A counter-antidote, to purge out the malignant effects of a late counterfeit, prepared by Mr. Gyles Shute ... being an answer to his vindication of his pretended Antidote to prevent the prevalency of Anabaptism, shewing that Mr. Hercules Collins's reply to the said author remains unanswered : wherein the baptism of believers is evinced to be God's ordinance, and the baptized congregations proved true churches of Jesus Christ : with a further detection of the error of pedo-baptism : to which is added, An answer to Mr. Shute's reply to Mr. Collins's half-sheet / by Benjamin Keach.
Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.
1694
Approx. 286 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 33 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Text Creation Partnership,
Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
A47448
Wing K54
ESTC R18808
12350372
ocm 12350372
59964
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A47448)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 59964)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 213:4)
A counter-antidote, to purge out the malignant effects of a late counterfeit, prepared by Mr. Gyles Shute ... being an answer to his vindication of his pretended Antidote to prevent the prevalency of Anabaptism, shewing that Mr. Hercules Collins's reply to the said author remains unanswered : wherein the baptism of believers is evinced to be God's ordinance, and the baptized congregations proved true churches of Jesus Christ : with a further detection of the error of pedo-baptism : to which is added, An answer to Mr. Shute's reply to Mr. Collins's half-sheet / by Benjamin Keach.
Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.
[2], 54, 8 p.
Printed for H. Bernard ...,
London :
1694.
Errata: p. 54.
Reproduction of original in British Library.
"An appendix, being a reply to Mr. Shute's last single sheet, in answer to Mr. Collin's half-sheet": p. 44-54.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
Text Creation Partnership web site
.
eng
Collins, Hercules, d. 1702. -- Antidote proved a counterfeit, or, Error detected and believers baptism vindicated.
Shute, Giles, b. 1650 or 51. -- Antidote to prevent the prevalency of anabaptism.
Baptism -- Early works to 1800.
Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800.
Anabaptists.
2005-04 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2005-05 Apex CoVantage
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2005-06 Rachel Losh
Sampled and proofread
2005-06 Rachel Losh
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2005-10 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
A
COUNTER-ANTIDOTE
,
To
purge
out
the
Malignant
Effects
Of
a
Late
COUNTERFEIT
,
Prepared
by
Mr.
GYLES
SHUTE
,
An
Unskilful
Person
in
Polemical
Cures
:
BEING
An
Answer
to
his
Vindication
of
his
pretended
Antidote
,
to
prevent
the
Prevalency
of
Anabaptism
.
Shewing
that
Mr.
Hercules
Collins's
Reply
to
the
said
Author
remains
unanswered
.
Wherein
the
Baptism
of
Believers
is
evinced
to
be
God's
Ordinance
,
and
the
Baptized
Congregations
proved
true
Churches
of
Jesus
Christ.
With
a
further
Detection
of
the
Error
of
Pedo-Baptism
.
To
which
is
added
,
An
Answer
to
Mr.
Shute's
Reply
to
Mr.
Collins's
Half-sheet
.
By
BENJAMIN
KEACH
.
LONDON
:
Printed
for
H.
Bernard
,
at
the
Bible
in
the
Poultry
.
M
DC
XC
IV.
THE
INTRODUCTION
.
I
Cannot
,
without
Grief
and
Sorrow
of
Heart
,
reflect
upon
the
sad
Consequences
of
our
present
Differences
in
and
about
the
smaller
Matters
of
Religion
,
whereas
we
agree
in
all
the
Essentials
thereof
;
but
do
much
more
resent
that
bitter
and
censorious
Spirit
many
shew
,
and
particularly
appeareth
in
the
Person
I
have
now
to
do
with
,
which
all
that
read
his
Books
will
quickly
perceive
.
Pray
do
but
see
what
a
kind
of
Advertisement
he
put
twice
into
the
City
Mercury
of
his
last
Treatise
,
&c.
wherein
he
positively
denies
those
he
calls
Anabaptists
to
be
Churches
;
and
their
Baptism
he
affirms
to
be
a
Counterfeit
,
which
is
the
Baptism
of
Believers
or
adult
Persons
;
and
that
because
we
do
not
ground
Gospel-baptism
upon
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
but
upon
the
great
Commission
our
blessed
Saviour
gave
to
his
Disciples
after
he
rose
from
the
Dead
,
as
it
is
contained
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
This
is
such
an
Attempt
,
that
none
of
our
Brethren
who
are
Pedo-baptists
(
nor
any
that
ever
I
read
of
)
assayed
to
do
.
Whether
our
Baptism
be
a
Truth
of
Christ
,
or
a
Counterfeit
,
will
appear
in
our
Answer
;
but
why
are
we
no
Churches
?
Certainly
we
are
Churches
;
for
a
Church
may
consist
of
wicked
Men
as
well
as
of
good
Men
;
but
I
suppose
he
means
we
are
not
true
Churches
of
Christ
;
he
,
as
I
judge
,
not
knowing
from
what
Theam
that
word
is
derived
,
we
must
be
wicked
Persons
or
else
Churches
of
Christ.
This
Man
hath
come
too
near
to
the
Expressions
and
bitter
Reflections
John
Child
uttered
against
us
,
falsely
called
,
Anabaptists
;
who
soon
after
fell
under
fearful
horror
of
Conscience
and
Desperation
.
He
wrote
a
Book
against
us
,
rendring
us
very
odious
to
the
World
,
and
casting
Contempt
upon
our
saithful
Ministers
,
but
quickly
was
convinced
of
his
horrid
Design
,
crying
out
,
in
Despair
,
That
he
had
touched
the
Apple
of
God's
Eye
;
for
,
said
he
,
if
God
has
any
People
in
the
World
,
those
that
I
have
vilified
are
his
,
or
to
that
effect
.
The
Lord
deliver
this
Man
from
such
a
Spirit
and
dismal
end
;
but
't
is
bad
modling
(
as
we
used
to
say
)
with
edge
Tools
.
Our
Saviour
shews
the
danger
of
rash
Judgment
;
and
what
have
●e
to
do
to
judge
our
Fellow
Servant
,
much
less
Churches
?
We
may
judge
of
Things
,
and
freely
speak
our
Minds
,
according
to
Light
received
;
but
to
censure
a
People
after
this
manner
,
and
only
because
〈◊〉
differ
from
him
about
the
Subject
and
Mode
of
Baptism
,
is
hard
;
〈◊〉
,
considering
,
that
we
are
in
all
other
things
of
the
same
Faith
with
himself
,
and
such
that
he
hath
daily
Church
Communion
with
;
is
this
lovely
or
just
?
is
this
the
Spirit
of
Jesus
Christ
?
O●
doth
he
appear
in
the
Wisdom
that
is
from
above
,
that
is
first
Pure
,
then
Peaceable
,
Gentle
,
●a●●e
to
be
Intreated
,
full
of
Mercy
and
good
Fruits
,
without
Partiality
and
without
Hypocrisie
,
and
the
Fruits
of
Righteousness
that
is
sown
in
Peace
of
them
that
make
Peace
,
Jam.
3.
17
,
18.
What
kind
of
Scoffing
,
Reproaching
,
Railing
and
opprobious
Language
he
hath
cast
on
us
,
I
shall
collect
and
set
down
in
its
proper
Place
;
and
yet
at
the
same
time
he
bears
very
hard
upon
his
Antagonists
for
using
such
kind
of
Terms
,
&c.
p.
4.
How
will
he
escape
,
who
says
a
Man
should
not
Steal
,
if
he
Steals
?
Or
,
that
a
Man
should
not
commit
Adultery
,
if
he
commits
Adultery
?
Rom.
2.
22.
Or
that
says
,
a
Man
should
not
scoff
or
rail
on
,
and
vilifie
his
Brother
when
he
doth
the
same
thing
,
and
yet
pretends
he
hath
not
do●e
it
;
I
will
not
render
Railing
for
Railing
,
these
are
his
Words
;
and
again
saith
,
I
shall
labour
to
declare
in
the
Spirit
of
Meekness
,
pag.
4.
Hath
he
been
as
good
as
his
word
,
or
hath
he
not
?
(
they
are
proper
Judges
who
have
read
his
Book
.
)
I
think
few
Men
who
have
had
to
do
with
us
in
this
Controversie
shewed
a
more
four
Spirit
than
Mr.
Eaxter
;
and
yet
did
he
ever
deny
us
to
be
Churches
,
or
call
our
Baptism
a
Counterfeit
?
Pray
take
his
Sentiments
of
us
,
when
in
a
co●l
Spirit
,
these
are
his
words
,
viz.
That
the
Anaebaptists
are
godly
Men
;
that
differ
from
us
in
a
Point
so
difficult
that
many
Papists
and
Prelatists
have
maintained
that
it
is
not
determined
in
in
the
Scripture
,
but
dependeth
upon
Tradition
of
the
Church
;
and
I
know
as
good
and
sober
Men
of
that
Mind
as
of
thei●s
,
who
are
most
against
them
,
&c.
And
again
he
saith
,
That
Augustin
and
many
Children
of
Christians
were
baptized
at
Age
,
and
that
the
Controversie
is
of
so
great
Difficulty
,
that
if
in
all
such
Cases
none
that
differ
be
tollerated
,
we
may
not
live
together
in
the
World
or
Church
,
but
endlesly
excommunicate
or
persecute
one
another
,
Baxter's
Book
,
Principle
of
Love
,
page
7.
But
Mr.
Shute
hath
appeared
so
bold
and
rash
as
if
he
had
an
infallible
Spirit
,
and
seems
to
be
so
lifted
up
as
if
he
hath
done
more
in
his
short
Tract
,
than
all
those
learned
Men
who
have
formerly
and
of
late
times
asserted
Pedo-baptism
.
And
that
now
we
are
totally
confuted
,
and
We
,
and
our
Cause
of
Believers
Baptism
gone
for
ever
.
See
his
Title
Page
.
And
in
pag.
113.
saith
he
,
Thus
I
have
given
you
one
Broad
side
more
,
by
which
I
have
brought
your
whole
Opinion
by
the
Lee
,
and
all
the
Carpenters
and
Calkers
in
the
Nation
cannot
save
it
from
Sinking
.
I
wish
he
knew
his
own
Spirit
and
Weakness
better
,
and
not
thus
to
admire
what
he
hath
done
:
Doth
he
think
there
is
none
can
answer
his
Arguments
?
No
saving
our
Baptism
and
Churches
from
sinking
to
the
bottom
,
which
he
hath
so
furiously
attacked
?
sad
Case
!
What
could
Goliah
of
Gath
,
or
proud
Rabshaketh
say
more
?
But
he
forgot
the
old
Proverb
,
Let
not
him
boast
that
puts
on
his
Armour
as
he
that
puts
it
off
.
If
I
or
my
Reverend
Brother
Collins
,
have
in
any
Writings
of
Ours
used
hard
Words
,
we
have
cause
to
be
troubled
,
for
the
Truth
never
gained
any
thing
that
way
:
'T
is
not
hard
Words
,
but
hard
Arguments
that
must
do
the
Business
;
A
soft
Answer
(
as
Solomon
saith
)
turneth
away
Wrath.
I
must
say
,
I
had
rather
have
to
do
with
a
Man
that
hath
more
Argument
and
less
Confidence
than
I
can
find
in
his
Writing
,
or
Spirit
.
I
am
sorry
he
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
r●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.
●
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
F●oods
upon
the
dry
Ground
:
I
will
pour
my
Spirit
upon
thy
Seed
,
and
my
blessings
upon
thine
Off-spring
.
Ez
●
36.
25.
Then
will
I
sprinkle
cl●an
Water
upon
you
,
and
ye
shall
be
cl●an
from
all
your
Filthiness
,
and
from
all
your
●●ols
w●●
I
cleanse
you
.
Ed●d
.
2●
8.
Here
you
see
(
say
you
)
we
do
not
read
of
Dipping
,
nor
Ducking
in
all
those
spiritual
Metaphorical
Baptisms
,
which
are
all
nearly
re●ued
unto
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
and
t●n●
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
,
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
fi●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.
Burki●
,
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
imm●rgendo
,
inficere
,
im●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
H●●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
o●
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
E●●●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
●aith
,
he
Baptized
in
Aenon
;
't
is
po●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
n●
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
●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
,
believe
on
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
and
thy
House
;
and
they
spake
unto
him
and
to
all
that
were
in
his
House
,
vers
.
32.
And
he
took
them
the
same
hour
of
the
Night
and
washed
their
Stripes
;
and
was
Baptized
●e
and
all
his
,
straight
way
.
Now
from
these
words
Mr.
Shute
affirms
,
that
they
were
all
Baptized
in
his
House
,
that
is
,
in
the
Jaylors
House
.
2.
That
they
were
Baptized
the
same
hour
of
the
Night
.
3.
That
they
did
not
go
out
of
the
House
to
a
River
.
If
you
can
see
these
three
Things
in
these
Verses
you
have
better
Eyes
than
I
have
.
As
to
what
was
done
the
same
hour
of
the
Night
't
is
directly
in
plain
words
asserted
,
viz.
He
washed
their
Stripes
.
As
to
the
time
when
Baptized
,
it
is
said
,
Straight
way
.
If
you
will
have
the
same
Hour
and
Straight
way
to
intend
both
the
washing
their
Stripes
,
and
their
being
Baptized
,
it
is
more
than
can
be
gathered
therefrom
;
but
if
that
be
granted
,
might
they
not
in
that
hour
go
a
little
way
out
of
the
House
and
be
Baptized
?
't
is
evident
he
abuses
the
Sacred
Text.
4.
What
reason
hath
he
also
to
affirm
,
that
none
believed
but
the
Jaylor
himself
?
for
so
he
asserts
.
These
are
his
words
.
Page
7.
We
do
not
read
of
any
one
Soul
of
them
that
did
believe
besides
the
Jaylor
himself
,
before
they
were
Baptized
;
nor
of
any
one
act
of
Faith
they
exerted
.
1.
Answer
,
We
do
read
in
vers
.
34.
And
when
he
had
brought
them
into
his
House
he
set
Meat
before
them
,
and
rejoyced
,
believing
in
God
with
all
his
House
.
2.
He
will
say
,
may
be
,
this
was
after
they
were
Baptized
.
I
answer
,
we
read
not
one
word
of
the
Jaylors
believing
himself
tell
then
:
I
mean
tho'
he
believed
before
,
and
all
his
House
believed
before
either
were
Baptized
;
yet
't
is
not
expressed
by
the
Holy
Ghost
until
after
they
had
been
Baptized
,
and
were
come
into
his
House
,
and
he
set
Meat
before
them
believing
in
God
with
all
his
House
;
So
that
here
is
as
much
mention
made
of
that
act
of
Faith
his
whole
House
exerted
,
as
of
the
Jaylors
own
Faith
,
and
as
soon
also
.
3.
And
is
it
not
evident
likewise
that
they
were
before
out
of
the
Jaylors
House
,
else
why
is
it
said
when
he
had
brought
them
into
his
House
,
&c.
that
is
,
after
they
were
Baptised
;
take
heed
how
you
write
at
another
time
,
lest
you
provoke
God
by
adding
and
diminishing
from
his
Sacred
Word
.
In
Page
12
(
you
say
)
you
believe
,
that
there
were
more
modes
in
Baptism
than
one
,
for
some
went
down
into
the
Water
,
and
others
were
Baptised
in
their
Houses
:
but
(
say
you
)
I
understand
not
that
any
were
Ducked
all
under
Water
;
it
is
possible
their
Faces
might
be
Dipped
,
without
Plunging
the
whole
Body
under
Water
,
or
by
pouring
Water
on
their
Faces
.
1.
Answer
,
That
which
you
again
assert
.
I
again
affirm
,
is
not
true
,
viz.
That
some
were
Baptised
in
their
Houses
;
what
you
have
said
of
the
Jaylors
being
Baptised
in
his
own
House
,
all
may
see
is
without
Book
,
and
without
the
least
shadow
of
proof
,
nor
do
you
,
nor
can
you
prove
it
of
any
other
.
2.
If
there
were
more
modes
of
Baptism
than
one
,
then
there
were
different
significations
of
the
same
ordinance
,
and
all
of
them
could
not
be
held
forth
in
the
Baptism
of
each
person
;
for
such
that
were
Dipped
,
tho'
it
was
but
the
Head
only
,
were
taught
the
proper
Mysteries
represented
thereby
,
and
those
that
were
sprinkled
only
with
Water
,
or
had
Water
poured
upon
them
,
were
taught
the
proper
Symbols
or
signification
of
that
mode
;
but
how
absur'd
that
would
be
I
leave
to
all
impartial
wise
Men
to
consider
.
3.
And
if
this
was
so
,
how
then
was
the
way
and
ordinance
of
God
in
their
Holy
administration
,
one
and
the
same
in
all
the
Churches
of
the
Saints
?
you
may
as
well
say
the
modes
of
the
Administration
of
the
Lords
Supper
were
more
than
one
,
and
so
allow
of
the
Popish
mode
therein
,
who
deny
the
Lai●y
the
Cup.
Is
this
to
make
the
Holy
God
,
a
God
of
order
,
or
of
confusion
?
4.
If
Dipping
was
one
mode
and
Sprinkling
another
,
then
would
Baptism
and
Rantism
be
both
ordinances
of
Christ
,
ask
the
learned
what
the
word
for
(
Sprinkling
)
is
in
the
Greek
Tongue
,
and
if
they
do
not
tell
you
(
if
they
speak
the
truth
)
't
is
(
Rantising
)
I
will
confess
I
have
in
this
done
you
wrong
,
and
mistook
my self
:
But
we
deny
Sprinkling
is
Baptism
for
Dipping
of
the
whole
Body
;
is
an
essential
,
not
an
accident
of
Baptism
.
Baptism
is
compared
to
a
burial
,
that
's
clear
from
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
as
it
is
confessed
by
a
multitude
of
learned
Men
who
were
Pedo
Baptists
,
as
you
shall
hear
anon
.
Now
will
you
say
,
if
the
Face
or
Head
only
of
a
Dead
Corps
was
covered
with
Earth
,
and
not
the
whole
Body
,
that
the
Corps
was
buried
?
if
you
should
,
would
you
not
be
laught
at
?
Our
Saviour
was
buried
,
not
his
Head
only
,
but
his
whole
Body
also
in
the
Heart
of
the
Earth
,
and
he
whose
whole
Body
is
not
covered
all
over
in
the
Earth
,
is
not
buried
;
no
more
is
he
whose
whole
Body
is
not
covered
all
over
in
the
Water-Baptised
.
Baptism
is
a
lively
Figure
of
the
Burial
of
our
Blessed
Lord
,
and
of
our
Death
to
Sin
and
being
Buried
with
him
both
in
Sign
and
signification
.
In
Page
12.
(
say
you
)
produce
one
positive
command
or
example
to
prove
,
that
ever
any
Woman
went
down
into
a
River
,
or
Pond
to
be
Dipped
,
or
Ducked
,
all
under
Water
in
Baptism
,
throughout
the
Book
of
God
,
or
else
take
your
human
invention
to
your self
;
these
are
your
words
.
Answer
,
If
we
prove
that
a
Woman
by
name
was
Baptized
,
then
we
prove
a
Woman
was
Dipped
,
because
Baptized
in
Greek
is
Dipped
in
English
:
and
the
Dutch
(
as
I
have
elsewhere
shewed
)
have
so
Translated
the
Word
,
viz.
Dooped
or
Dipped
in
the
name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
Now
in
Act.
16.
we
read
of
Lydia
who
was
Baptized
,
that
is
,
Dipped
;
and
in
Act.
8.
12.
when
they
believing
Philip
preaching
the
things
concerning
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
and
the
name
of
Jesus
Christ
,
they
were
Baptized
,
both
Men
and
Women
:
That
is
,
saith
the
Dutch
Translation
,
they
were
Dooped
both
Men
and
Women
:
our
Translators
have
left
the
Greek
word
untranslated
into
our
Tongue
.
What
difference
is
there
between
Baptisma
(
Greek
)
and
Baptism
?
2.
But
Sir
,
I
cannot
but
take
notice
how
often
you
add
Ducking
to
Dipping
:
Is
not
this
to
reproach
and
cast
contempt
upon
us
,
and
on
the
ordinance
of
Christ
of
Dipping
believers
in
his
name
?
The
Lord
open
your
Eyes
and
give
you
repentance
,
in
mercy
to
your
poor
Soul.
In
Page
13.
because
every
Sinner
God
draws
to
Christ
must
come
to
him
naked
,
&c
So
you
say
it
must
be
in
Baptism
,
viz.
that
part
of
the
Man
,
Woman
,
or
Child
that
is
Baptized
must
be
naked
,
and
so
plead
only
for
the
Baptizing
of
the
Face
.
1.
Answer
,
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
Woman●
Face
,
or
Head
,
was
only
Baptised
,
or
that
●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
,
v●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
our
Mortification
,
and
death
unto
sin
,
but
our
progress
and
perseverance
therein
;
Burial
implies
a
continuing
under
death
,
so
Mortification
is
a
continual
dying
unto
sin
:
Look
as
after
the
Death
and
Burial
of
Christ
there
followed
his
Resurrection
,
so
it
must
be
with
us
,
we
must
have
Communion
with
,
and
conformity
to
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
in
his
Resurrection
as
well
as
in
his
Death
;
both
these
are
represented
and
sealed
to
us
,
in
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
,
&c.
thus
Pools
Annotations
.
The
Assembly
also
in
their
Annotations
on
this
Text
say
much
the
same
things
,
viz.
In
this
Phrase
the
Apostle
seems
to
allude
to
the
Ancient
manner
of
Baptizing
,
which
was
to
Dip
the
party
Baptized
,
and
as
it
were
to
bury
them
under
Water
for
a
while
,
and
then
to
raise
them
up
again
out
of
it
,
to
represent
the
Burial
of
the
old
Man
and
the
Resurrection
to
newness
of
Life
.
Diodate
in
his
Annotations
saith
the
same
.
Cajetan
upon
the
place
says
we
are
buried
with
Christ
by
Baptism
into
death
;
by
the
ceremony
of
Baptism
,
because
he
(
that
is
,
the
party
Baptized
)
is
put
under
Water
,
and
by
this
carries
a
similitude
of
him
that
was
buried
who
was
put
under
the
Earth
.
Now
because
none
are
buried
but
dead
Men
,
from
this
very
thing
that
we
are
buried
in
Baptism
we
are
assimulated
to
Christ
buried
,
and
when
he
was
buried
.
Tilenus
a
great
Protestant
writer
in
his
dispute
on
this
Text
Page
88
,
89.
speaks
fully
to
this
case
:
Baptism
,
saith
he
,
is
the
first
Sacrament
of
the
New
Testament
instituted
by
Christ
,
in
which
there
is
an
exact
Analogy
between
the
Sign
,
and
the
thing
signified
.
The
outward
Rite
in
Baptism
is
threefold
.
1.
Immersion
into
the
Water
2.
Abiding
under
the
Water
3.
A
Resurrection
out
of
the
Water
.
The
form
of
Baptism
,
viz.
