as far as he knows He also says That we read not of one Soul of the Jaylors House that did believe before Baptized besides the Jaylor himself Whereas we read that all his House believed as well as himself and as soon too as we read of the Jaylors own Faith so that he may as well say the Jaylor did not believe himself before he was Baptized as so to affirm concerning his House He says Page 11. John Baptiâ—â— Baptized all that came unto him yet the Text clearly Implies he rejected the Pharisees and Sadducees bidding them to bring forth Fruits meet for repentance He asserts in Page 33. that those little Children our Saviour saith did believe on him were little Infants calling them Infant Believers He vilifies Mr. Collins for leaving out in his quotations a word in one or two Texts of scripture whereas he destroys not the Sense of the Texts by so doing nor done to favour his own â—â—tion as that in Isa. 44. 3. where his Seed 〈◊〉 put for thy Seed and that in Acts 2. 39. Nor doth he wrong his Antagonist in the least and therefare no cause of complaint But palpable 't is Mr Shutes abuses that Text greatly Act 2. 39. for the promise is to you and to your Children and to all that are afâ—r off even so many as the Lord our God shall call Now see this Mans exposition of these worth in Page 71. viz. That was to all the Elect Gentiles and their Children for the promise runs in the same Channel to the Gentiles and their Children in the Text without any variation as is â—id to the Jews and their Children Answer If he had said to the Elect Gentiles and to their Children or off-spring also that are elected and called then he had not wronged the Text for the promise that is that of remission of Sâ—n and of the Holy Ghost which runs first to the Jews that are called and to their Children or Off-spring that are called and so in like manner also unto the Gentiles that are called and to their Off spring that shall be called not to the Jews and their Children as such i. e. whether Effectually called or not but to no more of the Jews nor Gentiles themselves nor their Children but even so many as the Lord our God shall call Dr. Hammond confessed this Text is to little purpose brought to prove Infant Baptism Seeing by Children is meant off-spring and refers not to Infants as such It certainly intends no Children of Jews or Gentiles but such only who are elected and called ones Besides this Man hath left out words in several Texts of Scripture quoted by himself in his Book yet blames his Antagonists for so doing at a strange manner For because I left out the words Everlasting Covenant he comparies me to the Devil See Page 116. in Page 21. he 〈◊〉 Ger. 17. 9. 10 11. but saith he neither in these â—â—â—ee quotations nor in his whole Book hath 〈◊〉 so much as named that which is the quintessence of the Covenant c. namely as Everlasting Covenant The Devil left out part of a Scripture c. Answer I fear he saw but part of my Book for 't is a great untruth which he affirms viz. that I never named Everlasting Covenant for I as you have heard in this Answer did not only name it
Father or that our Parents were believers and in Covenant because the Church now does not consist of the carnal Seed but of the true Spiritual Seed only Mr. Shute says in Page 82. to Mr. Collins if you have not enough you shall have enough before I have done with you I am satisfied and he too he has said too much unless it were better or to better purpose He appeals to any experienced Christian among us or of our party to judg whether there can be a more full Text of Scripture produced to prove the continuation and Stability of the Covenant c. If he will take my thoughts who am 't is like in his opinion as well as my own an unexperienced Christian I must tell him he hath mistaken his Antagonist and the Text too Cannot the Jewish Legal Church State go but the Covenant of Grace must go with them God forbid The Apostle it is evident in this Chapter Rom. 11. speaks of Gods Election which ran first to Abrahams natural Seed according to the Covenant of Grace that is to the Elect among the Jews and so argues God had not cast away his People whom he foreknew and from hence he shews that all that belong to the said Election of Grace shall be called and in the Latter days be brought in or grafted into their own true Olive tree i. e. into Christ and into the Gospel Covenant and Church for all the true Israel shall be saved as it is written c. 't is said they are Holy that is they are decretively and in Gods sight and intention Holy I wonder at some Expositors who conclude that it is an external relative Federal Holiness the Apostle speaks of here which Holiness is not mentioned in all the New Testament as an eminent Writer observes And this brings me to what Mr. Shute says to that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy Which Scripture he mistakes also whilst he asserts it is Federal Holiness as well as Matrimonial Holiness for no doubt the Sanctification of the unbelieving Husband to the believing Wife is the same Sanctification or Holiness that is said to be in the Children that is the Husband and Wife were Sanctified or set apart for the use of one another by Gods ordinance of Marriage and so their Children were Holy i. e. Legitimate lawfully begotten and not Bastards for no doubt their Children that were born when both were unbelievers were Holy in the Sense the Apostle speaks of as such that were born when one was a believer But see a full answer to this Text in Rector Rectified from Page 113. to Page 120. And when he writes again let him answer what is there said Mr. Shute also gives a false exposition of that Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Page 15 16. Whilst he refers there to the Baptism of suffering telling us the Apostle was there exerciting the Saints to prepare for sufferings which is not true Likewise he abuses that Text 1 Cor. 2. But God hath chosen the weak things of the World c. by intimating as if the Apostle means little Children and who are weaker saith he than Children Page 23. Also that in Psa. 82. I think he would have to refer to Infants i. e. out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings thou hast perfected thy praise Page 23. In Page 130. that in Mark 16. 