That the Covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai, is the very same Covenant of Works made with Adam in Innocency, [Page 11] P. 122. and divers other places of your Book the very same.

Secondly, you affirm with like Con­fidence, That the Covenant of Circum­cision is also the same, viz. The Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise.

Argument I.

If Circumcision be a part of the Cere­monial Law, and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood; and whatso­ever is so dedicated, is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of works; then Circumcision is no part of the Cove­nant of works, even by your own con­fession. But it is so, Ergo.

That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law, was never doubted or denied by any Man: That it was dedicated by Blood, and therefore no part of the Moral Law, you your self not only ac­knowledge, but vehemently plead for it, Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedg­wick with some Sharpness, and unbe­coming Reflection, for making no di­stinction betwixt the Ceremonial Cove­nant which was dedicated by Blood, and the Law written in Tables of Stone; which was not so dedicated, and there­fore could not be the same with the Moral Law, which you make the Cove­nant of works; telling him, that this Dedication by Blood ought to distin­guish it from the Moral Law, or Sinai [Page 43] Covenant of works, as you say it doth, and ought to do; how then can Circum­cision be the same with, and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant? was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by [...]lood? Yes, the Apostle [...]lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18, 19. [...]4. 7, 8. Moses took the Book [...]f the Covenant, and read it in the audience [...]f the people, and took the blood, and sprink­ [...]d it upon the people, and said, behold the [...]lood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath [...]ade with you concerning these things. But [...]hat kind of Covenant then was this Co­ [...]enant that was sprinkled with Blood? [...]ou tell us, Page 147. it could not possi­ [...]y be the Law written in Stones (which [...]ou make the Covenant of works) but [...]as indeed another Covenant delivered [...] a distinct Season, and in a distinct [...]ethod. What Covenant then must this [...]e, seeing it could not possibly (as you [...]y) be the Sinai Covenant written in [...]ones? It must either be the Covenant [...]f Grace, or none. No, say you, that [...] was not neither; for it was of the same [...]ture with, and is no other than a Co­ [...]enant of works, Page 151. it was the [...]me, and yet could not possibly be the [Page 44] same. Mr. Sedgwick, that Learned-Grave Divine, is check'd Page 148. for con­founding the Ceremonial Law that wa [...] sprinkled with Blood, with the Mora [...] Law (which you call the Covenant o [...] works) that was not sprinkled wit [...] Blood; and say you, Page 147. It coul [...] not possibly be the same: And then P. 151 you say, It's clear, these two, viz. th [...] Moral and Ceremonial Law, were both [...] the same nature, that is, no other than [...] Covenant of Works. How doth this han [...] together? Pray reconcile it if you ca [...] You say it is an ungrounded Supposition [...] Mr. Sedgwick 's, that that Covenant whi [...] was so confirmed by Blood, must of necessi [...] be confirmed by the Blood of Christ als [...] Page 148. But Sir, the truth you oppos [...] viz. That the Book of the Ceremoni [...] Law was sprinkled by Typical Bloo [...] and therefore confirmed by the Blo [...] of Christ for the time it was to contin [...] shines like a bright Sun-beam in yo [...] Eyes, from Heb. 9. 14, 23. was not t [...] Blood that sprinkled this Law, the [...] gure or Type of Christ's own Blood whose Blood was it then, if not Christ' [...] How dare you call this an unground [...] Supposition? was not that Blood Typ [...] [Page 45] cal Blood? And what, I pray you, was the Antitype but Christ's Blood? And did not the Holy Ghost signifie the one by the other? Heb. 9. 8. I stand amazed at these things: You distinguish and confound all again. You say it could not possibly be the same with the Law written in Stone, and you say it's clear both were of the same nature, no other than a Covenant of works. At this [...]ate you may say what you please, for [...] see Contradiction is no Crime in your Book.

Argument II.

If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, it did not per­ [...]ain to the Covenant of works, for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are Opposites, and belong to two contrary Covenants.

But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. He [...]i. e. Abraham) received the sign of Cir­ [...]umcision, a seal of the righteousness of Faith. Therefore it pertains not to the Cove­ [...]ant of Works, but Grace.

[Page 46] A Man would think it impossible to evade so clear and Scripture an Argu­ment as this is. The Major Proposition is even self-evident and undeniable; the Minor, the plain words of the Apostle.

And what is your Reply to this? cer­tainly as strange a one as ever I met with, Page 205. You say, 'Tis true, Cir­cumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham, but it was so to him only, in his extraordinary Circumstance [...] but it was not so to any of his natural S [...] in its ordinary use.

I cannot deny but I have met with such an Assertion before in Mr. Tombes and I can tell you too, that Bellarmine in­vented it before Mr. Tombes was born, and that Dr. Ames fully confuted it in his third Tome, Page 27. proving that there was no extraordinary cause o [...] Abraham's account, why God should justifie or seal him more than any other Believer; and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God. But to restrain▪ as you do, the publick Seal of a Cove­nant, that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God, to one single Person, so tha [...] neither Isaac nor Jacob, who were b [...] [Page 47] name enrolled in that great Charter, [...]hould have any right to the Seal of it; [...]s such a Conceit as amazes an intelligent Reader. We know Abraham was the [...]rst that received it, but utterly deny [...]hat he received only for himself; but [...]e received it as the Father of all them [...]hat Believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, [...]s the very next words tell us, he re­ [...]eived it that he might be the Father of [...]ll that Believe, that is, for himself, and [...]ll his Spiritual Children. One half of his Sacrament of Circumcision you allow, [...]age 205. to the rest that were under [...], viz. to be a sign of the Covenant; but [...]e other half you cut off, and say it [...]as only a Seal to him. What good [...]ouchers have you for this Exposition [...]f the Text? Have you the Concurrence [...] Orthodox Expositors? Or is it the rash [...]d bold Adventure of your own head? [...]am sure it no ways agrees with the drift [...]d scope of the Apostles Argument, [...]hich evidently is to prove, that both [...]ws and Gentiles are justified by Faith, as [...]braham was; and that the Ground of [...]stification and Blessedness, is common [...]th to the uncircumcised Gentiles, and [...]cumcised Jews; and that Abraham, [Page 48] and all other Believers, have but one way of Justification and Salvation; and that how great soever Abraham was, in this case he hath found nothing whereof to Glory, ver. 1, 2. and is not your Ex­position a notable one, to prove the Com­munity of the Priviledge of Justification, because the Seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone? rectifie it, and better consider it.