External
and
Essential
,
is
no
other
than
the
Analogical
proportion
which
the
signs
keep
with
the
things
signified
thereby
;
for
the
properties
of
the
Water
,
washing
away
the
defilements
of
the
Body
,
does
in
a
most
suitable
similitude
set
forth
the
Efficacy
of
Christ's
Blood
in
blotting
out
of
sin
;
so
dipping
into
the
Water
in
a
most
lively
similitude
sets
forth
the
Mortification
of
the
old
Man
,
and
rising
out
of
the
Water
,
the
vivification
of
the
new
Man
—
The
same
plunging
into
the
Water
(
saith
he
)
holds
▪
forth
to
us
that
horrible
Gulph
of
Divine
Justice
,
in
which
Christ
for
our
sakes
for
a
while
was
in
a
manner
swallowed
up
;
abiding
under
the
Water
(
how
little
a
time
so
ever
)
denotes
his
descent
into
Hell
,
even
the
very
deepest
of
Lifelesness
,
which
lying
in
the
sealed
or
guarded
Sepulchre
,
he
was
accounted
as
one
dead
:
Rising
out
of
the
Water
holds
forth
to
us
a
lively
similitude
of
the
conquest
which
this
dead
Man
got
over
death
;
in
like
manner
we
being
Baptized
into
his
death
and
buried
with
him
,
should
rise
also
with
him
,
and
go
on
in
a
new
Life
.
Thus
far
the
learned
Tilenus
.
Sir
,
't
is
time
for
you
to
lay
to
Heart
what
you
have
done
in
trampling
upon
dipping
or
Baptising
,
that
is
such
a
glorious
significant
ordinance
as
these
Authors
tell
you
,
and
no
doubt
speak
the
mind
of
God
:
And
in
the
room
of
it
exalt
an
humane
and
an
insignificant
invention
.
Doth
Rantism
or
sprinkling
bear
any
proportion
to
those
great
mysteries
,
here
mentioned
?
doth
that
figure
o●
hold
forth
the
burial
of
Christ
,
or
that
of
the
old
Man
?
can
a
few
drops
on
the
Face
represent
that
;
or
what
representation
is
there
in
that
of
a
Resurrection
?
Alass
!
you
know
not
what
you
do
.
●ut
to
proceed
.
Ambrose
saith
,
Water
is
that
wherein
the
Body
is
plunged
,
to
wash
away
all
sin
.
(
1
suppose
〈◊〉
means
't
is
a
sign
of
this
,
)
i.
e.
that
all
sin
is
buried
.
Chrysostom
saith
,
that
the
old
Man
is
buried
and
drowned
in
the
Immersion
under
Water
;
and
when
the
Baptized
person
is
afterwards
raised
up
out
of
the
Water
,
it
represents
the
Resurrection
of
the
new
Man
to
newness
of
Life
.
〈◊〉
us
Epist.
ad
Tradit
.
Philadelph
.
saith
,
that
●●l●●ving
in
his
death
we
may
be
made
partakers
of
his
Resurrection
by
Baptism
.
Baptism
was
given
in
memory
of
the
death
of
our
Lord.
We
perform
the
Symbols
of
his
death
(
Mark
it
Reader
)
not
of
the
pouring
forth
of
,
or
sprinkling
of
his
Blood
,
nor
of
the
Spirit
;
no
,
no
;
but
as
these
Authors
say
,
't
is
a
Symbol
of
his
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
which
sprinkling
in
no
manner
of
way
can
represent
.
Justin
Martyr
saith
,
we
know
but
one
saving
Baptism
,
inregard
there
is
but
one
Resurrection
from
the
Dead
,
of
which
Baptism
is
an
Image
.
And
from
hence
we
know
nothing
of
your
Infants
sprinkling
.
See
more
in
Sir
Norton
Knatchbul's
Notes
Printed
at
Oxford
1677.
who
to
the
same
purpose
quotes
Basil
the
Great
,
Lactantius
,
Bernard
,
&c.
Mr.
Perkins
2.
Vol.
Cap.
3.
on
Gal.
saith
,
the
Dipping
of
the
Body
signifies
Mortification
or
fellowship
with
Christ
in
his
death
,
the
staying
under
the
Water
signifies
the
burial
of
Sin
,
and
coming
out
of
the
Water
the
Resurrection
from
Sin
to
newness
of
life
:
And
in
another
place
saith
,
the
ancient
custom
of
Baptizing
was
to
Dip
all
the
Body
of
the
Baptized
in
Water
.
To
these
Ancient
Writers
let
are
once
again
add
here
for
your
further
conviction
,
what
some
of
the
chefest
Prelates
of
the
Church
of
England
have
very
lately
said
on
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
The
Reverend
Dr.
Sharp
the
present
Lord
Arch-Bishop
of
York
,
in
a
Sermon
preached
before
the
Queens
Majesty
on
Easter
Day
,
March
27
,
1692.
saith
he
,
and
this
in
antient
times
was
taught
every
Christian
in
and
by
his
Baptism
;
when
ever
a
person
was
Baptized
,
he
was
not
only
to
profess
his
Faith
in
Christs
Death
and
Resurrection
,
but
he
was
to
look
upon
himself
as
obliged
in
correspondence
therewith
to
mortifie
his
former
carnal
affections
and
to
enter
upon
a
new
State
of
Life
.
And
the
very
form
of
Baptism
(
saith
he
)
did
lively
represent
this
obligation
to
them
:
For
what
did
their
plunging
under
water
signifie
,
but
their
undertaking
,
in
imitation
of
Christs
Death
and
Burial
,
to
forsake
all
their
former
evil
courses
;
As
their
ascending
out
of
the
Water
did
their
engagement
to
lead
a
Holy
and
Spiritual
Life
?
This
our
Apostle
(
saith
he
)
doth
more
than
once
declare
to
us
thus
,
Rom.
6.
3.
4.
We
are
buried
with
Christ
by
Baptism
unto
Death
,
that
like
as
Christ
was
raised
up
by
the
glory
of
the
Father
,
so
we
should
walk
in
newness
of
Life
.
Thus
Dr.
Sharp
.
Dr.
Fowler
(
Now
Lord
Bishop
of
Gl●cester
)
in
his
Book
of
design
of
Christianity
Page
90.
on
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
saith
,
Christians
being
plunged
into
the
Water
,
signifies
their
undertaking
and
obliging
themselves
in
a
Spiritual
sense
,
to
die
and
to
be
buried
with
Jesus
Christ
in
an
utter
renouncing
and
forsaking
all
their
Sins
,
that
so
answering
to
his
resurrection
they
may
live
a
Holy
&
godly
life
.
Also
Dr.
Sherlock
(
Dean
of
St.
Pauls
)
in
his
Sermon
,
Charity
without
usury
,
on
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
saith
,
Our
conformity
to
the
Death
and
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.
B●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
●aved
,
God
doth
in
some
way
or
another
(
which
is
not
known
to
us
)
Sanctify
them
;
for
no
unclean
thing
can
enter
into
the
Heavenly
Jerusalem
.
See
our
confession
of
Faith.
3.
We
do
believe
,
that
no
dying
Infant
can
be
saved
that
is
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
for
t
is
(
through
or
)
by
the
Grace
,
Mercy
and
Inconceivable
Love
of
God
,
as
't
is
contained
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
that
Christ
,
and
all
Blessings
of
Christ
,
are
made
over
to
all
the
Elect
,
whether
Adult
or
little
Infants
.
We
therefore
never
asserted
,
That
no
Infants
of
Believers
,
or
of
unbelievers
either
,
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
but
we
do
assert
,
all
Elect
Infants
are
in
it
;
Yet
we
do
deny
,
that
the
Infants
of
Believers
as
such
,
or
as
so
considered
,
as
bring
their
Natural
Offspring
,
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Having
noted
these
three
Things
,
I
shall
proceed
.
First
,
take
what
Mr.
Collins
hath
asserted
in
his
Answer
to
Mr.
Shutes
pretended
Antidote
;
See
Page
3.
viz.
That
Infants
are
saved
by
Christ
we
have
asserted
,
because
we
know
of
no
other
Name
but
Jesus
;
but
that
they
are
saved
by
Faith
,
habitual
Faith
in
Christ
,
I
must
confess
I
never
read
in
all
the
Book
of
God
;
I
could
wish
he
could
shew
me
the
Chapter
where
Christ
said
any
such
thing
,
i.
e.
that
Infants
are
saved
by
habitual
Faith.
And
what
would
this
Man
make
a
new
Bible
,
have
a
new
rule
,
to
tell
us
of
things
never
heard
of
?
These
are
Mr.
Collins's
words
,
Take
Mr.
Shutes
reply
;
pray
look
into
that
Chapter
,
saith
he
,
where
you
find
that
God
hath
declared
two
ways
for
saving
Elect
persons
;
one
for
the
saving
of
aying
Infants
,
without
the
Grace
of
Faith
;
and
the
other
for
saving
adult
Believers
by
Faith
:
And
then
he
asketh
two
other
as
impertinent
Queries
.
But
〈◊〉
last
he
sixes
u●on
one
Text
to
prove
habitual
Faith
in
Infants
,
viz
Joh.
3.
9.
whosoever
is
born
of
God
doth
not
commit
sin
,
for
his
seed
remaineth
in
him
;
and
he
cannot
sin
because
he
is
born
of
God.
Answer
,
We
say
there
is
but
one
way
to
be
saved
,
and
that
one
way
is
Jesus
Christ
;
't
is
by
his
Sacrifice
,
by
his
Blood
,
by
his
merits
,
that
is
,
by
the
imputation
of
his
righteousness
;
but
that
there
is
the
same
Way
or
Mode
and
no
other
,
for
the
Application
of
the
Blood
and
Merits
of
Christ
respecting
elect
dying
Infants
,
as
there
is
for
the
Adult
;
and
that
God
doth
not
,
cannot
sanctify
dying
Infants
any
other
way
but
by
infusing
the
same
habit
of
Faith
,
which
he
infuseth
into
the
Adult
who
believe
,
he
should
prove
.
God
is
a
free
Agent
,
and
may
have
ways
to
apply
the
Blood
of
Christ
and
Sanctify
dying
Infants
,
that
we
know
not
of
.
2.
As
to
the
Text
he
brings
to
prove
habitual
Faith
in
Infants
,
of
believers
,
if
it
be
not
brought
to
prove
that
,
that
Seed
or
divine
Habit
is
in
infants
of
believers
,
as
such
,
it
does
not
concern
the
present
controversie
;
't
is
Joh.
3.
9
which
we
will
now
consider
and
examine
.
And
let
it
be
well
noted
,
That
the
Seed
remaineth
in
him
,
that
sacred
habit
abides
in
him
,
that
hath
it
;
it
remains
and
shall
remain
in
every
Soul
in
whom
it
is
infused
▪
grace
in
the
habit
can't
be
lost
,
'T
is
a
Well
or
Spring
of
living
Water
,
that
springeth
up
unto
Eternal
Life
,
Joh.
4.
14.
Christ
hath
prayed
,
That
our
Faith
fail
not
;
that
is
,
the
Seed
or
Habit
thereof
;
for
the
Act
,
in
the
exercise
of
it
in
part
may
fail
now
and
then
;
if
the
Infants
of
Believers
have
the
Habit
of
Faith
in
them
,
be
sure
those
Habits
will
appear
,
and
they
must
be
true
Believers
and
be
saved
,
because
the
Seed
remaineth
in
them
.
3.
Why
do
you
not
answer
Mr.
Collins
Argument
,
Page
7.
of
his
reply
to
you
,
faith
he
,
those
Children
of
Believers
which
die
in
an
unconverted
state
,
either
never
had
the
Habits
of
grace
,
or
else
if
they
had
them
they
have
lost
them
;
but
there
is
no
losing
.
Habits
of
grace
,
ergo
they
never
had
them
.
Reader
,
see
what
Mr.
Shute
hath
said
to
this
Argument
in
Page
42.
of
his
last
Book
,
these
are
his
words
,
viz.
Therefore
I
will
put
it
to
a
fair
issue
,
which
shall
be
this
,
produce
me
but
one
place
in
all
my
Book
where
I
have
asserted
this
you
have
charged
upon
me
,
and
I
will
turn
Anabaptist
immediately
,
&c.
Answer
,
If
you
have
not
said
that
the
Infants
of
Believers
as
such
have
habitual
Faith
,
what
is
it
you
argue
for
,
why
do
you
plead
for
the
habit
of
Faith
to
be
in
them
,
if
you
say
you
plead
only
for
habitual
Faith
to
be
in
Elect
Infants
?
1.
Then
I
hope
you
will
only
have
Elect
Infants
to
be
Baptised
,
and
how
do
you
know
which
they
are
,
since
they
can
make
no
confession
of
Faith
?
2.
Moreover
,
I
also
conceive
you
may
allow
Baptism
to
the
Infants
of
Unbelievers
:
For
sure
you
dare
not
deny
but
some
of
their
Seed
are
comprehended
in
Gods
Eternal
Election
.
3.
The
controversie
or
difference
between
us
and
you
lies
not
how
dying
Elect
Infants
are
Sanctified
,
&c.
whether
by
the
habit
of
Faith
or
by
some
other
way
,
by
which
God
may
apply
Christs
Merits
to
them
,
&c.
But
whether
the
Infants
of
Believers
as
such
have
the
habit
of
Faith
,
or
Faith
in
any
sense
,
by
which
they
come
to
have
right
to
that
ordinance
,
what
have
we
to
do
with
dying
Infants
?
did
you
Baptise
no
Infants
but
such
that
dye
and
were
sure
that
all
the
dying
Infants
of
Believers
were
elected
,
it
might
seem
some
what
to
the
purpose
;
tho'
not
so
much
neither
as
you
may
Imagin
;
for
,
I
do
affirm
you
have
as
much
ground
to
give
them
the
Lords
Supper
as
you
have
to
Baptise
them
,
because
such
who
are
the
proper
subjects
of
Baptism
,
have
an
immediate
right
according
to
the
order
of
the
Gospel
to
the
Lords
Supper
.
You
must
have
a
command
or
Authority
from
Christs
word
to
Baptise
them
,
or
you
ought
not
to
do
it
;
but
you
have
no
such
command
nor
Authority
.
4.
The
habit
of
Faith
without
the
Act
gives
not
a
right
to
that
Sacred
ordinance
,
for
Faith
and
a
confession
of
Faith
is
required
:
But
I
must
confess
I
see
not
how
there
can
be
the
habit
and
not
the
Act
;
for
tho'
the
habit
may
be
Antecedent
to
the
Act
in
order
of
nature
,
yet
not
in
order
of
time
in
any
Believer
:
Prove
,
if
you
can
,
any
person
that
was
a
Believer
,
had
the
habit
of
Faith
,
and
yet
not
the
Act
of
Faith
at
the
same
time
:
For
as
all
learned
Men
generally
agree
,
as
soon
as
life
is
infused
into
a
dead
sinner
,
there
is
Heat
,
Motion
,
Activity
,
&c.
the
habit
of
grace
is
a
Vital
Principle
,
and
as
they
say
,
't
is
naturally
active
,
it
is
a
Spring
of
perpetual
motion
,
as
Mr.
Charnock
shews
.
5.
You
say
Infants
may
believe
:
And
you
would
have
them
to
be
such
Children
of
the
Jaylors
Houshold
,
who
are
said
to
believe
,
and
yet
would
have
it
to
be
only
Faith
in
the
habit
:
But
all
Men
of
understanding
know
believing
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
●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
Cresphu●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
Seal
of
the
Covenant
but
the
Holy
Spirit
,
Eph.
1.
13
,
14.
and
cap.
4.
30.
as
touching
Circumcision
,
that
was
I
grant
a
rite
that
belonged
to
the
Male
Infants
of
Abraham
and
his
Seed
,
if
it
was
initiating
it
,
only
let
them
into
that
National
Church
,
but
I
doubt
not
but
that
the
Seed
of
Abraham
according
to
the
Flesh
,
were
all
both
Males
&
Females
Born
Members
of
that
Church
.
2.
We
shall
prove
by
and
by
,
that
Circumcision
did
not
appertain
unto
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
read
the
Arguments
in
the
1st
and
2d
.
Part
of
the
Ax
layd
to
the
Root
of
the
Trees
:
And
when
you
write
again
answer
them
,
for
you
have
not
touched
one
of
them
;
yet
Sir
you
have
a
great
deal
of
Work
cut
out
all
ready
for
you
,
before
this
comes
to
your
Hand
.
But
to
proceed
,
you
in
page
26.
go
on
to
prove
what
you
have
asserted
,
viz.
That
it
is
so
(
say
you
)
doth
clearly
appear
from
our
Saviour
Christs
carriage
and
department
towards
those
little
Children
that
were
brought
to
him
.
You
say
those
Children
were
the
Children
of
believers
.
Answ.
I
deny
it
,
se
how
you
are
able
to
prove
it
,
there
is
no
such
thing
recorded
of
them
,
viz.
That
they
were
the
Children
of
believers
:
again
,
page
27.
you
say
Christ
did
bless
them
with
spiritual
blessings
.
Answer
,
Friend
,
may
not
you
be
found
(
as
far
as
you
know
)
to
assert
false
things
of
Jesus
Christ
?
Is
it
said
he
blessed
them
with
spiritual
blessings
?
but
since
you
know
so
well
,
pray
what
spiritual
blessings
were
they
?
You
confess
he
did
not
Baptize
them
;
did
he
them
give
them
habitual
Faith
for
that
blessing
you
plead
for
to
be
in
Infants
?
Reader
,
'T
is
evident
Christs
way
of
healing
the
Sick
,
was
by
putting
or
laying
his
Hand
on
such
,
how
do
we
know
but
it
was
the
blessing
of
healing
,
he
prayed
for
,
and
blessed
them
with
?
but
Mr.
Shute
tells
us
;
God
out
of
the
Mouths
of
Babes
and
Sucklings
hath
perfected
his
praise
,
page
23.
Answer
,
Now
you
have
hit
it
.
I
do
not
doubt
but
those
Babes
,
out
of
whose
Mouths
God
hath
perfected
his
praise
,
but
that
they
had
more
than
habitual
Faith.
Friend
,
what
Babes
were
they
Peter
Speaks
of
?
1
Pet.
2.
1
,
2.
that
he
calls
New-born
Babes
,
out
of
the
Mouths
of
such
Babes
,
God
hath
Ordained
Strength
no
doubt
.
You
say
Christ
prayed
for
none
,
but
for
the
Elect.
page
27.
Answer
,
Not
for
spiritual
blessings
▪
but
how
do
you
know
he
never
prayed
for
Healing
,
and
other
Temporal
blessings
,
for
such
,
that
were
not
of
his
Elect
?
you
lay
down
strange
and
bold
assertions
.
You
say
page
28.
As
soon
as
adult
Heathens
were
Conversed
and
Baptized
,
if
they
had
Children
,
they
were
all
Baptized
also
with
them
,
as
being
part
of
themselves
.
Answer
,
I
deny
that
likewise
;
shew
what
Heathens
Children
,
after
the
Parents
believed
and
were
Baptized
their
Children
also
were
Baptized
.
2.
If
Children
be
part
of
their
Parents
,
then
certainly
if
the
Parents
go
to
Heaven
all
their
Children
must
likewise
,
for
the
Whole
of
believers
shall
be
saved
,
not
a
Part
of
them
only
.
Also
if
the
Children
be
part
of
their
Parents
,
and
a
part
of
the
Person
,
namely
the
Face
,
only
is
sufficient
to
be
Baptized
,
then
say
I
the
Parents
Baptism
may
serve
for
the
Child
:
And
the
truth
is
,
as
the
Bishop
of
Down
noted
,
viz.
Since
as
some
affirm
the
Parents
Faith
serves
for
the
Child
,
why
may
not
the
Parents
Baptism
serves
for
the
Child
also●
You
say
,
That
little
Children
by
the
Cooperation
of
the
Holy
Spirit
may
have
Faith
,
and
the
heart
of
an
Adult
Person
is
no
more
capable
of
changing
himself
than
a●
Infant
,
and
Quote
Luther
in
the
case
.
Answer
,
'T
is
true
little
Children
may
have
Faith
if
God
please
to
work
a
Miracle
,
and
Inspire
them
with
his
Spirit
:
But
doth
God
do
this
to
the
Infants
of
Believers
●
I
ask
also
,
Whether
the
Infants
of
〈◊〉
not
as
capable
of
this
Faith
?
nay
I●rffirm
▪
that
as
many
of
the
Children
of
Infidels
and
unbelievers
may
have
the
Cooperation
of
the
Spirit
in
them
as
the
Infants
of
believers
.
Disprove
it
if
you
can
?
2.
Doth
not
God
work
ordinarily
upon
such
Subjects
as
have
the
exercise
of
Reason
,
and
understanding
:
Tho'
the
grace
is
given
by
which
we
do
believe
,
yet
is
not
the
act
ours
.
Can
God
be
said
to
believe
for
us
,
or
can
there
be
faith
in
any
subject
,
and
yet
no
knowledg
of
the
object
,
no
nor
one
rational
act
exerted
?
But
(
if
this
be
so
,
that
the
Infant
believes
himself
)
why
do
you
hint
in
the
Text
words
,
That
a
Man
is
as
truly
bound
to
lay
hold
of
the
promise
for
his
Children
,
as
for
him
.
himself
?
There
's
no
need
for
the
Parents
to
believe
for
their
Children
,
if
they
can
believe
for
themselves
:
Sir
p●ay
resolve
the
doubt
,
say
what
faith
▪
'
t
is
.
Infants
have
is
it
their
own
,
do
they
believe
themselves
or
their
Parents
for
them
?
To
put
this
out
of
doubt
,
you
in
Page
20.
go
about
to
prove
Infants
did
believe
,
and
so
may
believe
;
the
Text
you
bring
is
that
in
Mat.
18.
2
▪
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
And
Jesus
called
a
little
Child
unto
him
,
and
set
him
in
the
midst
of
them
,
And
said
,
Verily
I
say
unto
you
,
Except
ye
be
converted
,
and
become
as
little
Children
▪
,
ye
shall
not
enter
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
.
Vers.
6.
But
whos●
shall
offend
one
of
these
little
ones
which
believe
in
me
,
&c.
Here
you
make
a
great
stir
telling
us
that
Christ
speaks
of
Old
Disciples
and
of
Young
Disciples
,
Page
.
33.
Here
is
the
Young
Disciple
(
be
)
2
the
Old
Disciples
(
them
)
3
Christ
takes
his
Observation
from
the
believing
Young
Disciple
,
&c.
Answer
,
I
utterly
deny
that
Child
,
or
those
little
Children
,
who
are
positively
said
to
be
believe
in
Christ
,
to
be
Infants
.
1.
For
't
is
expresly
said
,
Christ
called
that
Child
to
him
he
was
able
to
come
,
no
doubt
whom
Christ
called
:
Could
an
Infant
do
that
?
2.
To
put
the
matter
out
of
doubt
,
't
is
evidentas
to
matter
of
fact
,
God
hath
in
our
days
wrought
by
his
Spirit
,
savingly
on
several
little
Children
,
some
three
or
four
years
old
,
others
about
six
or
seven
,
as
Mr.
Jenaway
in
his
token
for
little
Children
shews
and
names
the
Children
:
Now
it
might
be
such
a
little
Child
Christ
called
to
him
,
and
who
did
belive
in
him
,
and
't
is
such
little
Children
he
speaks
of
that
do
believe
in
him
,
who
are
able
to
believe
;
but
what
is
this
to
prove
Infants
●o
believe
and
are
able
to
believe
.
If
this
be
so
,
you
need
not
plead
only
for
the
habit
of
Faith
to
be
in
them
,
for
now
you
think
you
have
proved
they
have
Faith
it self
,
for
believing
refers
not
only
to
the
habit
,
but
to
the
act
also
.
3ly
.
Besides
,
if
we
may
not
conclude
they
were
such
little
Children
,
yet
(
as
Mr.
Collins
observes
and
divers
others
)
it
may
intend
such
believers
who
have
such
and
such
qualities
that
are
in
young
Children
,
viz.
harmless
,
humble
,
Innocent
,
&c.
as
Paul
speaks
,
in
malice
be
you
Children
.