16. Joh. 3. 3. he applies to Infants viz. he that believes and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned And so pleads for like necessity for infants to believe if saved as the Adult In Page 10. he seems to infer that John Baptist Baptized little Infants because 't is said there went out to meet him all Judea and Jerusalem and all the regions round about Jordan and were Baptized Which I have answered Ax laid to the Root in my reply to Mr. Exell see 2 Part Page 35. to 54. In Page 174. Mr. Shute citing Rom. 11. 6. if it be by Grace then it is no more of Works he infers if dying Infants are saved without Faith then they must be saved by works Which is an abuse of that Text for as the Apostle speaks not of Infants so he speaks of Gods Grace and Favour in opposition to works oâ— merits according to that in Eph. 2. 8. by Grace you are saved he puts Faith in the place of Grace We say no Infant can be saved but by Grace yet we do say we see not how it can be said that Infants do or can believe And now let me infer from his notion viz. if Infants cannot believe they must all perish and be damned this follows clearly from what he asserts He had need to see he is certain of what he affirms In Page 92. he says it is common for Men of our opinion to bring in and set up our own Carnal Reason in opposition to the Wisdom of God is not this an Unchristian charge Besides he proves not what he says nor attempts to do it Sure some gracious Person or Persons he is concerned more particularly with in Church-fellowship will look upon themselves bound in duty to inquire into some of these grand enormities false acusations and other evils this Man is found guilty of in his Writings In Page 13. he says that part of the Man Woman or Child that is Baptized must be naked and if the whole Body must be Baptized then the whole Body must be all naked also And he quotes a passage of Mr. Baxter as if Mr. Tombs could or did Baptise Women naked to render such a practice odious as indeed it would be should any do it but to cast that on us is Unchristianly done In Page 19. he intimates as if we had found two ways to Salvation because we know not that dying Infants have Faith or can believe In Page 20. he abuses Mr. Collins as if he was ignorant of any such thing as habitual Faith because he knows nothing of such habits in Infants and says he derides habitual Faith which is a notorious falsehood and that which Mr. Collins abhors to do In Page 20. he would have his Reader think that Mr. Collins had rendred Mr. Charnock an Anabaptist because he quoted him to detect his notion of habitual Faith in Infants In Page 43. because Mr. Collins said unless Children have personal actual Faith they are not to meddle with Gods most holy things Mr. Shute says by this mans opinion Elect dying Infants must be lost and damned he would have those Children to be Infants that cryed Hosanna to the Son of David For if it be not that he means it is nothing to his purpose for we deny not but some little Children have and may have a work of God upon their Hearts tho' not above five or six years old In Page 68. he infers four false Conclusions upon Mr. Collins denying Faith to be in Infants 1. That God cannot work Faith in young Infants because
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
Covenant and all were Members of the Jewish Church read Gen. 17. 9 10 12 Dent. 29. 9 10 11. 12 13. But that legal Covenant we affirm is abrogated and taken away If it were not so what is it which our Apostle speaks in Heb. 10. 9. He took away the first that he might establish the Second Compared with Heb. 8. 7 8 13. Sure none can once Immagin that this Covenant was the Covenant of Grace Also what doth the Apostle mean when he says cast out the Bond Woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Doth he not tell us by the Bondwoman is meant the Old Covenant given to the whole House of Israel or the lineal Seed of Abraham not the Covenant given to all Mankind in the first Adam and doth he not tell us by the Son of the Bond-woman is meant the fleshly Seed of Abraham as such Who were all taken into Covenant with God under the Old Testament And yet is there no Covenant that peculiarly was made with Abrahams natural Seed as such In Page 7. Mr. Shute repeats Gen. 17. 7. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee Here he leaves out the following verse wherein the Covenant is Mentioned which he charges as an high crime in others viz. this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be circumcised Verse 10. and ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you verse 11. He that is born in thy House and he that is bought with thy Mony must needs be circumcised And my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant verse 13. these Verses he Cites not Now Mr. Shute Judges this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and that for two reasons as I suppose 1. Because 't is called an everlasting Covenant 2. Because God promised in this Covenant to be the God of Abraham and the God of his Seed after him in their Generations which no doubt refers to his natural Seed as such Taking in both those of his off-spring that did believe in Christ to come and such also that did not so believe that proceeded from Abrahams Loins by Isaac 1. As to the Term everlasting I have shewed in the precedent Answer that some times in the Scripture it is taken with restriction and denotes only a long period of Time viz. during that Dispensation or until the Mâ—ssiâ—s should comeâ— the Priesthood of Aaron is upon the same account called an everlasting Priesthood Indeed this Covenant could continue no longer than the Token of it abode or was to abide in their Flesh Read the words again verse 13. and my Covenant shall be in your Flesh for an everlasting Covenant 2. Circumcision being as our Adversaries say the Seal of the Covenant now say I since the Seal namely Circumcision is broken off and gone as it was it at the death of Christ I ask what is become of that Covenant it was a Sign or Seal of is not the Covenant gone and dissolved when 't is cancelled 〈◊〉 read your Annotators on Gen. 17. 