A Counter-Antidote, Chapter 5
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 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis, 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 'tis 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 'tis impossible for any to be broken off from the Covenant of Grace, who were once in that; and 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis 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; 'tis 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 'tis 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. 'tis 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 'tis 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 Churchfellowship, 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, 'tis 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 theres 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.