From
hence
you
say
,
535.
that
it
appears
infallibly
that
little
Children
of
believing
Parents
are
Church
Members
,
and
have
an
indubitable
right
unto
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
&c.
Answer
,
I
grant
those
little
Children
who
do
believe
in
Christ
,
have
an
indubitable
right
to
Baptism
and
to
the
Lords
Supper
also
,
as
soon
as
they
are
Baptised
:
But
not
Infants
.
In
Page
28.
You
say
that
Timothy
was
Baptised
when
he
was
a
Child
.
Answer
,
I
am
subject
to
think
he
was
very
young
when
he
did
first
believe
and
was
Baptised
,
may
be
he
was
a
Child
;
but
prove
he
was
Baptised
when
he
was
an
Infant
and
I
will
become
a
Pedo
Baptist.
And
since
his
Mother
and
Grand-Mother
were
both
believers
,
no
doubt
had
he
been
Baptised
when
an
Infant
Christ
would
have
left
it
upon
Record
,
to
have
put
an
end
to
this
controversie
,
which
he
knew
and
foresaw
in
after
times
would
arise
.
But
this
is
no
whereto
be
found
,
so
that
you
are
wiser
then
what
is
written
.
2.
But
Sir
,
are
your
Infants
Church
Members
with
you
;
doth
the
Church
you
belong
unto
consists
of
such
as
of
the
Adult
?
I
thought
none
accounted
their
Infants
to
be
Church
Members
but
those
who
are
for
national
Churches
;
Infant
Baptism
seem
as
if
it
was
continved
according
to
the
nature
of
such
a
constitution
,
and
not
for
a
Gospel
Church
constitution
,
which
consisteth
only
of
a
Congregation
of
godly
Men
and
W●men
.
In
Page
34.
You
positively
affirm
,
this
is
the
Church
of
which
a●
the
Seed
of
Believers
,
are
Members
as
much
now
as
ever
the
Jews
,
Children
were
under
the
Law.
For
it
is
the
same
Church
state
,
tho'
in
another
dress
or
under
another
dispensation
.
Our
Saviour
did
not
destroy
the
Church
state
when
he
●●communicated
the
unbelieving
Jews
&c.
1.
Answer
,
I
thought
that
the
Church
you
are
a
Member
of
was
congregational
,
not
national
,
and
I
am
satisfied
that
it
is
so
,
and
that
they
do
own
no
national
Church
to
be
a
true
Church
of
Christ
,
I
mean
such
that
consisteth
of
Parents
;
and
their
Children
as
under
the
Law
in
the
national
Church
of
the
Jews
.
2.
I
deny
that
all
or
any
Infants
of
believers
are
Members
of
the
Gospel
Church
▪
;
prove
it
if
you
can
;
and
also
I
do
affirm
the
State
or
Constitution
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
is
not
the
same
now
as
it
was
under
the
Law
:
'T
is
evident
all
the
Jewish
Infants
were
born
Members
of
that
Church
;
it
being
national
.
But
now
the
Church
is
built
up
of
living
Stones
consisting
of
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
only
,
not
of
the
natural
or
carnal
Seed
of
Believers
.
And
I
am
perswaded
,
tho'
your
.
Reverend
Pastor
is
for
Infant
Baptism
,
yet
he
will
not
allow
of
what
you
here
affirm
.
But
Sir
,
if
your
Infants
are
all
born
Church
Members
,
How
can
Baptism
be
an
initiating
rite
to
them
.
I
allow
not
,
nor
you
neither
,
any
person
to
be
a
right
regular
member
of
a
Gospel
Church
until
Baptized
:
But
you
,
in
page
35.
say
,
that
little
Children
of
believing
Parents
are
Church
Members
,
and
so
seem
to
argue
for
their
being
Baptized
;
but
if
all
believers
Seed
are
born
Church
Members
,
ours
are
as
good
▪
Church
Members
as
yours
,
tho'
not
Baptized
.
You
in
the
last
place
seem
greatly
to
miss
the
matter
in
one
great
case
,
viz.
you
distinguish
not
between
the
visible
and
invisible
Church
under
the
Law
:
The
invisible
Church
is
but
one
and
the
same
in
every
age
,
that
consisteth
only
of
all
the
elect
;
we
grant
,
but
the
visible
Church
is
not
the
same
now
as
it
was
under
the
Law.
That
the
whole
State
and
Constitution
of
the
national
Church
of
Israel
or
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
is
gone
and
dissolved
,
your
learned
Brethren
will
not
deny
,
and
there
is
no
national
Church
in
its
room
constituted
by
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ.
So
that
't
is
not
an
excommunication
of
the
Jewish
only
,
but
an
absolute
dissolution
of
their
Church
State
,
as
Mr.
Cotton
,
Mr.
Charnock
,
Dr.
Owen
,
and
many
others
assert
.
In
page
99
,
100
,
&c.
you
again
positively
declare
,
that
the
State
of
the
Christ
is
the
same
now
as
it
was
under
the
Law
,
and
hath
the
same
Attributes
,
and
made
of
the
same
ingredients
,
and
hath
the
same
Titles
,
and
lives
upon
the
same
Food
,
and
was
a
Baptized
Church
,
and
〈◊〉
in
the
same
relation
to
God
and
Christ
as
the
Gospel
Church
doth
now
.
You
proceed
to
make
these
things
to
appear
.
1.
You
begin
with
the
Attributes
of
the
Church
under
the
Law.
viz.
if
you
obey
my
voice
indeed
and
keep
my
Covenant
,
then
●e
shall
be
a
peculiar
treasure
unto
me
above
all
People
&c.
and
ye
shall
be
unto
me
a
Kingdom
of
Priests
,
and
〈◊〉
holy
Nation
,
Exod.
19.
5
,
6.
You
quote
also
,
Psal.
135.
4.
1.
Answer
,
Tho'
they
upon
their
obedience
and
keeping
Gods
Covenant
had
such
promises
,
yet
't
is
evident
that
they
were
a
National
Church
:
God
took
the
whole
House
of
Israel
into
a
visible
External
Covenant
Church
State
,
and
as
so
considered
separated
them
from
all
other
Nations
and
People
in
the
World
,
to
be
a
peculiar
people
and
Treasure
(
in
that
Covenant
)
unto
himself
;
and
in
this
sense
,
he
was
said
federally
,
or
by
Covenant
to
be
Married
to
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
and
became
an
Husband
,
to
them
;
see
Jer.
31.
31.
God
there
made
a
promise
to
Israel
and
Judab
,
viz.
I
will
make
a
new
Covenant
,
&c.
not
according
to
the
Covenant
I
made
with
y
ur
Fathers
in
the
day
that
I
took
them
by
the
Hand
,
to
bring
them
out
of
the
Land
of
Egypt
,
which
Covenant
they
broke
,
although
I
was
an
Husband
to
them
,
saith
the
Lord
,
v.
32.
Now
in
that
Covenant
God
made
with
them
when
he
brought
them
out
of
the
Land
of
Egypt
,
he
gave
them
their
Legal
Church
State
and
many
External
Earthly
Blessings
,
Laws
and
carnal
Ordinances
;
and
like
as
a
Husband
cares
and
provides
for
the
Wife
,
so
did
God
care
and
provide
for
them
and
preserve
them
so
long
as
that
Law
(
I
mean
the
Law
of
their
Husband
)
did
continue
:
But
that
Law
is
now
dead
,
Rom.
7.4
.
And
God
is
now
no
longer
such
a
Husband
to
them
:
Nor
hath
he
Married
any
other
External
Nation
or
People
(
as
so
considered
)
in
the
World
:
But
now
God
in
the
Gospel
Covenant
is
an
Husband
indeed
to
them
he
was
a
Typical
Husband
;
nor
is
the
Gospel
Church
Married
to
the
Lord
by
that
old
▪
Covenant
Law
,
but
by
the
new
Covenant
,
which
is
not
according
to
the
old
:
Moreover
,
they
not
keeping
that
Covenant
were
not
such
a
peculiar
treasure
to
the
Lord
,
as
Believers
are
to
him
in
the
New
Covenant
:
Christ
hath
undertook
for
all
the
true
members
of
his
mystical
Body
,
they
are
married
to
him
for
ever
and
they
are
to
him
an
Eternal
excellency
,
therefore
the
legal
Jewish
visible
Church
differed
from
the
Gospel
Church
—
Yet
2.
I
also
grant
that
all
those
under
the
Law
who
were
members
of
the
invisible
Church
,
or
elect
ones
,
were
as
choice
a
treasure
to
God
as
any
Believers
are
now
,
and
in
the
like
safe
condition
.
3.
'T
is
evident
that
the
legal
Church
of
the
Jews
was
not
made
up
of
the
same
matter
,
or
ingredients
,
as
the
Gospel
Church
is
;
for
according
to
the
Institution
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
none
ought
to
be
made
members
of
it
but
Believers
only
.
But
in
the
Jewish
Church
the
fleshy
or
carnal
Seed
were
admitted
by
Gods
ordination
and
appointment
,
God
did
allow
of
the
fleshy
Seed
as
such
then
to
be
members
of
that
Church
,
but
he
doth
not
allow
of
such
to
be
in
the
Gospel
Church
.
You
mention
,
in
Page
100.
that
in
Exod.
25.
31.
And
thou
shalt
make
a
Candlestick
of
pure
Gold
,
&c.
and
you
hint
this
was
the
Church
and
the
ordinances
of
God
:
And
therefore
the
ingredients
are
the
same
under
the
Gospel
as
the
Church
was
under
the
Law.
Answer
,
I
Though
the
Candlestick
of
pure
Gold
had
been
a
shaddow
or
Figure
of
some
thing
to
come
,
and
that
it
referred
not
to
the
legal
Church
,
but
to
the
Church
under
the
Gospel
,
and
this
being
so
,
how
can
this
prove
that
Church
consisted
of
the
same
matter
and
ingredients
as
the
Gospel
Church
does
?
3.
You
say
that
the
Church
of
God
under
the
Mosaick
Law
,
lived
upon
the
same
Spiritual
Food
as
the
Church
of
Christ
doth
now
,
&c.
Page
93.
1.
Answer
,
All
that
were
of
the
mystical
Body
of
Christ
then
,
't
is
true
,
did
feed
on
the
same
spiritual
food
.
2.
But
pray
consider
what
you
say
.
Can
any
of
those
that
feed
on
the
Flesh
of
Christ
and
drink
his
Blood
,
perish
?
for
't
is
evident
,
many
who
(
are
said
to
)
Eat
of
the
same
spiritual
Meat
,
and
drank
the
same
spiritual
Drink
,
perished
in
the
Wilderness
,
1
Cor.
10.
5
,
6
,
7
,
8.
3.
They
all
Eat
the
same
Manna
that
Caleb
and
Joshua
did
,
which
is
called
Heavenly
or
Spiritual
Meat
,
and
Drank
of
the
Water
out
out
of
the
Rock
that
was
a
Typ
,
of
Christ
,
The
Jews
,
say
our
Annotators
,
Eat
the
same
Spiritual
Meat
that
we
do
now
;
they
in
the
Type
,
we
in
the
Antitype
;
they
as
a
Church
had
but
the
Shell
comparatively
,
and
we
the
Kernel
:
they
had
the
shadow
,
we
the
substance
;
their
Ordinances
were
called
Carnal
Ordinances
and
their
promises
Earthly
,
ours
are
Spiritual
Ordinances
,
and
better
promises
:
Therefore
the
Church
under
the
Gospel
does
not
feed
on
the
same
food
which
the
Church
did
under
the
Law.
4.
You
say
the
Church
under
the
Law
was
Baptised
,
Men
Women
and
Children
.
And
there
can
be
no
true
Church
but
what
is
so
now
.
You
mention
that
in
1
Cor.
10.
1.
2.
Here
is
a
Church
,
say
you
Baptized
,
&c.
and
not
one
of
them
Dipped
or
Duck'd
over
Head
and
Ears
.
Answer
,
You
mistake
,
the
Jewish
Church
was
no
Baptized
Church
,
they
had
no
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
this
was
but
a
Typical
Baptism
;
but
if
they
were
)
as
they
passed
through
the
Sea
)
Baptised
,
and
yet
only
Sprinkled
,
by
Rain
faling
upon
them
from
the
Cloud
,
then
you
will
make
the
Church
of
Israel
all
Anabaptists
,
for
they
were
all
Sprinkled
after
they
passed
through
the
Sea
,
see
Exod.
24
●
.
and
Moses
took
the
Blood
and
Sprinkled
it
on
the
People
,
both
the
Book
and
all
the
People
,
Heb.
9.
●9
.
'T
is
evident
you
by
this
render
them
to
be
all
Rebaptised
,
should
what
you
say
be
granted
.
2.
But
Sprinkling
is
not
Baptising
;
nor
was
that
a
real
,
but
a
Typical
Baptism
,
i.
e.
when
they
passed
through
the
Sea
;
nor
was
their
Children
any
more
Baptised
,
than
was
that
mixt
People
which
were
with
them
;
for
so
't
is
said
and
much
Cattel
also
:
But
that
Typical
Baptism
bears
great
Analogy
with
Dipping
,
as
Mr.
Pools
Annotations
well
observes
on
the
place
.
The
Apostle
useth
that
term
in
regard
(
say
they
)
of
the
great
Analogy
betwixt
Baptism
(
as
it
was
used
)
the
persons
going
down
into
the
Waters
and
being
Dipped
in
them
,
and
the
Israelites
going
down
into
the
Sea
,
the
great
receptacle
of
Water
;
tho'
the
Water
at
that
time
was
gathered
on
heaps
on
either
side
of
them
,
yet
they
seemed
buried
in
the
Water
.
This
they
give
(
from
some
)
as
the
most
probable
sense
of
the
place
.
And
,
This
being
so
you
need
not
call
the
Anabaptists
to
wonder
at
,
what
you
thought
you
had
got
here
.
Do
you
think
that
among
the
Jews
that
passed
through
the
Sea
,
there
were
not
some
Unbelievers
as
well
as
among
that
mixt
People
;
will
you
plead
for
the
Baptising
of
Prophane
and
ungodly
persons
?
for
this
will
justify
their
being
Baptised
as
far
forth
as
that
of
the
Infant
Seed
of
Believers
.
Thus
I
have
answered
all
your
arguments
,
to
prove
there
is
no
difference
betwixt
the
State
and
Nature
of
the
Gospel
Church
and
that
under
the
Law
;
and
further
to
convince
you
of
your
mistake
in
pleading
for
such
a
Church
,
take
Dr.
O●●ens
sentiments
and
some
other
Reverend
Independents
of
a
Gospel
Church
,
and
of
the
Dissolution
of
the
Jewish
Church
.
Question
,
What
is
an
Instituted
Church
of
the
Gospel
?
(
he
answers
.
)
Answer
,
A
society
of
persons
called
out
of
the
world
,
or
their
natural
Worldly
state
,
by
the
Administration
of
the
Word
and
Spirit
,
unto
obedience
of
the
Faith
or
knowledg
and
Worship
of
God
in
Christ
joyned
together
in
an
Holy
Band
,
or
by
special
agreement
for
the
exercise
of
the
Communion
of
Saints
in
due
observation
of
all
the
Ordinances
of
the
Gospel
.
Catech
,
p.
19.
See
also
Page
91.
how
he
distinguishes
a
Gospel
Church
from
the
Church
under
the
Law
,
which
he
calls
a
National
Church
.
Again
,
he
saith
,
Page
93.
the
National
Church
of
the
Jews
with
all
the
Ordinances
of
it
,
being
removed
and
taken
away
the
Lord
Christ
,
hath
appointed
particular
Churches
or
united
Assemblies
of
Believers
,
&c.
See
Reverend
Mr.
Fords
Gospel
Church
opened
,
Chap.
1.
Page
5.
where
he
gives
a
right
discription
of
a
Gospel
Church
Instituted
by
Christ
,
viz.
a
society
of
Godly
Christians
who
give
themselves
first
to
the
Lord
and
then
to
one
another
,
&c.
In
Chap.
3.
Page
22.
he
shews
the
matter
of
a
Gospel
Church
more
fully
,
and
that
it
doth
consist
only
,
of
regenerate
and
converted
persons
:
Such
as
are
Married
to
,
and
have
put
on
Christ
,
such
that
are
savingly
,
and
powerfully
enlightned
and
enlivened
,
quickened
,
and
convinced
of
Sin
,
of
Righteousness
,
and
Judgment
.
Now
are
Infants
capable
of
these
things
,
again
,
he
says
,
Page
25.
that
all
Church
Members
ought
to
be
sincere
hearted
Believers
,
&c.
Where
is
your
Infant
Church
Membership
,
if
what
these
worthy
Ministers
say
,
be
right
as
be
sure
it
is
?
I
cite
these
Authors
to
convince
you
that
you
have
not
a
right
notion
of
a
Gospel
Church
,
in
that
you
say
it
differs
not
from
the
Church
of
the
Jews
which
was
national
;
if
you
are
no
Independent
,
but
are
for
a
National
Church
,
bring
forth
your
arguments
;
but
first
consult
Dr.
Owen
,
&c.
The
Dr.
saith
further
,
viz.
that
God
doth
require
regeneration
as
an
indispensable
condition
in
a
Member
of
his
Church
▪
a
Subject
of
his
Kingdom
;
for
his
Temple
is
now
built
of
living
Ston●s
●
Tet.
2.
5.
M●n
Spiritual
and
savingly
quickened
from
their
Death
in
Sin
,
and
by
the
Holy
Ghost
(
whereof
they
are
made
partakers
)
made
a
meet
habitation
for
God
,
Eph.
2.
21
,
22.
1
Cor.
3.
16.
&c.
Page
106.
Also
see
Reverend
Mr.
Cotton
of
New
England
on
the
Covenant
,
speaking
of
the
Ax
being
laid
to
the
Root
of
the
Trees
,
Mat.
3.
9.
Page
177
,
178.
The
first
is
,
saith
he
,
the
Root
of
Abrahams
Convenant
,
which
this
People
much
trusted
upon
,
and
that
is
that
which
John
Baptist
speaks
of
is
the
Ax
laid
to
the
Root
of
the
Trees
,
think
not
to
say
with
in
your selves
,
we
have
Abraham
to
our
Father
,
vers
.
8.
So
that
all
their
confidence
they
had
in
Abrahams
Covenant
,
Temple
,
and
Tabernacle
,
and
such
things
,
is
burnt
up
,
and
so
they
have
no
Root
left
them
to
stand
upon
.
But
2ly
.
The
Lord
he
saith
hath
cut
us
off
from
the
righteousness
of
our
Parents
and
from
boasting
of
his
Ordinances
.
Again
,
he
saith
,
it
is
spoken
of
the
Ministry
of
John
Baptist
,
which
did
burn
as
an
Oven
,
and
left
them
neither
the
Root
of
Abrahams
Covenant
,
nor
the
Branches
of
their
own
good
works
;
he
cutteth
them
off
from
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
and
so
by
cutting
them
off
from
the
root
,
he
leaveth
them
no
ground
to
trust
to
,
Page
21
,
22.
you
say
the
new
creature
in
the
Womb
,
or
in
the
Cradle
,
is
as
perfect
and
compleat
in
all
its
lineaments
as
in
the
oldest
Saint
on
Earth
,
Page
40.
&c.
Answer
,
Sir
,
do
not
mistake
your self
,
if
Infants
are
any
of
them
regenerated
in
the
Womb
,
then
Regeneration
in
them
is
the
first
,
birth
but
Regeneration
is
a
being
born
again
,
or
a
second
Generation
which
is
wrought
by
the
Holy
Spirit
,
therefore
it
can't
proceed
from
believing
Parents
in
any
wise
,
they
can
by
their
Faith
contribute
nothing
to
the
second
Birth
:
Now
shew
at
what
time
't
is
that
regeneration
is
wrought
in
your
Infants
.
O
take
heed
;
for
tho'
God
doth
regenerate
the
Souls
of
dying
Infants
,
that
are
saved
.
Yet
what
is
this
to
the
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
?
Besides
,
if
John
Baptist
,
or
Jeremiah
the
Prophet
were
Regenerated
in
the
Womb
,
or
any
other
Infants
,
then
it
would
follow
they
were
not
born
Children
of
wrath
as
others
:
Nor
could
their
Regeneration
be
called
a
being
born
again
(
as
I
hinted
before
)
but
their
first
Birth
must
be
so
called
.
You
I
see
apply
those
Scriptures
where
our
Lord
Jesus
Speaks
of
the
Adult
,
to
Infants
,
as
that
,
Mark
16.
16.
John.
3.
3.
So
that
Infants
by
your
notion
are
required
to
believe
and
to
be
born
again
;
nay
you
,
in
Page
24
,
25
Ch●llenge
Mr.
Collins
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
to
produce
●at
one
Text
of
Scripture
that
d●●h
discover
any
other
way
or
means
,
wherein
God
hath
ordained
and
appointed
to
save
Elect.
dying
Infants
in
;
differing
in
any
point
or
part
of
it
,
from
that
wherein
he
saves
Adult
believers
?
Again
in
Page
19.
say
you
,
where
will
you
find
two
ways
for
the
saving
Elect
Persons
,
&c.
Answer
,
As
to
the
way
of
Salvation
,
't
is
we
g●ant
but
one
,
viz.
Christ
is
the
way
,
nor
is
there
Salvation
in
any
other
:
But
the
mode
or
manner
may
differ
about
the
Application
or
means
of
that
one
way
in
some
points
,
as
may
appear
to
all
,
viz.
1.
The
Adult
(
except
Ideots
)
are
not
saved
without
the
Act
and
exercise
of
Faith
,
dying
Infants
are
.
2ly
.
The
Adult
are
not
saved
without
actual
repentance
,
but
dying
Infants
are
,
3ly
.
The
Adult
are
not
saved
without
Mortification
of
Sin
,
taking
up
the
Cross
,
and
following
of
Christ.
But
Infants
are
saved
without
any
of
these
,
or
any
other
Sacred
Acts
of
obedience
whatsoever
;
and
yet
will
you
say
the
way
(
as
to
the
Mode
or
manner
)
of
the
Salvation
of
dying
Infants
,
differs
in
no
one
point
from
Adult
persons
:
How
will
you
prove
that
't
is
the
habit
of
Faith
,
and
not
the
Act
of
Faith
,
that
applies
Christs
merits
and
Righteousness
to
the
Soul
in
adult
persons
▪
is
it
not
from
the
habit
,
the
Soul
is
enabled
to
believe
,
and
say
hold
on
Christ
;
and
is
it
not
thus
that
Christ
saves
the
Adult
,
and
doth
he
just
so
and
in
the
same
mode
or
manner
save
dying
Infants
?
As
to
the
producing
one
Text
in
the
Case
,
I
say
the
Holy
Ghost
is
wholly
silent
as
touching
the
way
or
manner
of
the
application
of
Christs
merits
,
to
dying
Infants
,
or
how
their
sinful
natures
are
sanctified
;
yet
that
the
modes
differ
in
many
respects
,
as
I
have
shewed
,
is
evident
.
As
to
what
you
say
in
Page
4●
.
I
ask
,
how
do
you
kn●●
but
that
some
of
the
dying
Infants
of
●fi●●ls
may
be
elected
as
well
as
some
Infants
of
believers
,
and
so
in
as
good
a
condition
?
●●y
,
●●w
〈◊〉
on
know
but
that
all
Infants
dying
in
Infancy
may
be
elected
?
sure
I
am
,
naturally
all
are
born
in
●in
,
and
I
know
no
difference
in
that
respect
,
nor
is
there
any
when
grown
up
till
grace
is
infused
:
'
〈…〉
e
and
not
the
natural
Birth
that
makes
any
difference
between
the
Children
of
Believers
,
and
the
Children
of
unbelievers
;
and
I
do
affirm
,
till
Children
have
actual
Faith
,
or
do
believe
and
repent
,
they
have
no
right
to
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
nor
have
you
proved
the
contrary
,
nor
ever
will.