13. And â—â—r the sign of it say they it is so called because it was to indure through all Generations till the coming of the Messias the word Olim here and elsewhere rendred everlasting or for ever being 〈◊〉 used to express not only simple Eternity but any long continuance for maâ—â—ages 〈◊〉 some time for a Mans Life Exod. 21. â— Deut. 15. 17. â— King 9. 3. thus Mr. Pools Annotations This being so to what purpose do you make such a stir about the word Everlasting â—ly As to this second reason viz. God in that Covenant gave himself to Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed in their Generations 1. Answer I would know whether God is now in Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such or are they not rejected how then could this be the unchangeable Covenant of Grace Read my 14. Arguments in the precedent Answer to prove the Covenant of circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace 2. Was God the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed as such by way of special interest if so they shall no doubt be all Eternally saved as well as all the Children or Carnal Seed of Believers Which you will not admit of Therefore consider that God may be said to be the God of a People two manner of ways 1. By the free promise or Covenant of Grace in a Spiritual Sense Or by Divine Union with him through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit 't is this gives special interest in God to all Adult Persons and thus he was not the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed no but of a few of them only comparatively for tho' the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sands of the Sea yet but a Remnant shall be saved 2. God may be said to be the God of a People by entring into an external outward or legal Covenant with them and thus he was the God of Abraham and of all his Carnal Seed or Off-spring or whole House of Israel Under the Old Covenant or Dispensation of the Law God made them as a Nation a peculiar People unto himself and was said to be married to them See Dr. Bates one of your own Ministers in his Sermon preached at Mr. Baxters Funeral 1. He shews that God is the God of all Mankind by Creation 2. God is the God of a People upon the account of external calling and profession and thus saith he the posterity of Seth are so called and the intire nation of the Jews c. Friend This I desire you to weigh well for God was not by way of special interest in a Spiritual Sense the God of Abrahams Carnal Seed as such Therefore it was this external Covenent no doubt that Mr. Cotton intends when he says the Ministry of John the Baptist did burn as an Oven and left the Jews neither the Root of Abrahams Covenant nor the Branches of their own good works Coâ—ton on the Covenant Page 21 22 Friend you speak as if your Ministers had 〈◊〉 those notions of yours into you about the Covenant God made with Abraham I am satisfied you abuse your Ministers I am sure Dr. Owen taught you no such Doctrin as I have already shewed and I shall here again faithfully cite two or three passages more of that Reverend Minister of Christ See his Exposition on the 8th Chapter to the Hebrews Page 219 c. 1. He shews that the Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel was not that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God made with all Men in the first Alam 2. That it was not the Covenant of Grace 1. Saith he Page 224. the Old Covenant the
Original Covenant of works made with Alam and all Mankind in him is not intended for this is undoubtedly a Covenant different in the Essence and Substance of it from the New In Page 219. He saith but it is evident that the Covenant intended was a Covenant wherein the Church of Israel walked with God until such time as this better Covenant was solemnly introduced this is plainly declared in the ensuing context he says it was becâ—me old and ready to disappear Wherefore it is not the Covenant of works made with Adam that is intended when this other is said to be a better Covenant Thus the Doctor Friend doth not he hereby clearly lay down a Covenant of peculiarity made with Abrahams natural Seed as such or a Covenant that only and peculiarly belonged to them and 't is as plain this began in that Covenant God made with Abraham In Page 288. he saith we must grant two distinct Covenants to be intended rather than a twofold Administration of the same Covenant meerly to be intended He also shews that the old Covenant which God made with the natural Seed of Abraham could not be the Covenant of Grace because there was no reconciliation with God nor Salvation to be obtained by vertue of that Covenant Observe the Doctor speaks not of Adams Covenant but of that Covenant God gave to the whole House of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham He further shews that the Covenant of Grace untill Christ came was only contained in promise by which Covenant all that lived under the Old Testament who had Faith in it were saved to Abraham and his Seed was the promise made Gal. 3. 16. That was the Covenant of Grace therefore say we the Covenant of circumcision and Sinai Covenant where there was mutual stipulation betwixt God and the whole House of Israel could not be the Covenant of Grace besides 't is said that that Covenant they broke and by so doing lost all the external blessings of it as the Prophet Zach. Chap. 11. 10 14. shws because of the Jews unbelief and putting the Messiah to Death God broke his Covenant with that People Zech. 11. 10. And I took my Staff even beauty and cut it asunder That I might break my Covenant which I made with all the People What is become now of your everlasting Covenant God made with all the People of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham Is it not gone are his Carnal Seed as such still in Covenant with God or are they not with their external legal Covenant cast out Sir the everlasting Covenant of Grace that stands firm 't is true that is confirmed by the Oath of God and Blood of Christ but the Covenant in which was contained circumcision and all the Legal Rites and Jewish Church and Church-membership is gone and taken away The New Covenant is not according to that Old Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel or Carnal Seed of Abraham if it be not according to it then it was not the same in Essence nature or quality See Jer. 31. 