The
Church
of
England
acknowledg
the
same
,
viz.
that
Infants
are
not
able
to
perform
Faith
and
Repentance
,
the
two
great
prerequisits
of
Baptism
,
by
reason
of
their
tender
age
,
therefore
they
have
found
out
sureties
to
ingage
for
them
.
In
Page
57.
you
greatly
abuse
Mr.
Collins
,
in
saying
that
he
allows
not
Elect
dying
Infants
,
to
be
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Doth
it
follow
,
because
he
denies
the
Infants
of
believers
,
as
such
,
to
be
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
therefore
he
denies
elect
Infants
to
be
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
Sir
,
you
ought
,
not
to
bear
false
witness
against
your
neighbour
,
as
you
have
done
;
he
will
tell
you
and
hath
told
,
you
that
all
that
are
saved
,
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Reader
,
Pray
note
how
disengenuous
this
Man
seems
to
be
,
and
how
he
hath
strangely
encumbred
the
present
controversie
,
in
talk
▪
of
habitual
grace
in
dying
;
Infants
for
what
is
that
to
the
purpose
,
since
he
refers
not
to
such
Infants
of
believers
that
live
?
he
himself
acknowledges
that
all
their
Infants
who
live
have
not
the
habit
of
Faith
:
Nor
can
he
prove
any
of
them
have
it
,
or
such
that
die
either
;
therefore
unless
no
other
but
dying
Infants
were
baptized
by
the
Pedo
Baptists
,
this
can
no
ways
concern
the
controversie
.
2.
Consider
,
that
since
those
supposed
habits
in
Infants
of
believers
,
do
not
appear
to
us
,
nor
do
we
know
which
they
are
,
what
ground
it
there
to
Baptise
any
of
them
?
For
what
appears
not
is
not
(
as
to
us
)
Shou●d
we
Baptise
any
Adult
persons
in
whom
no
Fruit
,
Sign
,
or
demonstration
of
Faith
appears
than
what
appears
in
Infants
,
certainly
we
should
be
worthy
of
the
greatest
blame
imaginable
:
For
't
is
evident
that
in
all
whosoever
that
are
the
true
subjects
of
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
absur●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
p●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.
2●
.
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
b●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
b●
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
understandin●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.
Sh●te
reflects
upon
Mr.
Collins
because
he
calls
Infants
ignorant
Babes
,
See
his
words
,
viz.
He
seems
to
make
the
ignorance
of
young
Infants
to
be
too
hard
a
match
for
the
Wisdom
and
Power
of
God
,
and
renders
Infants
,
wholly
uncapable
of
receiving
the
Seeds
of
Grace
.
Answer
,
Doth
Mr.
Collins
question
the
wisdom
and
power
of
God
,
because
he
affirms
Infants
are
morally
uncapable
of
those
habits
of
Faith
which
are
in
Adult
persons
?
What
cannot
God
do
?
no
doubt
he
that
placed
in
Infants
the
Seed
or
habit
of
natural
knowledg
,
will
,
affections
,
&c.
can
inspire
Infants
with
the
habits
of
Divine
Grace
,
nay
,
and
as
easily
bring
those
Natural
and
Divine
habits
in
their
Infancy
when
infused
,
into
Acts
and
Exercise
also
,
according
to
their
distinct
natures
and
Operations
as
in
the
Adult
:
But
for
any
to
assert
that
God
doth
this
is
the
business
,
and
't
is
that
which
we
do
deny
,
and
say
,
God
infuses
no
such
habits
into
any
Infants
(
that
we
know
of
)
who
are
out
of
a
moral
capacity
to
Act
and
improve
those
habits
,
according
as
they
dispose
,
incline
,
and
impower
all
that
have
them
.
2.
And
let
it
be
also
considered
whether
this
Man
doth
not
go
about
to
limit
the
holy
one
of
Israel
:
When
he
argues
that
because
God
saves
and
sanctifies
the
Adult
by
infusing
the
habits
of
Grace
into
them
&c.
that
therefore
God
must
that
way
and
no
other
,
sanctify
and
apply
the
Blood
and
righteousness
of
Christ
to
dying
Infants
.
We
know
that
Men
can
differently
apply
the
same
medicine
to
a
sick
person
,
and
yet
it
shall
have
the
same
effect
in
curing
:
So
(
say
we
may
God
some
other
way
apply
Christs
merits
to
dying
Infants
and
sanctify
them
(
which
we
know
not
of
)
besides
his
infusing
the
same
habits
which
believers
are
inspired
withall
,
who
is
a
free
agent
and
whose
ways
are
wonderful
and
past
finding
out
.
CHAP.
III.
Proving
that
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
;
and
that
there
was
a
twofold
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
one
that
peculiarly
referred
to
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
;
and
the
other
to
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
as
such
;
with
a
full
Answer
and
Confutation
of
what
Mr.
Shute
hath
said
in
his
last
reply
to
Mr.
Collins
,
and
to
Benjamin
Keach
,
in
his
Treatise
,
The
Ax
lay'd
to
the
Root
,
about
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
that
of
Circumcision
.
I
Shall
pass
by
several
things
in
your
Answer
,
because
they
are
over
,
and
over
,
fully
answered
,
in
our
late
Treatise
wrote
on
this
Controversie
,
as
that
in
page
44.
of
your
Book
concerning
Federatal
Holiness
,
from
1
Cor.
7.
14.
See
our
Answer
to
the
Athenian
Society
,
and
Rector
Rectified
,
and
that
in
page
71.
about
the
promise
,
Acts
2.
38.
But
to
proceed
.
This
first
of
all
the
Reader
is
desired
to
consider
of
,
and
that
carefully
,
that
our
Adversary
hath
dealt
very
unfairly
with
my
Reverend
Brother
Collins
,
I
hope
it
is
through
his
Ignorance
or
great
oversight
,
viz.
first
,
he
positively
concludes
and
takes
it
for
granted
,
that
Mr.
Collins
hath
endeavoure●
〈◊〉
●rove
the
Covenant
of
Grace
which
God
made
with
,
or
rather
promis`d
to
Abraham
is
dissannulled
and
taken
away
.
Secondly
,
that
Mr.
Collins
by
his
often
repeated
distinction
of
the
Covenant
of
peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
,
doth
mean
and
intend
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
when
this
is
as
far
from
his
intention
and
expressions
any
where
in
his
Book
or
Judgment
,
as
the
East
is
from
to
the
West
:
I
have
seen
many
Men
undertake
in
Controvertible
Points
,
but
never
saw
any
(
except
one
)
abuse
his
Antagonist
worse
,
nor
after
such
a
sort
;
't
is
evident
there
was
two
Covenants
contained
in
those
transactings
of
God
with
Abraham
,
one
peculiarly
respected
only
his
Natural
Seed
or
Off-spring
,
as
such
,
which
Mr.
Collins
calls
the
Covenant
of
peculiarity
,
(
as
others
have
done
before
him
)
which
Circumcision
was
a
Sign
of
,
and
this
he
hath
proved
,
was
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
which
God
promised
to
Abraham
for
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
Promised
to
him
,
did
not
peculiarly
relate
to
Abrahams
Natural
Seed
that
were
Elect
Persons
;
but
to
all
the
Gentiles
also
,
who
believe
in
Christ
;
for
that
comprehends
none
but
the
Elect
,
or
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
such
.
Reader
,
if
you
read
Mr.
Colline
first
Book
,
or
his
answer
to
Mr.
Shute
,
you
will
find
this
is
as
plainly
layd
down
by
him
,
as
any
thing
could
well
be
:
I
am
afraid
that
this
Man`s
over
heated
Zeal
would
not
suffer
him
distinctly
to
read
over
,
and
seriously
weigh
,
what
Mr.
Collins
hath
wrote
and
said
upon
this
account
,
before
he
attempted
to
write
an
Answer
,
for
thro'
this
gross
mistake
(
as
one
that
hath
read
Mr.
Shutes
Book
,
observed
and
told
me
)
he
hath
wrote
near
twenty
Leaves
to
no
purpose
,
i.
e.
to
prove
that
which
no
body
denys
,
viz.
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
promised
to
Abraham
,
is
not
dissolved
,
cast
out
,
or
disannulled
,
but
abides
the
same
forever
,
which
we
all
as
stedfastly
believe
as
Mr.
Shute
,
therefore
he
has
but
set
up
here
on
this
respect
,
a
Man
of
Straw
,
and
then
fights
with
it
;
And
upon
search
and
examination
of
Mr.
Shutes
reply
,
I
see
that
what
the
Gentleman
told
me
is
very
true
,
and
that
those
Leaves
do
begin
about
74th
.
page
and
so
on
:
And
in
the
said
74th
.
page
Mr.
Shute
begins
with
this
easie
assay
,
viz.
To
prove
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
(
or
rather
promised
unto
)
Abraham
,
abideth
for
ever
and
ever
,
he
urgeth
that
blessed
Text
Psalm
89.
34
,
35
,
&c.
My
Covenant
I
will
not
break
,
nor
alter
the
thing
that
in
gone
out
of
my
Lips
;
once
have
I
sworn
by
my
my
Holiness
that
I
will
not
lye
unto
David
,
&c.
Do
we
say
or
Imagin
,
that
the
promise
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
to
Abraham
,
is
abrogated
?
God
forbid
:
for
that
stands
firm
for
ever
and
ever
,
as
the
Spring
of
all
our
comfort
and
consolation
in
Life
and
Death
,
being
confirmed
by
the
Oath
of
God
,
who
cannot
lie
,
Heb.
6.
13.
15
,
16
,
17
,
18.
and
so
doth
the
Invisible
and
Mystical
Church
,
or
Body
of
Christ
,
remain
and
abide
for
ever
also
,
against
which
the
Cates
of
Hell
shall
never
prevail
.
But
the
question
is
,
viz.
Whether
or
no
,
there
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
(
or
Off-spring
)
as
such
,
viz
a
Covenant
that
only
,
did
belong
or
appertain
to
the
Jews
,
in
which
no-believing
Gentiles
,
nor
their
Seed
,
as
such
,
were
concerned
,
of
which
Circumcision
was
a
Sign
,
for
this
is
that
which
we
affirm
.
Now
Reader
,
observe
Mr.
Collins's
Argument
,
and
Mr.
Shutes
Reply
in
his
76.
page
viz.
The
Natural
Branches
are
broken
off
,
Ergo
,
Childrens
visible
in
Covenanting
is
repealed
:
thus
Mr.
Collins
,
Take
the
Answer
as
followeth
.
Now
Sir
you
shall
see
,
saith
Mr.
Shute
,
That
this
doth
no
more
prove
,
that
the
Children
of
believing
Parents
,
were
cast
out
of
the
everlasting
Covenant
which
God
made
with
Abraham
,
than
,
&c.
Answer
,
By
the
Everlasting
Covenant
,
you
mean
the
Covenant
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
●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
Ma●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
Abraham●
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
Abraham●
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
typical
Covenant
was
taken
away
.
This
being
so
it
follows
clearly
that
the
Covenant
,
Gen.
17.
was
only
a
peculiar
external
and
Typical
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
and
his
carnal
Seed
,
in
which
,
Justification
,
pardon
of
sin
,
Adoption
,
and
Eternal
Life
was
not
contained
,
but
in
the
free
Promise
only
God
made
to
him
,
that
Covenant
had
in
it
;
it
is
true
,
temporal
Blessings
,
apolitical
Church
state
and
typical
worship
,
and
visible
,
legal
Church
Membership
given
to
Israel
in
subserviency
to
the
Gospel
Covenant
.
And
further
to
prove
that
the
promise
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
did
not
belong
to
Abraham's
natural
Seed
as
such
,
Paul
shews
in
Gal.
3.
16.
Now
to
Abraham
and
to
his
Seed
was
the
promise
made
;
he
saith
not
to
seeds
,
as
▪
of
many
;
but
to
thy
Seed
,
which
is
Christ.
And
therefore
saith
he
,
vers
.
29.
and
if
ye
be
Christs
,
then
are
you
Abrahams
Seed
,
and
heirs
according
to
the
promise
.
Ye
must
say
I
reckon
from
Christ
,
not
from
Abraham
;
but
Mr.
Shute
misrepresents
me
here
also
,
as
if
I
set
Abraham
before
Christ
,
when
't
is
evident
I
intimated
no
other
thing
than
this
,
i.
e.
you
must
see
your selves
first
in
Christ
before
you
can
reckon
your selves
to
be
Abrahams
Seed
:
Again
,
I
cited
Page
17.
part
,
1.
that
in
Rom.
9.
7
,
8.
Neither
because
▪
they
are
the
Seed
of
Abraham
are
they
all
Children
,
but
in
Isaac
shall
thy
Seed
be
called
,
7.
That
is
,
they
which
are
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
these
are
not
the
Children
of
God.
But
the
Children
of
the
promise
are
counted
for
the
Seed
.
What
can
be
more
clear
than
this
,
viz.
that
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
such
(
called
here
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
)
are
not
his
Spiritual
Seed
to
whom
the
Covenant
of
Grace
doth
belong
unto
,
that
is
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
They
which
are
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
these
are
not
he
Children
of
God
,
that
is
,
as
such
,
or
as
simply
so
considered
:
For
some
of
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
tho'
not
all
,
were
the
Children
of
the
promise
;
for
saith
he
,
they
are
not
all
Israel
that
are
of
Israel
,
vers
.
6.
This
Man
meddles
not
with
my
arguments
,
and
what
he
catches
up
he
generally
wrongs
and
abuses
me
in
,
rendring
me
to
speak
that
which
I
speak
not
nor
,
intended
.
But
to
proceed
(
he
says
)
Page
132.
Both
the
Seeds
of
Abraham
had
a
right
to
all
the
external
benefits
and
priviledges
of
the
everlasting
Covenant
,
God
made
with
Abraham
,
very
few
excepted
.
Answer
,
What
few
he
means
that
are
excepted
,
I
know
not
;
but
if
all
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
had
right
to
all
the
external
benefits
and
priviledges
of
the
external
Covenant
God
made
with
him
,
then
all
believing
Gentiles
and
their
Elect
Infants
have
,
or
had
a
right
to
circumcision
,
the
giving
of
the
Law
,
the
possession
of
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
and
all
other
rites
of
the
Mosaical
Law.
2.
If
by
the
everlasting
Covenant
he
means
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
then
all
Abrahams
natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
a
few
excepted
,
have
or
had
a
right
to
Baptism
,
the
Lords
Supper
and
all
Gospel
Churche-priviledges
;
and
if
so
,
why
were
the
Saddu●ees
and
Pharisees
,
and
Multitudes
more
of
Abrahams
natural
Seed
refused
and
not
admitted
to
the
external
benefits
and
priviledges
of
the
Gospel
or
Covenant
of
Grace
?
Think
not
to
say
,
saith
John
Baptist
,
within
your selves
,
ye
have
Abraham
to
your
Father
,
when
they
came
to
be
Baptized
;
he
proceeds
to
prove
several
things
that
none
denys
:
A●
that
the
Covenant
of
Works
was
made
with
Adam
and
all
mankind
in
him
,
and
that
there
is
but
two
Covenants
;
that
all
the
elect
under
the
Law
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
&c.
Then
in
Page
134
,
Shews
what
a
Straight
he
is
in
,
and
knows
not
which
to
wonder
at
most
.
1.
At
our
boldness
and
confidence
and
imposing
our
sallacious
corrupt
Doctrins
upon
the
People
.
2.
Or
at
the
Peoples
ignorance
to
suffer
themselves
to
be
so
horribly
deluded
and
imposed
upon
.
Answer
,
I
do
not
much
wonder
at
such
lines
,
because
I
know
who
wrote
them
,
and
in
what
Spirit
,
but
Sir
,
you
should
first
have
proved
any
Doctrin
we
maintain
to
be
corrupt
and
fallacious
.
2.
That
we
impose
those
Doctrins
upon
the
People
:
Dare
you
falsly
charge
and
condemn
the
innocent
?
we
are
not
yet
convicted
nor
tryed
at
a
lawful
Bar
:
But
both
you
and
we
must
appear
at
a
righteous
and
just
tribunal
ere
long
—
You
proceed
to
renew
your
charge
against
me
for
leaving
out
everlasting
Covenant
.
Friend
,
I
quoted
those
Verses
that
concerned
the
point
I
had
in
hand
,
and
have
cited
that
Verse
and
answered
it
too
,
where
circumcision
is
called
an
everlasting
Covenant
;
see
Ax
laid
to
the
Root
and
I
will
now
recite
what
I
there
wrote
.
2.
Part
Page
1●
.
viz.
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
was
called
an
everlasting
Covenant
.
My
Answer
there
to
this
,
is
as
followeth
.
Answer
,
'T
is
not
unknown
to
our
Opponents
that
the
word
everlasting
,
sometimes
signifies
no
more
than
a
long
continuance
of
time
;
and
so
extensive
was
the
promise
of
Gods
peculiar
favours
to
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
;
and
the
original
of
their
claim
therefrom
,
that
the
severity
of
that
●aw
afterwards
given
to
them
,
was
so
far
restrained
as
that
notwithstanding
their
manifold
breach
of
Covenant
with
God
and
forfeture
of
all
legal
claims
,
of
their
right
and
priviledges
in
the
Land
of
Canaan
thereby
,
that
they
were
never
cut
off
from
that
good
Land
and
ceased
to
be
peculiar
People
unto
God
,
until
the
End
or
period
of
that
time
determined
by
the
Almighty
was
fully
come
:
Which
was
at
the
Revelation
of
the
M●ssiah
,
and
the
setting
up
his
Spiritual
Temple
under
the
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
;
and
thus
far
the
word
everlasting
doth
extend
.
'T
is
said
,
God
promised
to
give
the
Land
of
Canaan
to
Abrahhm
and
to
his
Seed
for
ever
;
and
again
,
Gen.
17.
8.
for
an
everlasting
inheritance
,
whereas
't
is
evident
they
have
for
many
ages
been
disposessed
of
it
.
Nor
may
this
seem
strange
if
we
consult
other
Texts
where
the
same
Terms
are
used
with
the
like
Restriction
,
for
the
Priesthood
of
Levi
is
called
an
everlasting
Priesthood
,
Numb
.
25.
13.
And
so
the
Statutes
to
make
an
Atonement
for
the
Holy
Sanctuary
,
and
for
the
Tabernacle
and
for
the
Altar
,
is
called
an
everlasting
Statute
,
Levit.
16.
34.
Yet
we
know
they
all
ended
as
did
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
in
Christ
:
See
more
in
Page
14.
Ax
laid
to
the
Root
.
1.
Now
let
any
person
see
what
blame
this
Man
doth
in
Justice
deserve
for
saying
I
have
not
mentioned
the
word
everlasting
in
all
my
Book
,
viz.
circumcision
being
called
an
everlasting
Covenant
;
you
also
see
,
what
little
argument
lies
in
that
to
prove
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
is
a
Gospel
Covenant
or
appertaining
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
▪
Reader
,
in
those
Sermons
I
laid
down
eleven
arguments
,
proving
that
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
part
of
the
old
legal
and
external
Covenant
God
made
with
the
Jews
or
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
so
not
belonging
to
the
Gospel
Covenant
,
and
because
thou
mayest
not
meet
with
them
,
I
shall
give
thee
here
the
heads
or
sum
of
them
as
followeth
,
see
Page
18.
1.
Part.
Arg.
1.
Because
the
Law
or
Covenant
of
circumcision
was
made
,
as
to
the
design
and
end
of
it
to
separate
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
in
their
national
Church
state
,
from
all
other
Nations
,
and
to
give
them
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
so
that
they
might
not
mixt
themselves
with
the
Heathen
.
1.
Will
any
say
the
Gospel
Covenant
or
any
precept
of
it
;
in
the
end
and
design
of
it
,
is
institured
to
separate
all
believers
and
their
fleshy
Seed
as
a
national
Church
from
all
other
People
in
the
World
?
if
this
be
so
,
farewel
to
all
Spiritual
incorporated
congregations
of
Christians
.
See
Dr.
Owen
.
2.
Doth
any
Gospel
ordinance
assure
us
and
our
Children
of
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
or
any
worldly
and
earthly
Blessings
,
or
is
not
the
new
Covenant
established
upon
better
promises
?
Arg.
2.
Because
some
who
were
not
in
the
Covenant
of
promise
,
had
a
positive
right
to
,
and
where
commanded
of
God
to
be
circumcised
,
as
Ishmael
,
Esau
,
&c.
and
all
the
Male-Children
,
tho'
wicked
Mens
Children
that
sprung
from
Isaac
in
their
generations
,
&c.
also
some
of
Abrahams
Spiritual
Seed
were
not
to
be
circumcised
,
nor
had
they
any
right
there
too
.
1.
As
all
his
Male-Children
who
died
before
eight
days
old
.
2.
All
his
Females
,
who
were
elected
persons
and
some
others
,
who
lived
in
Abrahams
Days
,
as
Melchisedeck
and
Lot
,
&c.
Arg.
3.
Because
some
of
Abrahams
natural
Seed
to
whom
circumcision
did
belong
,
were
nevertheless
denied
Gospel
Baptism
;
tho'
their
plea
was
Abraham
is
our
Father
.
1.
From
hence
it
follows
,
circumcision
was
no
Gospel
Law
;
for
that
which
gave
right
to
circumcision
was
not
sufficient
to
give
right
to
Gospel
Baptism
.
2.
It
also
appears
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
was
not
the
adequate
reason
of
circumcision
,
but
the
mere
positive
command
of
God
to
Abraham
;
So
that
if
they
could
prove
the
Children
of
believers
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
it
would
nevertheless
be
no
argument
to
Baptise
them
,
unless
they
had
a
command
or
ground
from
Christ
so
to
do
.
For
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
speaks
nothing
of
Baptism
.
And
had
not
our
Blessed
Saviour
given
it
forth
as
an
instistution
of
the
Gospel
,
we
had
never
heard
of
it
nor
known
it
had
been
a
duty
or
ordinance
,
should
we
have
read
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
a
thousand
times
over
:
Therefore
if
all
they
say
about
the
Infant
Seed
of
Believers
as
such
should
be
granted
,
being
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
that
God
made
with
Abraham
,
(
which
cannot
)
yet
it
would
not
follow
from
thence
,
Infants
ought
to
be
Baptized
for
,
none
ought
to
be
Baptized
but
such
that
Christ's
Commission
and
positive
command
,
doth
authorize
so
to
be
,
which
are
none
but
those
who
by
preaching
,
and
the
working
of
the
Holy
Ghost
are
made
Disciples
,
or
do
believe
;
and
make
a
confession
of
their
Faith
;
in
maters
of
mere
positively
right
.
We
must
always
keep
to
the
direct
will
and
words
of
the
Law-giver
like
as
Abraham
did
in
circumcision
:
No
adding
nor
altering
no
pleading
for
Females
to
be
circumcised
,
if
Males
only
are
expressed
in
the
institution
of
it
.
Arg.
4.
Circumcision
could
not
be
a
Gospel
rite
,
because
all
in
the
Gospel
Church
,
't
is
expresly
said
,
shall
know
the
Lord
,
Jer.
31.
31.
And
shall
not
need
to
be
taught
to
know
him
.
Now
under
the
old
Legal
Covenant
Infants
were
admitted
Members
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
who
did
not
know
the
Lord
,
but
had
need
when
grown
up
to
understanding
to
be
taught
to
know
him
;
in
this
the
old
Covenant
differs
from
the
new
;
and
old
Church
Membership
from
new
Church
Membership
;
for
our
Children
before
admitted
into
Gods
Church
,
must
know
the
Lord
;
we
and
they
too
must
believe
or
be
made
Disciples
by
teaching
;
we
must
know
Christ
or
fix
our
Faith
on
him
,
in
saving
knowledg
which
Infants
cannot
do
.
To
the
last
of
these
arguments
he
seems
to
say
some
thing
;
see
Page
119.
where
he
cites
these
words
out
of
my
Sermons
,
Page
21.
viz.
in
the
old
Covenant
Infants
were
Members
who
did
when
taken
into
that
Covenant
and
made
members
of
that
Legal
Church
,
not
know
the
Lord.
Mr.
Shute
says
,
here
I
mention
but
one
Covenant
,
and
acknowledg
Infants
were
in
that
one
Covenant
:
So
that
he
hath
confused
himself
,
and
let
him
or
any
of
their
opinion
prove
by
Scripture
God
did
●ast
young
Infants
out
of
that
one
Covenant
;
he
hath
destroyed
his
two
Covenants
by
thus
contradicting
himself
;
a
Man
under
his
circumstances
had
need
to
have
a
good
Memory
.
Answer
,
That
Covenant
which
I
mention
was
I
tell
you
the
Legal
Covenant
that
God
made
with
the
whole
Church
and
House
of
Israel
,
and
how
do
I
contradict
my self
?
Infants
I
own
were
Members
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
and
doth
not
the
Scripture
say
,
cast
out
the
Bond
woman
and
her
Son
,
&c.
is
not
the
old
Covenant
the
Jewish
Covenant
gone
?
did
not
God
take
away
the
first
,
that
he
might
establish
the
second
?
what
Covenant
is
that
which
the
Apostle
says
,
is
took
away
and
difanulled
?
't
is
not
you
,
will
say
,
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
I
also
ask
you
whether
the
Jewish
Church
that
was
founded
upon
that
Old
Covenant
,
is
not
gone
and
dissolved
?
if
so
what
doth
your
arguing
prove
,
nor
is
there
a
new
Gospel
national
Church
like
the
Church
of
the
Jews
instituted
in
the
room
of
the
old
?
since
you
plead
for
Infants
Church-membership
,
you
must
come
to
the
new
and
last
Will
and
Testament
,
if
Christ
hath
not
willed
Infants
,
their
right
to
Baptism
,
and
Church-membership
in
the
Gospel
,
they
can't
have
it
by
the
former
Testament
which
is
disannulled
.
Tou
ask
if
faith
and
repentance
was
not
required
under
the
Law
,
Page
119.
I
answer
,
Not
to
make
any
Members
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
you
are
in
Page
120.
121.
&c.
upon
your
old
argument
,
that
both
young
and
old
,
Infants
and
the
Adult
are
saved
by
faith
:
We
have
answered
that
already
.
Such
that
can
believe
,
that
Infants
do
believe
or
know
the
Lord
,
let
them
,
I
believe
it
not
,
nor
can
he
nor
all
the
Men
of
the
World
prove
it
.
I
shall
repeat
the
substance
of
my
other
arguments
,
to
prove
that
circumcision
did
not
appertain
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Arg.
5.
Because
the
Terms
of
it
runs
according
to
the
Sinai
Covenant
,
which
is
said
not
to
be
of
Faith.
But
the
Man
that
doth
these
things
shall
live
in
them
,
Gal.
3.
22.
Life
was
promised
to
their
obedience
,
death
threatned
to
their
disobedience
:
The
promises
were
earthly
,
&c.
and
thus
runs
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
,
Gen.
17.
9
,
10.
Thou
shalt
keep
my
Covenant
,
&c.
and
I
will
give
to
thee
,
and
to
thy
Seed
after
thee
,
the
Land
of
Canaan
.
And
the
uncircumcised
Man-Child
whose
Flesh
of
his
Fore-●●in
is
not
circumcised
,
that
Soul
shall
be
cut
off
,
&c.
vers
14.
6.
The
covenant
of
circumcision
was
of
the
Letter
and
not
of
the
Spirit
that
is
,
of
the
Law
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
,
S●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
,
●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.
Th●
,
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
,
Repent
,
and
bring
forth
good
Fruits
as
the
Adult
must
,
if
they
are
saved
,
how
is
it
possible
any
Infant
can
be
saved
?
2.
I
did
not
contradict
my self
,
I
spoke
not
there
of
Infants
,
but
of
Adult
Persons
:
And
why
did
you
before
only
plead
for
habitual
Faith
to
be
in
dying
Infants
,
that
go
to
Heaven
,
since
row
you
here
intimate
that
they
must
believe
?
For
you
cite
Mark
16.
16.
He
that
believes
and
is
Baptized
,
shall
be
saved
,
and
he
that
believes
not
shall
be
damned
.
If
our
Saviour
in
these
words
refers
to
Infants
,
as
well
as
to
Men
and
Women
,
I
am
mistaken
,
and
all
Learned
Men
I
ever
met
with
.
Friend
,
it
wi●
not
help
you
to
say
Christ
performed
these
conditions
for
them
,
viz.
Faith
and
Repentance
,
page
123.
Nor
doth
the
Meritorious
death
of
Christ
,
without
the
infusing
divine
Faith
into
the
Soul
,
render
any
Man
a
Believer
:
Besides
,
tho'
't
is
by
the
Grace
and
power
of
Christs
Spirit
,
that
we
Believe
,
Repent
,
and
bring
forth
good
Fruit
:
Yet
't
is
we
that
Believe
,
and
Repent
,
the
act
is
ours
,
tho'
inabled
by
Divine
Power
.
to
do
it
.
Now
prove
that
God
gives
any
Infant
such
power
to
Believe
and
Repent
,
&c.
who
know
not
the
object
of
Faith
,
nor
have
any
understanding
.
Friend
,
they
are
more
excusable
,
who
say
God
may
have
many
ways
to
apply
the
Blood
and
Merits
of
Christ
,
and
so
Save
and
Sanctifie
dying
Infants
,
which
we
know
not
of
,
than
you
who
assert
that
not
one
of
them
can
be
saved
unless
they
Believe
,
&c.
and
if
they
do
not
do
so
,
they
shall
be
Damned
:
For
you
positively
affirm
there
is
no
way
of
Gods
saving
Elect
dying
Infants
,
differing
in
any
point
from
that
of
his
saving
Adult
persons
't
is
well
you
may
Err
,
for
should
what
you
say
be
true
,
't
is
enough
to
bring
sorrow
and
amazement
upon
Godly
Parents
,
about
the
State
of
their
dying
Infants
.
CHAP.
IV.
Wherein
Mr.
Shutes
arguments
to
prove
our
Churches
no
Churches
,
and
our
Baptism
a
counterfeit
,
are
examined
and
answered
.
1.
IN
page
186.
he
asserts
,
That
Adult
believers
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
Ordinance
after
the
first
institution
or
Plantation
of
the
Gospel
in
a
Family
,
unless
it
be
such
,
whose
Parents
deprived
them
of
it
in
their
Infancy
:
But
Baptism
of
Right
is
devolved
upon
the
Infant
Seed
of
Believers
.
1.
Answer
,
If
this
be
true
,
then
the
Children
of
unbelievers
have
no
right
to
Baptism
,
neither
as
Infants
nor
when
Adult
believers
,
it
the
right
be
devolted
upon
the
Infants
of
believers
.
—
This
in
the
first
place
is
enough
to
convince
him
of
his
great
error
and
mistake
,
〈◊〉
he
will
not
say
that
unbelievers
Children
have
any
right
thereto
in
their
Infancy
.
Tho'
his
evidence
that
Abrahams
natural
Seed
,
tho'
ungodly
persons
,
were
required
to
Circumcise
their
Children
,
and
their
Children
had
the
same
right
to
it
;
for
were
none
but
godly
Jews
to
circumcise
their
Male
infants
?
Pray
observe
this
.
2.
Besides
,
did
not
God
expresly
command
Abraham
as
well
to
circumcise
his
Male
Infants
as
himself
;
and
so
his
offspring
their
Children
after
him
in
their
generations
?
And
now
did
our
Saviour
give
such
a
Commission
about
Gospel
Baptism
,
viz.
that
first
those
that
believed
should
be
Baptized
,
and
then
their
Infants
;
or
was
there
not
the
same
purity
of
reason
for
Christs
Commission
about
Baptism
to
have
run
thus
,
as
there
was
for
Gods
Commission
so
to
run
to
Abraham
about
circumcision
?
If
what
you
say
was
true
but
we
will
come
to
his
reasons
to
prove
our
Baptism
a
counterfeit
,
and
our
Churches
no
Churches
of
Christ.
In
Page
186.
first
,
because
,
saith
he
,
they
disown
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
in
which
the
very
foundation
;
for
Baptism
,
was
laid
;
let
them
find
another
foundation
for
it
,
if
they
can
;
for
that
Covenant
is
founded
upon
Christ
himself
,
&c.
1.
Answer
,
This
in
the
first
place
is
not
that
he
charges
us
with
,
viz.
that
we
disown
〈◊〉
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
;
for
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
God
promised
to
him
〈…〉
contend
for
it
as
far
forth
as
any
can
—
But
we
do
say
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
is
disannuled
;
that
we
do
disown
to
be
in
force
now
.
2.
Could
he
prove
that
Baptism
is
founded
upon
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
he
would
seem
to
say
some
thing
:
But
we
deny
that
utterly
;
for
had
not
Christ
Instituted
or
given
it
forth
in
the
New
Testament
,
none
could
have
known
that
Baptism
had
been
an
Ordinance
;
it
was
not
Imprinted
on
the
Hearts
of
Men
,
but
it
is
a
mere
positive
precept
.
3.
I
will
shew
you
therefore
another
foundation
for
it
,
and
not
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
viz.
the
great
Commission
of
Jesus
Christ
,
Mat.
28.
18
,
19
,
20.
Mark.
16.
16.
If
we
have
it
not
here
,
saith
Mr.
Richard
Baxter
,
where
have
it
we
?
But
you
are
wiser
it
appears
than
that
Pedo-Baptist
.
Now
Friend
,
since
our
Baptism
is
founded
on
Christs
Commission
,
both
as
to
subject
and
mode
of
Baptising
,
our
Baptism
is
no
counterfeit
,
and
so
you
will
know
one
day
.
2.
Your
second
reason
is
,
because
we
Baptise
the
Adult
Seed
of
Believers
,
th●●
were
Baptised
in
their
Infancy
,
as
they
ought
not
.
Answer
,
You
do
but
beg
the
question
.
We
'tis
true
,
do
Baptise
the
Adult
Seed
of
some
Believers
,
but
we
deny
they
were
Baptized
in
their
Infancy
,
they
were
but
Rantized
;
but
had
they
been
in
their
Infancy
Baptized
,
i
,
e.
Dipped
,
yet
not
having
the
prerequisites
of
Baptism
,
viz.
Faith
and
Repentance
,
they
were
not
the
true
subjects
of
that
Gospel
ordinance
.
But
Friend
,
do
we
do
well
to
Baptise
the
off-spring
of
unbelievers
,
since
by
your
argument
they
in
their
Infancy
could
not
have
true
right
to
it
,
it
being
intayled
on
Believers
Seed
only
?
is
that
Branch
of
our
Baptism
a
counterfeit
also
?
3.
You
say
their
Baptism
cannot
be
good
,
because
they
deny
it
to
their
own
Seed
and
off-spring
;
when
as
the
Covenant
is
made
to
Believers
and
their
Seed
:
So
that
either
they
are
no
believers
themselves
,
or
else
they
Reprobate
their
own
Children
.
1.
Answer
,
Our
Baptism
may
be
good
in
your
own
opinion
,
I
suppose
,
if
our
parents
were
unbelievers
—
But
Friend
,
whose
authority
renders
any
Ordinance
good
?
If
we
act
according
to
the
authority
of
Christ
in
Baptism
,
is
not
our
Baptism
good
?
We
deny
Baptism
to
our
Children
,
because
all
are
required
to
believe
,
repent
,
&c.
before
Baptized
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
Mark
16.
16
,
Act.
2.
36
,
37.
Act.
8.
12
,
14
,
39
,
&c.
But
do
we
reprobate
our
Children
because
we
Baptise
them
not
?
is
that
in
our
power
?
or
can
Baptism
bring
into
,
or
cast
out
of
Gods
election
?
3.
Friend
,
we
deny
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
God
promised
to
Abraham
,
gives
any
a
right
to
Baptism
.
No
,
no
,
't
is
Christs
positive
command
.
If
the
Covenant
of
Grace
gave
Lot
no
right
to
circumcision
,
as
it
did
not
,
because
not
commanded
of
him
,
how
can
the
Covenant
of
Grace
give
right
to
Baptism
to
any
,
person
but
to
such
only
that
Christ
hath
commanded
to
be
Baptised
?
4.
And
lastly
,
you
say
their
Baptism
cannot
be
good
,
because
their
Principle
is
to
Baptise
Adult
Believers
,
but
not
their
Seed
;
which
is
to
Baptise
,
but
part
of
the
believer
;
whereas
they
should
Baptise
,
not
only
a
part
of
him
,
but
all
of
him
:
So
that
their
Baptism
is
but
a
counterfeit
Baptism
.
Answer
,
Is
this
to
shew
your
great
wisdom
?
But
are
our
Children
a
part
of
our selves
and
are
we
not
believers
without
our
Children
?
How
if
our
Children
should
prove
unbelievers
,
then
I
fear
we
shall
not
go
for
compleat
believers
,
but
one
part
of
us
is
a
believer
,
and
the
other
part
of
us
an
unbeliever
;
also
then
if
your
Child
should
perish
,
but
a
part
of
you
would
be
saved
;
is
it
fit
such
stuff
should
be
Printed
?
Do
not
mistake
your self
,
you
are
one
compleat
Man
,
and
your
Son
another
,
and
you
are
no
less
compleat
a
Man
if
you
have
no
Child
at
all
:
So
it
you
are
a
believer
you
are
a
compleat
believer
and
want
no
part
,
and
if
your
Child
is
an
unbeliever
:
yet
you
are
not
less
a
compleat
believer
.
But
you
that
Sprinkle
only
the
Face
,
I
am
sure
you
do
not
Baptise
the
whole
person
of
a
Child
,
nor
any
part
of
it
,
nor
of
the
Adult
neither
:
What
shall
I
call
your
Baptism
.
—
In
Page
187.
you
quote
our
three
Queries
,
but
answer
none
of
them
.
1.
Whether
Children
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
absolutely
or
conditionally
?
●
.
Whether
that
can
be
an
ordinance
of
Christ
to
which
there
is
neither
precept
nor
example
?
3.
Whether
in
matters
of
meer
positive
right
,
such
as
Baptism
is
,
we
ought
not
to
keep
expresly
and
punctually
to
the
revealed
will
of
the
Lawgiver
?
Had
you
answered
these
three
queris
to
the
purpose
,
you
had
done
,
ten
times
more
than
what
is
contained
in
your
whole
Book
.
But
instead
of
answering
you
ask
this
question
,
viz.
where
do
you
find
any
command
for
the
Infant
Seed
of
believers
,
to
stay
till
they
are
Adult
,
to
be
Baptized
?
1.
Answer
,
Where
did
God
expresly
forbid
Abraham
to
circumcise
his
Male
Infants
,
on
the
7th
or
9th
day
,
or
not
to
circumcise
Female
Infants
?
2.
There
needs
no
Negative
Law
where
there
is
a
Law
in
the
affirmative
;
if
on
the
8th
day
,
it
follows
not
on
the
7th
or
9th
;
if
Males
only
are
expressed
,
not
Females
;
so
if
believers
,
if
such
who
are
taught
and
made
Disciples
by
teaching
,
are
commanded
to
be
Baptized
,
then
all
must
stay
till
they
do
believe
,
and
are
taught
and
made
Disciples
,
before
Baptized
.
3.
Was
not
the
Gospel
,
think
you
,
planted
in
Joseph
and
Mary's
House
,
and
yet
the
Holy
Child
Jesus
stayed
till
he
was
about
30
years
old
,
before
Baptized
.
Also
Gregory
Nazianzen
in
his
4th
Oration
,
saith
Dr.
Duveil
,
gives
an
instance
of
those
who
died
without
Baptism
by
reason
of
Infancy
.
And
the
same
Nazianzen
,
saith
he
,
tho'
he
was
a
Bishops
Son
,
being
a
long
time
bred
up
under
his
Father
,
was
not
Baptized
until
he
came
to
Mans
age
;
and
so
Basil
the
Great
,
who
was
born
of
pious
Parents
,
and
instructed
from
his
Childhood
,
was
not
Baptized
until
a
Man.
The
like
he
says
of
Hiorem
,
Ambrose
,
Chrysostom
,
Augustin
,
&c.
Nothing
of
this
nature
ought
to
be
done
in
Gods
worship
,
without
authority
from
his
wor●
;
prove
if
you
can
,
one
Infant
was
Baptized
from
the
beginning
of
Matthew
,
to
the
end
of
the
Revelations
of
John.
Arguments
to
prove
that
those
Churches
who
are
gathered
by
Faith
and
Repentance
,
and
upon
the
profession
of
Faith
are
Baptized
(
which
are
called
Anabaptists
)
are
true
Churches
of
Christ
▪
which
Mr.
Shute
den●es
so
to
be
.
1.
ARgument
All
those
Churches
who
are
rightin
matter
and
form
are
true
Churches
.
But
those
Churches
,
falsly
called
Anabaptists
,
are
right
in
matter
and
form
●rgo
they
are
true
Churches
.
The
matter
of
true
Churches
are
godly
person
,
or
true
believers
;
the
true
form
is
the
order
or
〈◊〉
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
viz.
The
A●ult
upon
the
profession
of
Faith
and
Repentance
,
Baptized
;
and
so
with
joynt
consent
give
themselves
up
to
the
Lord
,
and
one
to
another
,
to
walk
in
fellowship
and
commanion
in
all
the
Ordinances
of
the
Gospel
.
2.
Arg
Those
Churches
which
consist
of
godly
persons
owning
all
the
essentials
of
the
true
religion
,
among
whom
the
word
of
God
it
truly
preached
,
and
the
Sacraments
are
duly
administred
,
are
true
Churchs
of
Jesus
Christ.
But
th●se
Baptized
Churches
we
contend
for
,
falsly
called
Anabaptists
,
do
consist
of
godly
persons
owning
all
the
essentials
of
the
true
religion
,
among
whom
the
word
of
God
is
truly
preached
,
and
the
Sacraments
duly
and
truly
administred
,
ergo
they
are
true
Churches
of
Jesus
Christ.
3.
Arg
▪
Those
Churches
that
are
constituted
according
to
the
direct
pattern
laid
down
in
the
New
Testament
;
are
true
Churches
of
Jesus
Christ.
The
Baptized
Churches
,
falsly
called
Anabaptists
,
are
constituted
according
to
the
direct
pattern
laid
down
in
the
New
Testament
,
ergo
they
are
true
Churches
of
Jesus
Christ.
To
these
let
me
add
the
fourth
,
which
Mr.
Collins
hath
in
his
half
Sheet
.
4.
Arg.
Those
Churches
who
make
Christs
merits
the
foundation
of
their
Salvation
,
and
his
Doctrin
the
foundation
of
their
Churches
constitution
,
are
true
Churches
,
and
their
Baptism
is
Authentick
:
But
the
Baptists
do
thus
,
ergo
.
5.
Arg.
If
the
ordinances
of
Christ
are
to
be
kept
as
they
were
first
delivered
to
the
Saints
,
and
as
practised
by
the
Apostolical
Church
,
our
Baptism
,
which
you
call
●
counterfeit
,
is
Christ's
true
Baptism
.
But
the
Ordinances
of
Christ
are
to
be
kept
as
they
were
first
delivered
to
the
Saints
,
and
as
they
were
practised
by
the
Apostolical
Church
,
ergo
,
our
Baptism
is
Christs
true
Baptism
.
But
Friend
,
how
can
you
hold
Communion
with
such
persons
who
have
a
counterfeit
Baptism
?
for
I
hear
you
break
Bread
with
some
who
own
no
other
Water-Baptism
but
that
of
Believers
only
,
and
deny
Infants
to
be
subjects
thereof
.
I
think
none
of
our
godly
Brethren
who
are
Pedo-Baptists
,
ever
denied
our
Baptism
,
tho'
they
strive
to
justify
theirs
:
which
of
them
will
call
the
Baptism
of
believers
,
yea
,
tho'
such
who
were
Sprinkled
when
Babes
,
to
be
a
counterfeit
?
Without
repentance
you
must
be
accountable
for
this
one
day
.
CHAP.
V.
Containing
an
account
of
some
of
Mr.
Shutes
onseemly
,
Scoffing
and
opprobrious
language
cast
upon
Mr.
Collins
,
and
my self
together
,
with
his
false
and
abusive
representation
of
us
,
and
of
several
places
of
Holy
Scripture
;
with
his
Impertinences
,
Inconsistences
and
self-contradictions
,
as
also
those
abuses
he
hath
cast
on
the
Baptized
Congregations
,
in
which
Rom.
11.
16.
is
explained
,
viz.
if
the
Root
be
Holy
so
are
the
Branches
.
And
if
some
of
the
Branches
were
broken
off
,
&c.
FIrst
I
shall
begin
with
Mr.
Shute's
unbecoming
and
Scoffing
expressions
as
they
lie
here
and
there
in
his
Book
.
1.
Page
5.
He
intimates
we
are
horribly
bigotted
to
our
opinion
.
In
Page
4.
he
says
he
will
not
render
railing
for
railing
.
Yet
in
Pag.
5.
you
will
find
these
expressions
,
speaking
to
Mr.
Collins
,
you
have
charged
me
falsly
You
bogled
and
jugled
with
the
sac●ed
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.
Sh●●●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
i●
we
had
Believers
to
a
〈◊〉
when
we
Baptise
●●●m
:
And
again
to
vili●●●
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
h●ur
of
the
Night
;
whereas
the
Text
only
says
,
he
washed
their
S●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
Bapti●●
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
●●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
af●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
●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
S●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
●●●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
,
but
answered
the
argument
that
is
raised
from
thence
,
See
Part
2.
Page
9
,
10.
Now
that
Mr.
Shute
hath
left
part
of
the
words
in
some
Texts
,
and
added
words
in
other
he
hath
quoted
,
See
Page
120.
Where
he
mentions
the
words
of
that
Text
1
Cor.
15.
22.
For
as
in
Adam
a●
dye
,
so
in
Christ
shall
all
be
made
al●ve
;
he
has
wrote
thus
for
as
in
Adam
all
the
Elect
dye
,
so
in
Christ
they
shall
all
be
made
alive
;
this
is
all
in
the
same
Italick
Letter
:
Where
he
adds
(
Elect
)
and
(
they
)
rendring
the
sense
as
if
none
should
have
a
resurrection
but
the
Elect
,
which
is
against
the
Sense
of
the
Apostle
.
So
in
Page
133.
mentioning
Mark
16.
16.
viz.
He
that
believeth
and
is
Baptized
shall
be
saved
,
but
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
.
He
hath
wrote
it
thus
,
viz.
He
that
believeth
shall
be
saved
,
but
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
.
(
Baptized
)
is
left
out
to
favour
his
design
,
I
fear
;
for
tho'
faith
be
the
same
in
every
age
,
yet
the
the
Ordinances
are
not
the
same
,
under
the
Gospel
,
as
under
the
Law
,
for
Baptism
is
no
legal
Ordinance
,
nor
the
Lords
Supper
,
&c.