32. 1. This saith the Doctor is the nature and substance of that Covenant which God made with that People viz. a peculiar temporary Covenant c. Page 235. Mark it Reader He adds and concurs with the Lutherans who deny that by the two Covenants is meant only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant but that two Covenants substantially distinct are intended `1 Because in the Scripture they are often so called and compared with one another and some times opposed to one another the first and the last the new and the old 2. Because the Covenant of Grace in Christ is eternal immutable always the same obnoxious unto no alteration no change or abrogation neither can these things be spoken of it with respect unto any Administration of it as they are spoken of the Old Page 226 227. 1. He shews again that by the Old Covenant is not intended the Covenant of Works made with Adam Page 227. When 2. We speak of the New Covenant saith he we do not intend the Covenant of Grace absolutely as though that were not in being and efficacy before the Introduction of that which is promised in this place For it was always the same as to the substance of it From the beginning it passed through the whole Dispensation of times before the Law and under the Law of the same nature and Efficacy unalterable everlasting ordered in all things and sure Again he saith when God renewed the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things Mark it especially the proceedings of the promised Seed from his Loins but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise And as such only is proposed in the Scripture Page 227. it appears that the Doctor understands the Covenant God made with Abraham as we do viz. the promise to Abrahams Seed viz. Christ and all Eternal blessings with him to intend the Covenant of Grace but whereas it is said God made a Covenant with Abraham c. that has respect to other things that which concerned his natural Seed and out of whose Loins Christ was to come That 's the Covenant of peculiarity he proceeds and gives three reasons why the Covenant of Grace could not absolutely in it self but in the promise of it only be called a formal Covenant Page 227. 1. Because it wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged unto it before this was done in the Death of Christ it had not the formal nature of a Covenant c. 2. This was wanting saith he it was not the Spring rule and measure of all the worship of the Church i e. this doth belong unto every Covenant properly so called that God makes with the Church that is the intire rule of all the worship that God requires of it which is that they are to restipluate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament for God did require of the Church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto but now under the New Testament this Covenant with its own Seals and appointments is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship wherefore the new Covenant promised in the Scripture and here opposed unto the old is not the promise of Grace Mercy and Life and Salvation by Christ absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a Covenant given unto it in its establishment by the Death of Christ c. Page 227. 1. Now pray observe does not the Doctor clearly hint thereby that no Rite Sign or Seal properly of the Old Testament can be a Rite Sign or Seal properly of the New Covenant how then could circumcision be the Seal of the said Covenant of Grace 2. It is evident in the Covenant of circumcision there
prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ. But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor Promise to such who do it nor Threatnings to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes nor Promise made to such who are baptized nor Threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized let them prove it since it is denied Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing of their Children or reproved for neglecting to baptize them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children c. Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel But under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denied The Minor is clear See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an ignorant Babe Add thou not into his Word c. Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the Practice of Infant-Baptism opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship Ergo to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil and to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture-ground for it no Command nor Example for such a Practice in God's Word And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition others say it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great Asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say Those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without Demonstration and so prove nothing I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ who was more faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matter of Duty tho the Precepts and external Rites of his Law were numerous two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say Is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that runs may read it And shall one positive Precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the ground and end of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the end and ground thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo It was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority And evident it is as Sir Norton Knatchbul shews That the Jewish Rabbiâ—s differed among themselves also about it for saith he Rabbi Eliâ—zer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews For Eliâ—zer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended Proofs of Pedo-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loins till he received Commandment from God to circumcise them Had he done it before or without a Command from God it would have been Will-Worship in him so to have done Moreover this further appears to be so Because no godly Man's Children nor others in Abraham's Days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no