Also
he
has
given
a
false
exposition
on
several
Verses
,
in
Rom.
11.
and
hath
in
so
doing
abused
Mr.
Collins
also
;
these
are
Mr.
Collins
words
(
as
repeated
by
Mr.
Shute
)
Page
75
,
76.
The
natural
Branches
are
broken
off
,
ergo
Childrens
visible
incovenanting
,
is
repealed
;
the
Antecedent
of
this
Enthymem
is
clear
from
the
Apostles
assertion
,
Rom.
11.
19
,
20
,
21.
by
the
natural
Branches
without
controversie
,
is
to
be
understood
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
Now
Mr.
Shute
leaves
out
Mr.
Collins
demonstration
following
,
to
prove
his
argument
,
i.
e.
by
the
branches
saith
he
,
without
controversy
,
is
to
be
understood
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
;
and
the
breaking
off
,
must
either
be
meant
,
from
visible
Church-membership
,
and
external
priviledges
thereunto
belonging
;
or
the
Everlasting
Covenant
of
grace
:
It
cannot
,
saith
he
,
be
the
latter
,
because
that
Covenant
is
immutable
,
therefore
it
must
be
the
former
.
Thus
Mr.
Collins
:
And
he
argues
to
the
purpose
,
for
't
is
impossible
for
any
to
be
broken
off
from
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
who
were
once
in
that
;
and
't
is
as
clear
that
the
Jews
or
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
such
,
are
broken
off
,
from
being
any
more
a
visible
Church
,
and
that
the
legal
Covenant
,
for
their
incovenanting
,
i.
e.
both
Parents
and
Children
,
as
such
,
is
gone
and
taken
away
;
he
took
away
the
first
that
he
might
establish
the
Second
,
Heb.
10.
9.
There
is
a
First
,
and
a
Second
,
an
Old
and
a
New.
Now
the
first
is
only
taken
away
,
as
a
Covenant
of
works
,
do
this
and
thou
shall
live
;
and
as
it
was
given
to
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
by
vertue
of
which
they
held
their
Church-State
,
and
Church-membership
,
and
all
their
external
Rites
,
Ordinances
,
and
Priviledges
,
for
the
Priesthood
being
changed
there
is
made
of
necessity
a
change
of
the
whole
Law
,
Heb.
7.
12.
Tho'
it
was
for
the
Jews
unbelief
they
were
broken
off
,
yet
the
dispensation
being
changed
,
it
was
impossible
for
them
to
keep
their
Church-State
and
external
Legal
Rites
,
and
Priviledges
any
longer
;
for
't
is
evident
that
those
Jews
that
believed
in
Christ
,
abode
no
longer
members
of
their
Old
Church
;
but
were
transplanted
into
the
Gospel
Church
;
what
can
be
more
clear
than
this
,
viz.
the
Old
House
and
Old
legal
Right
of
Church-membership
is
overturned
and
r●oted
out
for
ever
?
And
say
I
,
if
the
Covenant
for
incoveannting
of
the
fleshly
Seed
,
as
such
,
is
abolished
,
and
no
new
Law
is
given
forth
for
the
bringing
in
again
professing
Parents
and
their
Carnal
Seed
,
as
such
,
what
is
it
this
Man
contends
for
,
yet
what
a
mighty
stir
he
makes
about
that
in
Rom.
11.
you
may
See
in
Page
76
,
&c.
This
Man
makes
it
his
main
business
to
prove
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
is
not
taken
away
,
which
we
assert
with
as
much
Zeal
as
he
;
but
see
how
he
abuses
the
Text
,
Rom.
11.
17.
viz.
as
those
Jews
which
were
these
Branches
were
broken
off
,
and
their
Children
with
them
were
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
:
So
the
Gentiles
,
and
all
their
Children
were
taken
into
Covenant
,
in
their
room
,
and
did
partake
of
the
same
Priviledges
,
with
those
●ews
that
did
abide
firm
in
the
Covenant
,
&c.
1.
Answer
,
This
Man
doth
not
distinguish
one
Covenant
from
another
,
i.
e.
the
Legal
from
the
Gospel
Covenant
;
nay
he
owns
but
one
so
that
he
ass●rts
the
unbelieving
Jews
,
were
broken
off
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
their
Children
too
;
by
which
he
seems
to
plead
for
Arminianism
or
final
falling
o●●
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
:
Nay
worse
,
i.
e.
that
the
Children
were
broken
off
from
the
Covenant
of
Grace
for
their
Parent●
Sin
and
unbelief
,
〈…〉
.
For
if
the
first
Fruit
be
Holy
,
the
lump
is
also
Holy
;
and
if
the
Root
be
Holy
,
so
are
the
branches
,
vers
.
16.
●
the
Root
is
doubtless
meant
Abraham
;
but
then
know
that
Abraham
was
a
twofold
〈◊〉
as
well
as
a
twofold
Father
,
viz
the
Root
of
all
his
natural
Seed
,
and
the
Root
or
Father
of
all
his
true
Spiritual
;
now
for
a
Man
to
say
that
the
Apostle
here
refers
to
Abraham
as
a
natural
Root
,
and
so
to
his
natural
or
Carnal
Seed
as
such
,
is
to
destroy
the
whole
scope
and
drift
of
the
Holy
Ghost
in
this
Chapter
;
in
the
close
of
the
10
Chapter
the
Apostle
shews
the
Jews
were
rejected
,
and
the
Gentiles
called
;
and
in
the
beginning
of
this
〈◊〉
.
Chapter
he
prevents
an
objection
;
some
might
be
ready
to
say
if
this
be
so
,
then
God
hath
cast
away
his
Covenant
People
.
To
this
he
Answers
,
vers
.
2.
God
hath
not
cast
away
his
People
whom
he
for
knew
that
is
,
his
Elect
or
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
that
were
among
the
Jews
,
See
vers
.
5.
even
so
then
o●
this
present
time
there
is
a
Remnant
according
to
the
Election
of
Grace
:
Again
,
in
vers
.
7
what
then
Israel
had
not
obtained
,
&c.
(
that
is
the
natural
seed
as
such
,
)
but
the
Election
hath
obtained
it
,
and
the
rest
were
blended
;
and
tho'
the
main
Body
of
the
Jews
were
rejected
for
their
unbelief
,
yet
in
the
Latter
Days
God
will
call
all
those
and
bring
them
in
,
who
belong
to
the
Election
of
Grace
,
and
so
all
Israel
,
(
that
is
the
Spiritual
Israel
)
shall
be
saved
,
See
vers
.
15.
and
●6
.
And
from
hence
the
16.
verse
is
brought
in
,
viz.
for
if
the
first
Fruit
be
Holy
,
the
lump
is
also
Holy
,
〈◊〉
.
Is
the
Apostle
speaking
here
of
a
Legal
Federal
Holiness
?
No
,
not
a
word
of
any
such
matter
:
But
of
such
a
Holiness
as
was
in
the
Post
,
i.
e.
in
Abraham
who
was
Spiritually
Holy
,
being
an
Elect
Person
;
and
to
that
Holiness
the
Apostle
refers
.
viz.
first
in
respect
of
Gods
Election
,
Personal
,
and
inherent
in
Gods
intention
.
Now
then
to
apply
the
Holiness
and
Infection
here
,
to
outward
Dispensation
only
in
the
whole
Church
,
which
is
meant
of
saving
Grace
in
the
invisible
,
and
to
make
every
believing
Parent
a
like
Root
to
his
posterity
with
Abraham
to
his
Seed
,
as
some
have
done
,
and
this
Man
seems
to
do
;
is
a
great
abuse
of
the
Sacred
Text.
For
this
would
be
to
set
up
another
wall
of
separation
or
partition
betwixt
(
believers
and
their
seed
,
and
unbelievers
and
their
Seed
,
)
as
the
Old
one
wa●
,
which
is
now
broken
down
between
Jews
and
Gentiles
according
to
Eph.
2.
14
,
15.
as
also
a
knowing
of
Men
after
the
Flesh
,
i.
e.
after
fleshly
Descent
,
external
Priviledges
,
&c.
2.
The
first
Fruit
spoken
of
we
understand
to
refer
to
Isaac
,
Jacob
,
and
the
Holy
Partriachs
,
who
were
given
to
Abraham
as
the
first
Fruit
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
him
,
who
were
all
Holy
as
Abraham
,
their
Root
was
Holy
,
that
is
,
Spiritually
and
Inherently
Holy.
3.
By
the
Lump
may
be
meant
the
whole
Body
of
the
Elect
or
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
who
lived
from
the
time
the
first
Fruit
was
given
him
until
the
Gospel
Days
,
who
were
all
Holy
as
the
Root
also
.
By
Lump
cannot
be
intended
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
as
Mr.
Shute
positively
affirms
,
in
Page
82.
for
it
so
,
what
consistency
can
there
be
in
the
Apostles
words
and
Argument
?
The
Apostle
speaks
of
the
Elect
Israel
,
not
of
the
fleshly
and
Carnal
Israel
;
take
this
Mans
words
the
first
Fruit
the
Jews
,
&c.
the
Lump
or
whole
Nation
of
them
;
and
here
is
the
same
Root
,
on
which
the
Gentiles
are
grassed
,
Page
82.
He
confounds
the
first
Fruit
and
Lump
together
,
and
says
by
it
is
meant
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
.
What
Text
can
be
wronged
worse
?
We
grant
't
is
the
same
Root
that
all
Gentile
believers
partake
of
the
fatness
of
which
the
godly
Jews
pertook
of
under
the
Law
,
viz.
the
Blessings
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
the
Root
Abraham
;
but
what
is
this
to
our
Carnal
Seed
as
such
?
4.
By
the
Branches
who
are
said
to
be
Holy
also
,
certainly
is
to
be
understood
those
Elect
ones
of
Israel
who
were
living
in
the
Apostles
Days
,
as
vers
.
5.
even
so
then
at
this
time
also
there
is
a
Remnant
according
to
the
Election
of
Grace
.
Now
observe
the
Apostle
speaks
,
in
vers
.
17.
of
some
Branches
that
were
broken
off
,
and
of
the
Gentiles
who
were
like
a
Wild
Olive
Tree
,
being
grassed
in
;
these
Branches
that
were
broken
off
,
were
the
unbelieving
Jews
,
who
at
that
time
comprehended
the
whole
national
Church
of
Israel
;
for
all
that
believed
that
were
Jews
,
were
transplanted
into
the
Gospel
Church
,
these
Branches
that
were
broken
off
sprang
from
the
same
Root
as
Abraham
,
was
their
Father
according
to
the
Flesh
and
Legal
Covenant
,
and
for
a
time
seemed
true
Branches
,
they
were
of
Israel
,
though
not
Israel
,
Rom.
9.
6.
they
were
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
but
not
the
Children
of
the
promise
,
they
were
in
the
external
Covenant
,
but
being
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
by
Faith
,
and
the
Old
Covenant
being
now
gone
and
taken
away
,
they
were
cut
off
and
no
more
lookt
upon
as
Branches
in
any
sense
.
They
were
Branches
in
the
Old
Testament
Church
,
but
there
is
a
new
will
made
,
a
new
and
last
Testament
confirmed
,
and
ratifie
by
the
Death
of
the
Testatour
Jesus
Christ
,
and
the
fleshly
Seed
as
such
have
no
such
legacy
,
left
them
as
in
the
Old
Testament
,
viz.
to
be
Members
of
the
New
Testament
Church
,
that
running
to
none
but
to
such
who
believe
,
&c.
but
they
not
believing
,
or
for
their
unbelief
were
cut
or
broken
off
.
1.
Not
broken
off
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
as
Mr.
Shute
intimates
,
because
they
never
were
in
that
Covenant
.
2.
Not
broken
off
Gods
Election
,
for
to
that
they
did
not
belong
:
But
,
3ly
.
They
were
broken
off
and
their
Children
as
such
(
or
as
so
considered
)
so
that
they
are
no
more
a
visible
Church
of
God
,
nor
a
People
in
any
Covenant
relation
to
him
.
Yet
we
are
not
to
conceive
although
those
unbelieving
Jews
were
in
this
Sense
,
broken
off
from
their
old
standing
and
Church
state
that
their
Children
who
believed
were
rejected
and
lost
,
no
,
no
;
they
that
did
believe
in
Christ
and
submit
to
the
new
dispensation
,
were
by
Faith
grafted
into
Christ
,
and
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
were
united
also
to
the
Gospel
Church
and
became
members
thereof
.
And
so
with
the
believing
Gentiles
did
partake
of
the
fatness
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
,
and
of
the
Blessings
and
Priviledges
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
and
doubtless
this
is
the
very
truth
of
the
matter
according
to
the
main
Scope
and
design
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
in
this
Chapter
:
Now
then
Mr.
Shute
greatly
wrongs
this
place
of
Sacred
Scripture
.
1.
Whilst
he
argues
that
the
Jews
were
broken
off
from
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
2.
He
wrongs
the
Text
,
whilst
he
says
it
was
no
dissolution
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
but
an
excommunication
of
those
unbelieving
Persons
out
of
it
,
by
which
he
intimates
as
if
the
Jewish
Church
state
still
remains
,
and
that
the
believing
Gentiles
are
grafted
into
that
old
Legal
Church
that
is
removed
and
gone
for
ever
.
3.
He
wrongs
this
Text
,
whilst
he
would
have
all
unbelievers
Children
of
the
Jews
,
broken
off
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
for
to
that
he
seems
to
refer
:
For
those
of
them
that
were
in
it
were
not
broken
off
from
that
Covenant
nor
could
be
;
and
those
of
the
Jewish
Children
,
that
believed
,
were
in
the
like
good
Estate
with
believing
Gentiles
,
and
their
believing
Children
;
and
many
of
the
Children
of
the
unbelieving
Jews
did
no
doubt
own
Jesus
Christ
,
believe
in
him
,
and
were
implanted
into
the
Gospel
Church
.
4.
Whilst
he
pleads
for
believing
Getiles
and
their
Infants
,
as
such
,
to
be
taken
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
so
made
Members
of
the
Church
of
Christ
now
,
as
the
Children
of
the
Jews
were
Members
of
the
Church
,
under
the
Law
;
for
this
he
affirms
Page
81
,
82.
5.
Whilst
he
applies
the
Holiness
and
Infection
here
meant
,
to
outward
Dispensation
,
only
in
the
visible
Church
,
which
is
meant
of
saving
Grace
in
the
invisible
.
6.
Whilst
he
makes
every
believing
Parent
a
like
root
to
his
posterity
with
Abraham
to
his
Seed
,
he
may
as
well
say
every
believer
is
a
common
Father
,
to
all
that
believe
,
as
Abraham
was
—
For
both
these
Conclusions
I
infer
from
his
notion
.
1.
Reader
,
Pray
observe
,
that
the
Jews
that
believed
not
,
were
broken
off
from
being
any
more
the
People
of
God
,
in
any
Covenant
relation
to
him
,
and
this
was
for
their
unbelief
,
and
their
Church
State
being
gone
by
the
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
,
and
by
the
bringing
in
the
Gospel
Church
.
2.
That
whosoever
either
Jews
or
Gentiles
who
are
grafted
into
Christ
the
true
Olive
,
and
into
the
Gospel
Church
,
must
believe
or
be
grafted
in
by
Faith
,
i.
e.
by
their
own
Faith
and
own
consent
,
not
by
the
Faith
of
their
Parent
be
made
Members
of
the
Church
under
the
Gospel
;
no
,
but
must
believe
themselves
as
well
as
their
Parents
;
't
is
not
enough
now
to
say
we
have
Abraham
to
our
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
o●
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
they
are
not
able
to
help
him
,
&c.
Doth
Mr.
Collins
question
Gods
power
,
or
intimate
God
cannot
work
,
without
help
of
the
Creature
?
2.
That
he
doth
tacitly
declare
that
God
is
not
able
to
make
them
capable
of
the
Reception
of
Grace
.
Because
they
are
not
of
years
to
exercise
i●
,
as
if
Mr
Collins
did
not
know
God
was
infinite
in
power
.
3.
That
Adult
persons
do
qualifie
themselves
for
the
reception
of
Grace
;
or
at
leastwise
are
Copartners
with
the
Spirit
of
Grace
,
in
the
working
of
it
.
4.
If
this
be
so
,
saith
he
,
then
it
is
not
Gods
Grace
,
but
Mans
work
,
&c.
Which
are
all
false
Conclusions
and
great
abuses
cast
on
Mr.
Collins
,
and
no
ways
to
be
inferred
from
his
positions
.
In
Page
73.
he
renders
the
Baptists
to
be
cunning
deceivers
,
take
his
words
,
i.
e.
I
am
not
,
saith
he
,
all
together
ignorant
of
their
devices
,
and
stratagems
by
which
they
uphold
their
opinion
,
in
which
their
Principles
are
enveloped
and
lie
Dormant
.
In
Page
115.
he
says
,
Benjamine
Keach
doth
reckon
Abraham
of
greater
antiquity
than
Christ.
Answer
,
This
is
a
false
charge
likewise
,
and
no
such
consequence
can
be
gathered
from
my
words
,
to
which
he
refers
,
as
my
Answer
shews
in
this
reply
.
In
Page
126.
he
saith
,
this
Author
is
for
the
saving
Elect
Dying
Infants
by
some
other
Covenant
,
and
not
by
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Answer
,
This
is
also
false
and
a
great
abuse
,
for
I
no
where
hint
any
such
thing
,
but
say
,
't
is
impossible
any
Infant
or
Adult
Person
either
should
be
saved
by
any
other
Covenant
but
that
tho'
I
say
they
may
be
saved
and
not
be
Members
of
the
visible
Church
;
as
some
Infants
were
before
God
made
known
,
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
and
set
up
the
legal
Church
of
Israel
.
In
Page
134.
he
calls
our
Doctrin
a
fallacious
Doctrin
;
and
knows
not
which
to
wonder
at
most
,
viz.
our
boldness
and
confidence
:
Or
our
Peoples
ignorance
to
be
so
horribly
deluded
and
imposed
upon
.
What
Enemy
could
reproach
us
worse
?
In
Page
113.
saith
he
,
Thus
I
have
given
you
one
broad
side
more
,
by
which
I
have
brought
your
opinion
by
the
Lee
,
and
all
the
Carpenters
and
Calkers
in
the
Nation
cannot
save
it
from
sinking
.
Answer
,
Friend
you
mistake
our
,
cause
,
and
opinion
is
an
firm
and
as
sound
as
ever
,
and
needs
no
Carpenters
nor
Calkers
to
mend
those
Breaches
you
have
made
.
In
Page
140.
he
says
,
Thus
you
see
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
and
all
his
Seed
both
Spiritual
and
Carnal
,
stands
fact
and
firm
to
Gospel
Believers
,
and
all
their
Seed
both
Spiritual
and
Carnal
;
notwithstanding
Hercules
with
his
Club
and
Benjamin
hewed
it
with
his
broad
Ax
,
they
cannot
destroy
it
,
because
it
is
an
everlasting
Covenant
.
1.
Answer
,
Are
these
Savoury
expressions
?
my
Ax
Friend
,
is
Gods
word
;
the
Title
of
that
Book
was
the
words
of
the
Text
,
viz.
the
Ax
laid
at
the
Root
,
and
this
Ax
will
cut
down
all
your
Thorns
and
Briers
,
do
what
you
can
.
2.
How
he
hath
proved
that
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
and
his
Carnal
Seed
as
such
,
doth
remain
,
let
the
Reader
now
Judg.
3
How
came
(
if
this
be
so
)
Abraham's
natural
Seed
to
be
unchurched
as
he
himself
confesses
in
,
Page
37.
nay
that
they
unchurched
themselves
.
In
his
Postscript
,
Page
190.
he
says
,
tho
he
has
thus
written
concerning
the
Anabaptists
,
and
proved
their
Congregations
to
be
no
Churches
,
and
their
Baptism
to
be
a
counterfeit
,
and
their
Opinion
Sacrilegious
,
in
that
they
Rob
the
Church
of
her
treasure
,
&c.
—
These
are
very
hard
words
,
and
also
false
;
for
he
has
not
done
what
he
says
,
and
never
will
,
nor
can
he
do
it
.
An
Account
of
some
of
Mr.
Shute's
Impertinences
,
Inconsistences
and
Self-contradictions
.
IN
the
last
place
take
a
few
of
his
Impertinences
,
&c.
In
Page
49.
If
you
can
prove
,
saith
he
,
by
plain
Scripture
Testimony
that
ever
Christ
or
any
of
his
Apostles
,
&c.
did
forbid
the
Baptising
the
infant
Seed
of
Believers
,
&c.
Answer
,
Now
how
impertinent
is
this
?
Where
did
Christ
forbid
Infants
of
Believers
,
the
Lords
Supper
?
and
indeed
they
may
have
that
as
well
as
Baptism
,
and
the
first
Fathers
that
established
Infant
Baptism
,
gave
them
the
Lords
Supper
also
:
2.
Where
is
crossing
in
Baptism
forbid
,
or
Popists
Salt
Spittle
,
or
Crisom
or
other
Popish
rites
?
These
in
plain
words
are
not
forbid
,
are
they
therefore
lawful
?
If
Christ
would
have
them
to
be
Baptized
,
it
would
have
been
expressed
in
the
affirmative
;
and
is
this
horribly
to
impose
our
own
uncouth
notions
as
you
affirm
in
the
said
49.
Page
of
your
Book
?
Where
hath
Christ
forbid
Baptizing
of
Turks
,
and
Insidels
,
or
the
Children
of
unbelievers
?
In
Page
98.
he
says
the
Church
of
the
Jews
was
not
a
legal
Church
,
take
his
words
,
viz.
the
Church
of
God
under
the
Mosaick
Law
was
not
a
Carnal
legal
Church
.
Strange
contradiction
!
What
,
a
Church
under
the
Law
and
not
a
legal
Church
?
he
may
as
well
say
the
Church
of
God
under
the
Gospel
,
is
not
a
Gospel
Church
.
In
Page
97.
he
distinguishes
not
on
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
but
positively
asserts
that
off
from
that
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
viz.
The
Covenant
of
Grace
,
some
of
the
natural
Branches
were
broken
;
yet
in
contradiction
to
this
he
shews
,
in
Page
74.
from
Psa.
89.
That
the
Covenant
of
Grace
is
firm
and
abideth
for
ever
,
and
else
where
shews
that
there
's
no
final
falling
from
grace
;
all
those
therefore
say
I
,
that
are
in
that
Covenant
cannot
fail
of
Salvation
;
therefore
those
Branches
never
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
In
Page
25.
he
says
,
God
saves
Elect
dying
Infants
in
no
ways
or
means
differing
in
any
one
point
or
part
from
that
wherein
he
saves
Adult
believers
.
Yet
in
Page
65.
he
owns
Infants
cannot
exercise
grace
in
an
ordinary
way
,
and
that
nothing
is
required
of
them
personally
but
passive
Obedience
.
Is
nothing
required
say
I
,
of
Adult
believers
but
passive
Obedience
?
If
there
is
then
the
way
or
mode
of
Gods
saving
dying
Infants
differs
in
some
part
or
point
from
the
way
or
means
of
saving
the
Adult
;
and
clear
it
is
that
more
than
passive
obedience
is
required
of
Adult
persons
.
One
while
he
says
all
Abrahams
Seed
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
him
,
and
he
denies
final
falling
out
of
that
Covenant
,
yet
in
Page
12.
he
says
,
one
of
Abrahams
Sons
or
Seed
is
praying
to
him
in
Hell
:
And
to
be
Abrahams
Seed
will
not
serve
their
turn
.
He
is
for
a
Congregational
Church
,
and
yet
in
Page
34.
Speaking
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
he
says
,
all
the
Seed
of
believers
are
Members
as
much
now
as
the
Jewish
Children
were
under
the
Law.
And
that
it
is
the
same
Church
State
,
tho'
in
another
dress
,
and
denys
the
dissolution
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
Page
35.
Can
a
natural
Church
consisting
of
whole
Parishes
,
Families
,
and
Provinces
,
be
all
one
with
Gospel
Congregational
Churches
of
believers
only
?
Why
did
this
Man
leave
the
Church
of
England
?
also
then
the
Jewish
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
M●ssi●s
should
come●
;
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
●●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
ma●●ages
,
〈◊〉
some
time
for
a
Mans
Life
,
Exod.
21.
●
.
Deut.
15.
17.
●
King
9.
3.
thus
Mr.
Pools
Annotations
.
This
being
so
,
to
what
purpose
do
you
make
such
a
stir
about
the
word
Everlasting
?
●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
,
Co●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
bec●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
was
a
restipulation
at
their
entrance
into
that
Covenant
with
God
,
so
that
that
was
a
formal
Covenant
,
but
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
he
tells
us
was
no
formal
Covenant
;
but
only
a
free
promise
under
the
old
Testament
.
Therefore
there
was
two
Covenants
held
forth
in
Gods
Transactions
with
Abraham
.
First
a
formal
Covenant
made
with
him
and
all
his
Fleshly
Seed
,
of
which
circumcision
was
a
Sign
at
their
entrance
into
it
,
which
they
thereby
subscribed
unto
.
Secondly
,
The
Covenant
of
Grace
held
forth
only
in
Gods
free
promise
to
him
.
3.
Whilst
the
Church
enjoyed
all
the
Spiritual
benefits
of
the
promise
(
faith
he
)
wherein
the
substance
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
was
contained
,
before
it
was
confirmed
and
made
the
sole
Rule
of
Worship
,
unto
the
Church
,
it
was
not
inconsistent
with
the
Holiness
and
Wisdom
of
God
,
to
bring
any
other
Covenant
(
Mark
it
)
or
prescribe
unto
it
forms
of
Worship
he
pleased
:
Page
228.
Then
he
proceeds
further
.
1.
That
this
Covenant
did
not
(
saith
he
)
disannul
or
make
in
effectual
the
promise
,
but
that
it
doth
still
continue
the
only
means
of
Life
and
Salvation
,
and
that
this
was
so
our
Apostle
proves
at
large
,
Gal.
3.
17
,
18
,
189.
2.
That
this
other
Covenant
with
all
the
worship
contained
in
it
,
or
required
,
by
it
,
did
but
direct
and
lead
unto
the
future
establishment
of
the
promise
,
in
the
solemnity
of
a
Covenant
,
&c.
By
these
words
and
in
other
places
he
shews
,
that
,
that
Covenant
God
made
with
Abrahams
natural
Seed
or
whole
House
of
Israel
,
tho'
it
was
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
:
Yet
it
was
given
in
subserviency
unto
the
Gospel
Covenant
.
3.
These
things
being
observed
,
(
saith
he
,
)
we
may
consider
that
the
Scripture
doth
plainly
and
expresly
make
mention
of
two
Testaments
,
or
Covenants
,
and
distinguishes
between
them
in
such
a
way
,
as
what
is
spoken
cannot
hereby
be
accommodated
unto
a
twofold
Administration
of
the
same
Covenant
;
The
one
is
mentioned
Exod.
20.
Deut
5.
namely
the
Covenant
God
made
with
the
People
of
Israel
,
&c.
The
other
promised
Jer.
31.
31.
Cap.
32.
40.
Which
is
the
new
Gospel
Covenant
as
before
explained
:
And
these
two
Covenants
or
Testaments
are
compared
with
the
other
,
2
Cor.
3.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9
,
Gal.
4.
24
,
25.
Heb.
7
,
22.
Chap.
9.
15
,
16
,
17
,
18.
Page
228.
These
things
being
,
so
it
follows
that
the
Doctor
utterly
overthrows
,
what
Mr.
John
Flavel
and
other
Pedo
Baptists
assert
about
the
Covenant
made
with
the
People
of
Israel
at
Sinai
,
to
which
circumcision
appertained
,
viz.
that
it
was
only
Administration
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
not
a
distinct
Covenant
.
1.
The
Doctor
then
proceeds
in
Page
229.
to
prove
that
the
Covenant
made
with
Israel
according
to
the
Flesh
,
did
not
abrogate
the
Covenant
of
Works
God
made
with
Adam
,
and
substitute
that
in
the
room
of
it
.
2.
But
that
it
revived
,
declared
,
and
expressed
all
the
Commands
of
that
Covenant
in
the
Decalogue
,
that
being
nothing
but
a
Divine
Summary
of
the
Law
written
in
the
Heart
.
—
Says
he
.
3.
It
revived
the
Sanction
of
the
first
Covenant
in
the
curse
or
sentence
of
Death
which
it
denounced
against
all
transgressors
,
Death
was
the
penalty
of
the
transgression
of
the
Covenant
of
works
.
`
So
say
I
,
was
Death
,
the
penalty
of
the
transgression
of
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
;
the
Male-Child
the
Flesh
of
whose
Fore-skin
is
not
cut
off
,
shall
dye
the
Death
;
which
clearly
shews
it
was
of
the
same
nature
of
the
Sinai
Covenant
.
4.
It
revived
the
promise
,
saith
he
,
of
that
Covenant
of
Eternal
Life
,
upon
perfect
obedience
,
Rom.
10.
5.
So
say
I
,
did
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
,
in
that
he
that
was
circumcised
was
bound
to
keep
the
whole
Law
Gal
5.
3.
Now
,
saith
the
Doctor
,
this
is
no
other
but
the
Covenant
of
Works
revieved
;
nor
had
this
Covenant
of
Sinai
any
such
promise
of
Eternal
Life
annexed
to
it
as
such
,
but
only
the
promise
inseparable
from
the
Covenant
of
works
which
is
revieved
,
saying
,
do
this
and
li●ve
.
Hence
,
saith
he
,
when
our
Apostle
disputeth
against
justification
by
the
Law
,
or
by
the
Works
of
the
Law
,
he
doth
not
intend
the
Works
peculiar
,
unto
the
Covenant
of
Sinai
;
such
as
were
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
the
Worship
then
instituted
,
but
he
intends
also
the
Works
of
the
first
Covenant
,
&c.
Let
this
be
well
considered
,
for
't
is
from
hence
Paul
excludes
circumcision
,
Rom.
4.
As
being
a
work
or
duty
opposed
to
Faith
,
and
so
appertaining
to
the
Old
Covenant
.
He
then
proceeds
in
sixteen
particulars
to
prove
that
the
two
Covenants
differ
from
each
other
,
Page
236
,
237
,
&c.
1.
That
they
differ
in
circumstance
.
2.
That
they
differ
in
the
circumstance
of
place
,
Gal
4.
24
,
25.
3.
That
they
differ
in
the
manner
of
their
promulgation
,
4.
In
their
Mediators
.
5.
That
they
differ
in
their
subject
matter
,
both
as
unto
the
Precepts
and
Promises
,
all
sin
forbid
upon
pain
of
Death
,
and
gave
Promise
of
Life
upon
perfect
Obedience
,
no
promise
of
Grace
to
Communicate
Spiritual
strength
to
assist
in
Obedience
.
Had
,
Promises
of
temporal
things
in
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
in
the
New
Covenant
,
saith
he
,
all
things
otherwise
.
6.
That
they
differ
in
the
manner
of
their
Dedication
and
Sanction
,
that
they
differ
in
their
substance
and
end
,
the
old
Covenant
was
Typical
,
Shadowy
&
removable
,
Heb.
10.
1.
That
they
differ
in
their
extent
of
their
Administration
,
the
first
was
confined
unto
the
posterity
of
Abraham
according
to
the
Flesh
,
&c.
excluding
all
others
from
the
participation
of
the
benefits
of
it
.
But
the
Administration
of
the
New
Covenant
is
extended
unto
all
Nations
under
Heaven
.
That
they
differ
in
their
Efficacy
,
the
Old
made
nothing
perfect
,
the
first
Covenant
saith
he
,
became
a
special
Covenant
unto
that
People
,
that
People
were
the
posterity
of
Abraham
,
Page
232.
Sir
,
What
think
you
now
of
two
Covenants
,
and
of
a
Covenant
of
peculiarity
with
Abraham's
Carnal
Seed
?
You
must
consult
your
Ministers
better
before
you
write
again
.
I
doubt
not
but
your
Pastor
is
of
Dr.
Owens
Judgment
in
this
matter
.
In
Page
5.
you
say
,
In
my
last
Book
I
have
clearly
made
out
,
that
whatsoever
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
was
to
himself
and
Seed
both
Spiritual
and
Carnal
that
were
in
the
Covenant
,
is
the
same
now
to
believers
and
all
their
Seed
,
&c.
1.
Answer
,
Then
it
follows
,
that
Abrahams
Carnal
Seed
who
were
ungodly
Persons
,
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
for
circumcision
belonged
to
them
and
their
Male
Children
as
far
forth
as
it
did
appertain
,
to
believers
and
their
Male
Children
who
were
of
his
race
.
2.
It
will
follow
then
also
,
that
we
Gentiles
that
believe
,
and
our
natural
Off-spring
have
the
same
Right
to
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
and
all
other
Priviledges
of
the
Jewish
Church
with
Abrahams
Carnal
Seed
.
There
is
no
ways
to
save
your self
from
the
greatest
absurdities
imaginable
,
without
distinguishing
between
those
two
Covenants
and
the
two
Seeds
,
or
between
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
made
with
Abraham
,
&c.
and
the
promise
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
to
him
,
and
to
all
his
Spiritual
Seed
as
such
.
3ly
That
Christ
should
come
out
of
Abrahams
Loins
according
to
the
Flesh
,
and
of
none
else
was
in
that
Covenant
God
made
with
him
,
and
a
special
part
it
was
,
of
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
,
and
was
that
made
to
the
Gentiles
that
believe
,
or
was
it
not
peculiar
to
Abrahams
Seed
only
according
to
the
Flesh.
4.
Also
when
the
Apostle
speaks
of
the
Gospel
which
God
preached
to
Abraham
,
or
promise
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
he
doth
not
mention
the
Covenant
of
restipulation
in
Gen.
17.
7
,
8
,
9.
But
that
in
Gen.
12.
3.
Chap.
18.
18.
and
Chap.
22.
8.
In
thy
Seed
shall
all
Nations
be
Bless●d
:
Mark
it
well
.
You
say
,
The
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Seed
was
never
Repealed
,
nor
Dissolved
,
nor
their
Church
State
taken
up
by
the
Roots
at
the
coming
in
of
the
Gospel
;
for
if
it
had
,
say
you
,
how
cou●d
the
Blessing
of
Abraham
,
come
upon
the
Gentiles
,
as
promised
Gen.
12.
3.
1.
Answer
,
Is
not
the
Jewish
Church
State
dissolved
,
and
doth
not
Dr.
Owen
tell
you
their
Old
Covenant
is
gone
?
Yet
,
2.
Do
we
say
,
the
promise
of
the
New
Covenant
God
made
to
Abraham
is
dissolved
?
God
forbid
,
for
that
is
unalterable
,
and
by
the
Vertue
of
which
it
is
that
believing
Gentiles
partake
of
the
Blessings
of
Abraham
.
But
Friend
,
the
Gentiles
receive
not
the
Blessings
of
Abraham
through
the
Law
,
nor
through
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
,
but
by
Faith
in
the
Promise
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
,
viz.
in
thy
Seed
shall
all
the
Families
of
the
Earth
be
Blessed
.
Nay
Abraham
himself
,
't
is
evident
,
received
not
that
blessedness
in
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
,
That
Faith
was
reckoned
to
Abraham
for
Righteousness
,
The
Apostle
asserts
Rom.
4.
9.
How
was
it
then
reckoned
?
When
he
was
in
circumcision
,
or
in
uncircumcision
?
Not
in
circumcision
,
but
in
uncircumcision
.
Verse
10.
There
was
no
need
of
this
distinction
,
if
circumcision
appertained
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
we
see
how
't
is
contra-distinguished
to
the
Covenant
of
Faith
:
And
he
received
circumcision
,
a
Seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
Faith
he
had
,
yet
being
uncircumcised
:
That
he
might
be
the
Father
of
all
that
Believe
,
though
they
be
not
circumcised
;
that
righteousness
might
be
imputed
to
them
also
.
From
hence
I
argue
that
circumcision
was
a
Seal
to
none
but
Abraham
.
1.
Because
it
is
said
to
be
a
Seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
Faith
,
Abraham
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
for
so
it
could
not
be
a
Seal
to
others
,
because
they
were
circumcised
before
they
believed
.
2.
Because
also
it
was
to
assure
him
of
that
peculiar
Blessing
and
priviledge
of
being
the
Father
of
all
that
believe
.
—
And
none
had
that
prerogative
but
Abraham
only
.
3.
Take
this
Argument
.
If
Abraham
received
the
Spiritual
Blessing
,
viz.
Righteousness
and
Justification
by
Faith
in
the
promise
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
to
him
,
and
received
not
the
Blessing
of
Righteousness
and
Justification
in
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
;
then
there
were
two
Covenants
contained
in
those
Covenant
,
transactions
of
God
with
Abraham
.
But
the
former
,
and
latter
is
true
.
Ergo
there
were
two
Covenants
contained
in
those
Covenant
transactions
God
made
with
Abraham
.
In
Page
3.
Mr.
Shute
says
,
the
Olive
Tree
or
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
was
not
dissolved
:
For
the
Jews
are
to
be
grafted
into
their
own
Olive
Tree
again
;
but
if
the
Covenant
were
dissolved
and
repealed
,
how
can
they
be
taken
into
it
again
;
for
▪
't
is
called
their
own
Olive
Tree
,
Rom.
11.
11
,
12
,
17.
1.
Answer
This
Man
mistakes
the
Holy
Ghost
:
The
Apostle
speaks
not
of
the
Jews
,
as
being
Abrahams
Carnal
Seed
as
such
,
but
of
th●m
that
belong
to
the
Election
of
Grace
▪
2.
Now
who
doubts
but
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
was
their
Covenant
,
or
Olive
Tree
,
even
all
of
them
that
shall
be
taken
into
it
of
the
Jewish
race
,
in
the
latter
days
,
as
much
as
it
was
their
Covenant
,
who
were
Jews
and
Elect
ones
who
lived
in
the
Apostles
time
.
3.
It
might
be
called
their
Olive
Tree
or
Covenant
,
because
the
Covenant
of
Grace
as
it
was
made
with
Abraham
,
ran
first
to
his
natural
Seed
who
were
the
Children
of
the
promise
,
i.
e.
the
Elect
of
God
;
hence
Christ
said
he
was
not
sent
but
to
the
lost
Sheep
of
the
House
of
Israel
:
That
is
,
not
first
sent
,
they
were
first
to
have
the
offer
of
all
New
Covenant
Grace
and
Blessings
;
to
them
appertained
the
Covenant
and
Adoption
,
&c.
viz.
in
the
first
place
.
4.
Do
we
plead
for
the
dissolution
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
God
made
with
or
promised
to
Abraham
,
because
we
say
the
Legal
and
external
Covenant
made
with
him
and
his
Carnal
Seed
,
as
such
is
removed
,
by
vertue
of
which
they
had
their
political
Church
State
,
and
visible
Church-membership
and
all
other
Fleshly
and
Legal
Priviledges
?
Or
do
we
say
,
those
Jews
that
believed
or
their
Elect
Infants
were
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
God
forbid
.
No
,
for
if
the
Children
of
unbelieving
Jews
did
believe
,
it
shews
they
are
in
covenant
also
.
In
a
word
.
All
that
believe
,
let
them
be
whose
Children
they
will
,
they
are
all
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
:
For
there
is
now
no
difference
,
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
Old
and
young
,
bond
and
free
,
are
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
.
Now
no
knowing
Men
after
the
Flesh
,
i.
e.
upon
the
account
of
Fleshly
or
external
Priviledges
,
by
descent
from
Abraham
according
to
the
Flesh
:
Circumcisioa
nor
uncircumcision
,
availeth
nothing
,
but
a
new
Creature
;
old
things
are
past
away
and
all
things
are
become
new
2.
Cor.
5.
17.
Should
this
Man
object
and
say
,
as
to
Dr.
Owen
he
speaks
of
the
Sinai
Covenant
,
or
the
Covenant
made
with
the
People
of
Israel
,
after
they
came
out
of
Egypt
,
and
not
of
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
.
Answer
,
I
answer
that
it
is
evident
where
Paul
excludes
the
Law
as
not
being
of
Faith
,
nor
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
opposed
unit
,
he
also
excluded
upon
the
same
Foot
of
account
circumcision
,
Rom.
4.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12
,
13
,
14
,
15
,
16.
Gal.
3.
21.
Gal
5.
3.
Rom.
2.
25
,
26
,
27.
Also
Mr.
Sbute
says
,
the
Covenant
,
Deut.
29.
11
,
12
,
13.
is
the
same
G●●
made
with
Abraham
:
Take
his
own
words
●age
17.
note
this
(
saith
he
)
by
the
way
,
he
hath
dropt
the
13.
verse
,
wherein
is
the
explanation
of
the
Covenant
to
be
the
same
God
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Seed
.
Which
verse
doth
indeed
clearly
shew
that
the
Covenant
of
circumcision
was
the
same
(
and
but
a
farther
establishment
of
it
)
with
that
given
in
Horeb
,
thou
shalt
enter
into
Covenant
with
the
Lord
thy
God
,
&c.
viz.
That
he
may
establish
thee
to
day
,
for
a
People
to
himself
,
and
that
he
may
be
unto
thee
aGod
,
as
he
hath
said
unto
thee
,
and
hath
vowed
unto
thy
Fathers
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob.
You
ask
,
What
was
the
personal
actual
sin
which
those
young
Babes
committed
at
the
coming
in
of
the
Gospel
,
that
provoked
God
to
cast
them
out
of
Covenant
?
for
you
do
own
that
the
Seed
of
believers
were
once
in
Covenant
,
and
were
Church-members
;
but
if
you
cannot
prove
what
the
transgression
was
,
then
all
your
arguments
ought
to
be
committed
to
the
custody
of
the
Essex
Jayl
Keeper
thus
Mr.
Shute
.
Answer
,
You
Should
first
prove
it
was
a
gracious
priviledge
to
Babes
or
the
Carnal
Seed
of
Abraham
,
that
they
were
in
the
Legal
Covenant
and
national
Church
of
Israel
,
before
you
ask
that
question
.
The
Apostle
says
not
,
that
circumcision
was
a
Priviledg
,
unless
they
kept
the
Law
,
and
by
it
they
were
obliged
to
keep
it
perfectly
,
and
hence
it
is
called
a
yoke
of
Bondage
.
2.
It
was
not
for
the
Sins
of
little
Babes
,
that
the
Legal
Covenant
and
Legal
Church
was
dissolved
,
at
the
coming
in
of
the
Gospel
:
But
it
was
the
will
and
pleasure
of
God
to
take
that
Covenant
away
,
that
he
might
establish
the
second
and
better
Covenant
.
And
God
it
appears
hath
done
Infants
no
hurt
hereby
,
since
the
promise
of
God
made
to
Abraham
,
touching
Salvation
by
Christ
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
stands
fast
for
ever
,
and
is
brought
in
,
and
established
to
all
the
Elect
,
both
of
Jews
first
;
and
also
of
the
Gentiles
.
True
,
the
unbelieving
Jews
were
cast
off
for
not
believing
,
for
had
they
believed
they
had
pertaken
of
like
Gospel
Grace
with
those
that
did
believe
:
But
the
believing
Jews
and
their
Children
did
no
longer
abide
in
that
national
Church
to
which
they
once
belonged
,
nor
were
their
Children
until
they
believed
,
received
into
the
Gospel
Church
;
yet
I
affirm
that
was
no
Spiritual
loss
to
those
Babes
,
seeing
there
was
no
righteousness
nor
Salvation
to
be
had
by
the
Law
,
Legal
Covenant
,
nor
circumcision
.
Mr.
Collin●
will
not
say
that
believers
and
their
Seed
only
were
in
the
Legal
Covenant
and
in
the
Legal
Church
,
but
all
unbelievers
also
,
and
their
Children
who
sprung
from
Isaacs
Loyns
,
were
in
the
same
Covenant
,
and
were
Church-members
,
and
that
by
Gods
appointment
too
;
as
far
forth
as
were
the
godly
or
believing
Jews
,
and
their
Children
:
And
Friend
,
it
should
appear
that
among
Abrahams
Carnal
Seed
there
were
but
a
very
small
remnant
that
were
believers
;
Tho'
all
were
in
the
Legal
Covenant
then
,
and
where
Churhmembers
.
3.
Say
you
,
You
must
prove
that
the
Gospel
brought
less
Grace
with
it
,
than
the
Abrogated
law
carried
way
.
Answer
,
The
abrogated
Law
had
no
Grace
in
it
at
all
;
Grace
came
not
by
the
Law
,
but
by
Jesus
Christ
;
the
Law
is
not
of
Faith.
4.
Here
(
say
you
,
)
you
confound
●nd
contradict
your self
;
for
you
say
the
Church
is
established
upon
better
promises
,
which
I
do
own
and
have
proved
in
my
Book
,
but
the
Church
State
is
the
same
,
and
therefore
that
of
it self
is
a
sufficient
argument
to
prove
that
all
Children
of
Christian
believers
are
still
in
Covenant
.
Answer
,
Must
the
Carnal
Seed
be
Members
of
the
Gospel-Church
as
under
the
Law
,
or
is
it
else
not
a
better
Covenant
that
God
has
established
?
Friend
,
many
other
external
Priviledges
as
well
as
that
is
gone
,
the
Sons
of
our
Minishers
as
such
,
have
no
right
to
the
Ministry
now
;
yet
all
the
Sons
of
Ministers
as
such
,
had
that
right
under
the
Law
:
Besides
,
we
have
no
Land
of
Canaan
nor
glorious
external
Temple
,
no
promise
of
gathering
earthly
riches
,
no
Political
State
of
Government
among
our selves
;
yet
is
the
Gospel
Church
State
&
Gospel
Covenant
better
than
that
under
the
Law.
An
Account
of
Mr.
Shutes
scurrilous
language
as
to
the
rest
of
this
Sheet
:
I
shall
only
make
some
remarks
on
his
hard
reproachful
and
Opprobrious
words
and
abuse
of
Scripture
.
IN
Page
2.
he
compares
Mr.
Collins
with
the
Jews
,
as
if
his
Arguments
were
of
like
nature
with
theirs
who
said
,
we
have
a
Law
,
and
by
our
●aw
he
ought
to
dye
.
In
Page
5.
You
do
but
beat
the
Air
,
and
Shoot
all
your
Arrows
against
a
Brazen
Wall
,
and
there
is
no
more
Work
for
the
Club
nor
Ax.
Answer
,
He
may
perceive
he
was
mistaken
,
for
the
Ax
hath
not
done
with
him
yet
.
He
in
the
said
5.
Page
abuses
that
Text
,
better
promises
,
these
are
his
words
,
viz.
for
the
promises
are
better
,
and
that
chiefly
because
circumcision
was
changed
for
Baptism
.
Answer
,
Doth
the
Holy
Ghost
there
refer
to
this
change
,
or
is
Baptism
a
promise
or
a
precept
?
He
abuses
that
Text
in
Acts
15.
10.
the
former
(
saith
he
meaning
circumcision
)
wherein
Infants
were
chiefly
concerned
,
was
such
a
Yoke
as
they
nor
their
Fathers
were
able
to
bear
,
they
were
not
able
to
see
their
Childrens
Flesh
cut
off
,
and
we
have
an
Instance
of
this
in
Zipporah
,
what
made
her
in
such
a
passion
with
Moses
her
Husband
,
as
that
she
called
him
a
Bloody
Husband
twice
?
Why
she
tells
you
her self
,
it
was
because
of
the
circumcision
.
Answer
,
In
this
he
seems
to
charge
the
Holy
God
,
who
appointed
and
commanded
circumcision
,
as
if
it
was
more
like
a
punishment
of
criminals
than
an
ordinance
of
God
;
as
he
calls
Di●ping
of
Believers
in
the
Name
,
&c.
2.
Was
it
from
the
pain
that
circumcision
put
the
Infants
to
,
that
the
Apostle
calls
it
a
Yoke
,
that
neither
they
nor
their
Fathers
could
bear
?
or
was
it
not
rather
because
it
lay
them
under
an
obligation
to
keep
the
whole
Law
?
for
our
Apostle
,
so
says
in
Gal.
5.
3.
I
testifie
again
to
every
Man
that
is
circumcised
,
that
he
is
a
debtor
to
do
the
whole
Law
,
compared
with
Rom.
2.
25.
3.
He
abuses
that
Text
Exod.
4.
15
,
16.
Let
him
read
his
Annotators
,
she
called
her
Husband
a
bloody
Husband
or
a
Spouse
of
Blood
,
because
she
by
Blood
as
it
were
,
redeemed
her
Husbands
Life
.
God
being
provoked
against
Moses
,
as
the
14.
verse
shews
,
and
she
prevented
his
danger
by
circumcising
her
Son.
2.
If
she
referr'd
to
circumcision
it self
,
as
he
takes
it
,
yet
she
being
a
Midianitisb
Woman
t●●t
would
not
Justifie
him
,
thus
to
reflect
on
that
Holy
Rite
and
Ordinance
of
God.
In
Page
6.
says
he
,
so
this
question
may
be
sent
to
Essex
among
the
Barren
Jayl
Keepers
.
Is
it
safe
to
Scoff
and
make
a
sport
when
we
write
about
Sacred
things
?
He
also
reflects
upon
the
whole
party
of
the
Baptists
;
as
if
we
were
fallen
from
our
former
Principles
about
humane
learning
.
I
cannot
(
says
he
)
but
observe
how
much
this
People
are
swerved
from
their
first
Principles
:
For
it
is
not
long
since
they
decried
humane
learning
,
and
also
making
a
trade
of
preaching
,
—
But
if
they
can
get
a
few
Shreds
or
broken
fragments
of
learning
,
or
a
learned
Man
on
their
side
,
they
are
ready
to
make
an
Idol
of
it
,
and
now
they
make
a
Trade
of
Preaching
,
Page
16.
&c.
Answer
,
It
appears
't
is
the
whole
party
he
strives
to
bring
into
contempt
:
But
let
him
take
heed
of
belying
so
gracious
a
People
as
the
Adversaries
themselves
confess
them
to
be
;
did
we
ever
decry
humane
learning
,
because
we
believe
and
ever
did
that
it
is
not
an
essential
qualification
in
a
Minister
?
We
are
no
more
for
it
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
poss●ss●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
scu●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
lin●le
an
Antagoni●●
as
this
is
.
●
and
in
reproach
call
some
Arminians
,
Sacinians
,
others
gone
back
to
Judaism
,
some
gormandisers
feasting
on
Legs
of
Muiton
;
in
some
places
reflecting
on
Mens
honest
callings
God
by
his
providence
called
them
once
unto
;
that
our
Doctrin
damns
Infants
,
&c.
whether
these
Speeches
he
ought
not
publickly
to
acknowledg
as
evil
?
Is
not
this
as
bad
as
to
call
his
Brother
Raca
,
i.
e.
a
vain
person
in
anger
or
malice
.
Cant
Men
write
upon
controversible
points
without
such
bitterness
,
and
reviling
language
?
I
desire
Friend
,
you
would
go
to
God
in
Prayer
,
and
intreat
for
pardon
through
Christs
Blood
,
and
no
longer
rest
in
such
a
Spirit
and
practice
:
Christ
is
at
the
Door
,
take
heed
of
smiting
your
fellow
Servant
.
But
should
you
instead
of
answering
our
arguments
proceed
still
after
the
same
manner
,
we
shall
find
out
another
way
to
deal
with
you
,
viz.
Bring
our
Charge
against
you
for
Right
and
Justice
to
the
Congregation
you
belong
unto
:
The
Lord
send
,
and
increase
Love
and
Charity
among
his
People
,
and
unite
them
together
in
one
Spirit
,
which
he
will
suddenly
do
and
wipe
off
our
reproach
;
to
whom
be
glory
and
praise
for
ever
and
ever
,
Amen
.
ERRATA
.
IN
Page
5.
line
7.
for
Burkie
read
Burkit
p.
8.
l.
20.
blot
out
Blood
,
p.
16.
l.
37.
f.
contained
r.
contrived
,
p.
19.
l.
28.
f.
Comma
,
r.
Period
.
Also
in
several
other
Places
you
will
find
false
Pointing
or
Stops
.
P.
22.
blot
out
the
comma
in
l.
21
,
22
,
23
,
24
,
25.
they
being
this
Authors
words
;
p.
27.
l.
10.
add
Gen.
17.
8
,
9.
there
begins
the
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
.
p.
32.
l.
29.
f.
purity
r.
parity
,
p.
38.
l.
3.
f.
usurp'd
r.
absur'd
,
p.
39.
l.
18.
f.
ratifie
r.
ratified
,
p.
41.
l.
39.
f.
have
r.
have
had
,
p.
42.
l.
3.
f.
tho'
r.
the
,
p.
29.
l.
31.
add
as
to
outward
dispensation
,
p.
43.
l.
1.
f.
Natural
Church
r.
National
.
FINIS
.
POSTSCRIPT
,
Containing
several
Arguments
(
to
disprove
Pedo-Baptism
,
and
to
prove
Believers
only
the
Subjects
thereof
:
)
For
Mr.
Gyles
Shute
to
Answer
.
Friend
,
IF
you
will
not
desist
but
write
again
,
you
are
desired
to
answer
these
Arguments
,
the
stress
of
the
Controversy
lying
in
them
.
Arg.
1.
If
none
are
to
be
baptized
by
the
Authority
of
the
great
Commission
of
our
Blessed
Saviour
,
Matth.
28.
but
such
who
are
first
made
Disciples
by
being
taught
;
than
Infants
,
who
are
not
capable
to
be
taught
,
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
But
none
a●e
to
be
baptized
by
the
Authority
of
the
great
Commission
of
our
Blessed
Saviour
,
but
such
who
are
first
made
Disciples
by
Teaching
.
Ergo
,
Little
Babes
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
Arg.
2.
If
Infant-Baptism
was
never
instituted
,
commanded
,
or
appointed
of
God
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
But
Infant-Baptism
was
never
instituted
,
commanded
,
or
appointed
of
God.
Ergo
,
They
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
As
to
the
Major
;
If
one
thing
may
be
practised
as
an
Ordinance
without
an
Institution
or
Command
of
God
,
another
thing
may
also
;
so
any
Innovation
may
be
let
into
the
Church
.
As
to
the
Minor
;
If
there
is
an
Institution
for
it
,
&c.
't
is
either
contained
in
the
great
Commission
,
Matth.
28.
Mark
16.
or
somewhere
else
.
But
't
is
not
to
be
found
in
the
Commission
,
nor
any
where
else
.
Ergo.
The
Major
none
will
deny
.
The
Minor
I
prove
thus
.
None
are
to
be
baptized
by
virtue
of
the
Commission
,
but
such
who
are
discipled
by
the
Word
,
as
I
said
before
,
and
so
the
Greek
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
.
If
any
should
say
,
Christ
commanded
his
Disciples
to
baptize
all
Nations
,
and
Infants
are
part
of
Nations
,
therefore
are
to
be
baptized
.
I
answer
;
Arg.
3.
If
all
Nations
,
or
any
in
the
Nations
ought
to
be
baptized
before
discipled
;
then
Turks
,
Pagans
,
Unbelievers
and
their
Children
may
be
baptized
,
because
they
are
a
great
part
of
the
Nations
.
But
Turks
,
Pagans
and
Unbelievers
,
and
their
Children
,
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
Ergo.
Besides
that
,
Teaching
(
by
the
Authority
of
the
Commission
)
must
go
before
Baptizing
,
we
have
proved
;
which
generally
al●
Learned
Men
do
assert
:
if
the
Institution
is
to
be
found
any
where
else
,
they
must
shew
the
Place
.
Arg.
4.
Faith
and
Repentance
are
required
of
all
that
ought
to
be
baptized
.
Infants
are
not
required
to
believe
and
repent
,
nor
are
they
capable
so
to
do
.
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
The
Major
is
clear
,
Acts
2
,
8
,
10
,
16
Chapters
;
and
't
is
also
asserted
by
the
Church
of
England
.
What
is
required
of
Persons
to
be
baptized
?
that
's
the
Question
.
The
Answer
is
,
Repentance
,
whereby
they
forsake
Sin
,
and
Faith
,
whereby
they
stedfastly
believe
the
Promise
of
God
made
to
them
in
that
Sacrament
.
The
Minor
cannot
be
denied
.
Arg.
5.
That
Practice
that
tends
not
to
the
Glory
of
God
,
nor
to
the
Profit
of
the
Child
,
when
done
,
nor
in
after-times
when
grown
up
,
but
may
prove
hurtful
and
of
a
dangerous
Nature
to
him
,
ca●●c●
be
a
Truth
of
God.
But
the
Practice
of
Infant-Baptism
tends
not
to
the
Glory
of
God
▪
nor
to
the
Profit
of
the
Child
when
baptized
,
nor
in
after-times
when
grown
up
,
but
may
prove
hurtful
and
of
a
dangerous
Nature
to
him
.
Ergo.
See
Levit.
10.
1
,
2.
where
Moses
told
Aaron
,
because
his
Sons
had
done
that
which
God
commanded
them
not
,
that
God
would
be
sanctified
〈◊〉
all
that
drew
〈◊〉
unto
him
;
intimating
,
that
such
who
did
that
which
God
commanded
not
,
did
not
sanctify
or
glorify
God
therein
.
Can
God
be
glorified
by
Man's
Disobedience
,
or
by
adding
to
his
Word
;
by
doing
that
which
God
hath
not
required
?
Matth.
16.
9.
In
vain
do
you
worship
me
,
teaching
for
Doctrine
the
Commandments
of
Men
:
and
that
that
Practice
doth
profit
the
Child
,
none
can
prove
from
God's
Word
:
And
in
after-times
when
grown
up
,
it
may
cause
the
Person
to
think
he
was
thereby
made
a
Christian
,
&c.
and
brought
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
had
it
sealed
to
him
,
nay
,
thereby
regenerated
,
and
that
Infants
are
thereby
ingrafted
also
into
Christ's
Church
.
Sure
all
understanding
Men
know
Baptism
of
Believers
is
not
called
Regeneration
,
but
only
metonymically
,
it
being
a
Figure
of
Regeneration
.
But
they
ignorantly
affirm
also
,
that
Infants
then
have
a
federal
Holiness
;
as
if
this
imagined
Holiness
comes
in
by
the
Child's
Covenant
in
Baptism
,
which
may
prove
hurtful
and
dangerous
to
them
,
and
cause
them
to
think
Baptism
confers
Grace
,
which
is
a
great
Error
.
How
can
Water
,
saith
Mr.
Charnock
,
an
external
thing
,
work
upon
the
Soul
physically
?
Nor
can
it
,
saith
he
,
be
proved
,
that
ever
the
Spirit
of
God
is
tied
by
any
Promise
,
to
apply
himself
to
the
Soul
in
a
gracious
Operation
,
when
Water
is
applied
to
the
Body
:
If
it
were
so
,
then
all
that
were
baptized
were
regenerated
,
then
all
that
were
baptized
should
be
saved
,
or
else
the
Doctrine
of
Perseverance
falls
to
the
Ground
.
Some
indeed
,
says
he
,
say
,
that
Regeration
is
conferred
in
Baptism
upon
the
Elect
,
and
exerts
it self
afterwards
in
Conversion
.
But
how
so
active
a
Principle
as
a
spiritual
Life
should
lie
dead
and
asleep
so
many
Years
,
&c.
is
not
easily
conceived
.
On
Regen
.
p.
75.
Arg.
6.
If
the
Church
of
England
says
,
that
Faith
and
Repentance
are
required
of
all
that
ought
to
be
baptized
,
and
in
so
saying
,
speak
truly
,
and
yet
Infants
can't
perform
those
things
;
then
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
But
the
Church
of
England
says
,
that
Faith
and
Repentance
are
required
of
all
such
,
&c.
and
speak
truly
,
and
yet
Infants
cannot
perform
these
things
.
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
Object
.
If
it
be
objected
,
That
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
●xample
,
theirs
is
to
be
re●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
E●●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
ad●●●●
of
Consequences
and
Inferences
if
genuine
,
yet
no●
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
,
●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
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
Rabbi●s
differed
among
themselves
also
about
it
:
for
,
saith
he
,
Rabbi
Eli●zer
expresly
contradicts
Rabbi
Joshua
,
who
▪
was
the
first
I
know
of
who
asserted
this
sort
of
Baptism
among
the
Jews
:
For
Eli●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
Command
from
God
so
to
do
,
as
Abraham
had
.
This
being
true
,
it
follows
,
that
if
we
should
grant
Infants
of
believing
.
Gentiles
,
as
such
,
were
the
Seed
of
Abraham
(
which
we
deny
)
yet
unless
God
had
commanded
them
to
baptize
their
Children
,
they
ought
not
to
do
it
;
and
if
they
do
it
without
a
Command
or
Authority
from
Christ
,
it
will
be
found
an
Act
of
Will-Worship
in
them
.
Arg.
19.
All
that
were
baptized
in
the
Apostolical
Primitive
Times
,
were
baptized
upon
the
Profession
of
Faith
,
were
baptized
into
Christ
,
and
thereby
put
on
Christ
,
and
were
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
were
Abraham's
Seed
and
Heirs
,
according
to
Promise
.
But
Infants
,
as
such
,
who
are
baptized
,
were
not
baptized
upon
the
Profession
of
their
Faith
,
nor
did
they
put
on
Christ
thereby
,
nor
are
they
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
also
are
not
Abraham's
Seed
and
Heirs
according
to
Promise
.
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
Mr.
Baxter
confirms
the
Substance
of
the
Major
.
These
are
his
very
Words
,
●
.
●
.
As
many
as
have
been
baptized
●iv●
put
on
Christ
,
and
are
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
;
and
are
Abraham's
Seed
,
and
Heirs
▪
according
to
the
Promis●
,
Gal.
3.
27
,
28
,
20.
This
speaks
the
Apostle
,
saith
he
,
of
the
Probability
grounded
on
a
credible
Profession
,
&c.
Baxter's
Confirm
Reconcil
.
pag.
32.
The
Minor
will
stand
firm
till
any
can
prove
Infants
by
a
visible
Profession
have
put
on
Christ
,
are
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
are
Abraham's
Seed
and
Heirs
according
to
Promise
:
Evident
it
is
,
none
are
the
spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
but
such
who
have
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
and
are
truly
grafted
into
Christ
,
by
a
Saving-Faith
.
If
any
object
,
We
read
of
some
who
were
baptized
,
who
had
no
Saving-Faith
,
but
were
Hypocrites
.
I
answer
;
Had
they
appeared
to
be
such
,
they
had
not
been
baptized
,
nor
had
they
a
true
Right
thereto
.
Arg.
20.
Baptism
is
the
solemnizing
of
the
Souls
Marriage-Union
with
Christ
,
which
Marriage-Contract
absolutely
requires
an
actual
Profession
of
consent
.
Infants
are
not
capable
to
enter
into
▪
a
Marriage-Union
with
Christ
,
no●
to
make
a
Profession
of
Consent
.
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
The
Major
our
Opposits
generally
grant
,
particularly
see
what
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
Our
Baptism
is
the
solemni●ing
of
our
Marriage
with
Christ.
These
are
his
Words
,
p.
32.
The
Minor
none
can
deny
:
No
Man
sure
in
his
right
Mind
,
will
assert
that
little
Babes
are
capable
to
enter
into
a
Marriage-Relation
with
Christ
,
and
to
make
a
Profession
of
a
Consent
:
And
the
Truth
is
,
he
in
the
next
Words
gives
away
his
Cause
,
viz.
And
't
is
,
saith
he
,
a
new
and
strange
kind
of
Marriage
,
where
there
is
no
Profession
of
Consent
;
p.
32.
How
unhappy
was
this
Man
to
plead
for
such
a
n●w
and
strange
kind
of
Marriage
:
Did
he
find
any
little
Babe
he
ever
baptized
(
or
rather
rantize●
)
to
make
a
Profession
of
Consent
to
be
married
to
Jesus
Christ.
If
any
should
object
,
he
speaks
of
the
Baptism
of
the
Adult
.
I
answer
,
his
Words
are
these
,
`
Our
Baptism
is
,
&c.
Besides
,
will
any
Pedo-Baptist
say
,
that
the
Baptism
of
the
Adult
is
the
solemnizing
of
the
Souls
Marriage
with
Christ
,
and
not
the
Baptism
of
Infants
.
Reader
,
observe
how
our
Opposits
are
forced
sometimes
to
speak
the
Truth
,
●●ough
it
overthrows
their
own
Practice
of
Pedo-Baptism
.
Arg.
21.
If
the
Sins
of
no
Persons
are
forgiven
them
till
they
are
converted
,
then
they
must
not
be
baptized
for
the
Forgiveness
of
them
,
till
they
pro●ess
themselves
to
be
converted
;
but
the
Sins
of
no
Persons
are
forgiven
them
till
they
are
converted
.
Ergo
,
No
Person
ought
to
be
baptized
for
the
Forgiveness
of
them
,
till
they
pro●ess
they
are
converted
.
Mr.
Baxter
in
the
said
Treatise
lays
down
the
Substance
of
this
Argument
also
,
take
his
own
Words
,
i.
e.
As
their
Sins
are
not
forgiven
them
till
they
are
converted
,
Mark
4.
12.
so
they
must
not
be
baptized
for
the
Forgiveness
of
them
,
till
they
pro●ess
themselves
converted
,
seeing
to
the
Church
,
non
esse
,
and
non-appare●●
is
all
one
.
Repentance
towards
God
,
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
is
the
Sum
of
that
Preaching
that
makes
Disciples
,
Acts
20.
21.
Therefore
,
saith
he
,
both
these
must
by
a
Profession
seem
to
be
received
,
before
any
at
Age
are
baptized
;
p.
30.
31.
And
evident
it
is
,
say
I
,
from
hence
none
but
such
at
Age
ought
to
be
baptized
.
Philip
caused
the
E●●ugh
to
profess
before
he
would
baptize
him
,
that
he
believed
that
Jesus
Christ
is
the
Son
of
God.
Saul
had
also
,
saith
he
,
more
than
a
bare
Profession
before
Baptism
,
Acts
9.
5
,
15
,
17.
p.
28.
The
Promise
it self
,
saith
he
doth
expresly
require
a
Faith
of
our
own
,
of
all
the
Adult
that
will
have
part
in
the
Priviledges
:
therefore
there
is
a
Faith
of
our
own
,
that
is
the
Condition
of
our
Title
;
M●●k
16.
16.
p.
16.
He
might
have
added
by
the
Fo●●●
of
his
Argument
;
therefore
Infants
should
not
have
the
Priviledges
:
for
●
argue
thus
,
〈…〉
Arg.
2●
.
If
there
is
but
one
Baptism
of
Water
le●t
by
Jesus
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
but
one
Condition
or
Manner
of
Right
thereto
▪
and
that
one
Baptism
is
that
of
the
Adult
;
then
Infant-Baptism
is
no
Baptism
of
Christ.
But
there
is
but
one
Baptism
,
in
Water
lest
by
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
but
one
Condition
and
Manner
of
Right
thereto
,
and
that
one
Baptism
is
that
of
the
Adult
.
Ergo
,
Infant-Baptism
is
no
Baptism
of
Christ.
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
Faith
and
Repentance
is
the
Condition
of
the
Adult
,
and
as
to
any
other
Condition
,
I
am
sure
the
Scripture
is
silent
;
the
Way
of
the
Lord
is
one
,
one
Lord
,
one
Faith
,
one
Baptism
,
Ephes.
4.
4.
If
Profession
of
Faith
were
not
necessary
,
saith
Mr.
Baxter
,
coram
Ecclesiâ
,
to
Church-Membership
and
Priviledges
,
then
Infidels
and
Heathens
would
have
Right
;
also
,
saith
he
,
the
Church
and
the
World
would
be
consounded
.
He
might
have
added
,
but
Infidels
and
Heathens
have
no
Right
to
Church-Membership
,
&c.
Ergo
,
'T
is
a
granted
Case
among
all
Christians
,
saith
he
,
that
Profession
is
thus
necessary
,
the
Apostles
and
Ancient
Church
admitted
none
without
it
;
pag.
2●
.
And
if
so
,
why
dare
any
now
a
days
admit
of
Infants
,
who
are
capable
to
make
no
Profession
.
He
adds
,
Y●●
Christ
in
his
Commission
directeth
his
Apostles
to
make
Disciples
,
and
t●en
baptize
them
,
promising
,
He
that
believeth
,
and
is
baptized
,
shall
be
saved
,
Mark
16.
16.
pag.
27.
Furthermore
he
saith
,
I●
as
many
as
are
baptized
into
Christ
,
are
baptized
into
his
Death
,
and
are
buried
with
him
by
Baptism
into
Death
;
that
like
as
Christ
was
raised
from
the
Dead
,
so
we
also
,
should
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
,
&c.
Then
no
doubt
,
saith
he
,
but
such
as
were
to
be
baptized
,
did
first
profess
this
Mortification
,
and
a
Consent
to
be
buried
,
&c.
I●
our
Baptism
we
put
off
the
Body
of
the
Sins
of
the
Flesh
,
by
the
Circumcision
of
Christ
,
being
buried
with
him
,
and
raised
with
him
through
Faith
,
quickned
with
him
,
and
having
all
our
Trespasses
forgiven
,
Col.
2.
11
,
12
,
13.
And
will
any
Man
(
says
he
)
ye●
,
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
In●●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
o●●e●
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
,
Infan●s
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
If
any
should
say
,
why
did
you
not
cite
these
Assertions
of
Mr.
B●●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
,
●o
which
he
gave
no
Answer
.
Arg.
24.
If
there
is
but
●ne
way
for
all
,
both
Parents
and
Children
to
be
ad●i●●●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
Par●●●s
and
Children
must
upon
the
Profession
of
their
Faith
be
baptized
,
and
so
admitted
,
&c.
But
there
is
but
one
way
for
all
,
bo●●
Pa●e●●●
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
,
〈…〉
●e
●
lively
Representation
of
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
,
together
with
our
Death
〈◊〉
S●●
,
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
●en●●
to
〈…〉
the
glorious
end
and
design
of
Christ
〈…〉
of
Gospel
Baptism
Ergo.
The
M●●●●
will
now
〈…〉
.
As
to
the
M
〈…〉
,
all
generally
con●●●●
the
End
or
Design
of
Christ
i●
〈…〉
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
was
in
a
lively
Fig●●e
,
to
repres●●●
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
l●●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
●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
.