Argument III.

In the Covenant of Circumcision▪ Gen. 17. God makes over himself t [...] Abraham and his Seed to be their God or give them a special Interest in him­self.

But in the Covenant of Works, God doth not, since the Fall, make over him­self to any to be their God by way o [...] special Interest.

Therefore the Covenant of Circum­cision cannot be the Covenant of Work [...]

This is so plain and clear, that no [...] can doubt or deny it, that understand the nature of the two Covenants. A [...] now Sir, what course do you take [...] avoid this Argument? such a one sure, [...] [Page 49] no Man that ever I met with took before you; and that's this, you boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts, and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace; which is the pro­missory part, to the ninth Verse, and the Restipulation (as you call it) Page 205. [...]o be as pure a Covenant of Works. What hard shift will some Men make [...]o maintain their Opinion! You say [...]ruly Page 205. that at the seventh and [...]ighth Verses was their Restipulation, why [...]hen do you say, Page 224. that at Verse [...]he seventh, he proceeds to speak of ano­ [...]her Covenant than what he had been [...]eaking of before? Does the Promise [...]nd the Restipulation make two Cove­ [...]ants, or are they just and necessary parts [...]f one and the same Covenant? You [...]lso tell us, that the Covenant Gen. 17. [...], 2, 3, 4. was a plain Transcript of [...]veral free Promises of the Gospel, under [...]e denomination of a Covenant. But [...]hy then don't you take the Restipula­ [...]on, verse 7, 8, 9, 10. to be a part of [...]? Oh, no, there is something required [...] Abraham's and his Posterities part, [...]ey must be circumcised, and that spoils [...]l. Why, but Sir, if the requiring of [Page 50] Circumcision alters the case so greatly, as to make it a quite contrary Covenant, how comes it to pass, that in the Cove­nant to Abraham, he himself was first required to be circumcised? Why this is the reason, here is somewhat required on their part as a Condition, and a Con­dition quite alters the nature of the Co­venant. Very well, but tell me then, why you say, Page 223. and in many other places, that the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12. was a Gospel-Covenant, and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God, and be perfect? Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant, as well as here in the seventeenth Chapter? You also grant the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel-Covenant, or if you deny it, the Apostle proves it, Heb. 6. 13. and yet there is more appea­rance of respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant, than is in submitting to Circumcision; see Gen. 22. 16, 17. By my self have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, &c. That in Blessing I will bless thee; and in multiplying I will multiply thee.

[Page 51] I will trouble you on this Head but with one Query more: If the four first Verses of the Seventeenth of Genesis, con­tain a pure Gospel-Covenant as you say, and the Restipulation in the following Verses make a Covenant of works, be­cause it thereby becomes Conditional: Then tell me, if you please, whether what God graciously granted to Abraham in the former Verses, be not all null'd, and made void again by their Restipu­lation? Does not this seem Harsh? Here you have brought Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the believers of Abra­ham's race, just into the same case you brought Moses and all the Israelites be­fore, under two opposite Covenants, where one cuts off all that the other granted.

But there is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant, to prove it a Covenant of Works, and that is, Circumcision is made the Condi­tion of Abraham's Covenant; and that's the worst of all conditions; for it ob­liges a man to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. 'tis the yoke of bondage, and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed, it makes it become a bondage Legal Co­venant. [Page 52] If we be circumcised, Christ shall profit us nothing. Thus it was in the Covenant. Gen. 17.

Great use is made of this in many parts of your Discourse; but Sir, you are greatly mistaken in applying these Texts to the Purposes you do. For the Apostle all along in that Epistle to the Galatians argues against the false Teachers, who taught and pressed the necessity of Circumcision, as a Bond obliging them to the strict and perfect Obedience of the Law, in order to their Justification thereby, or at least to joyn it with the Righteousness of Christ, as a Con-cause of Justification; see Gal. 2. 4, 5. and the 3. 1. Now against this Abuse of Circumcision it is that the Apostle argues thus, and tells them, that in submitting to it on that account, they made the Death of Christ of no Effect, and obliged themselves by it to the whole Law; for Circumcision did not simply and absolutely, in the nature of the work or action, oblige Men to the whole Law in the way of Justification by it, but it did so from the Intention of the worker, and the Supposition of such an Opinion of it, and design in it; for in it self, and with re­spect [Page 53] to Gods design in the Institution of it, it was to be a Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. and so it was an excellent useful instructive Ordi­nance to all Believers, as long as the Ceremonial Law stood; and even when it was expiring, as the Gospel began to open more and more clearly, there was yet some kind of Toleration of it, to such as were born of Jewish Parents: Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy, his Mother being a Jewess, Acts 16. 1, 3. but Titus being a Greek was not circum­cised; and that because of these false Teachers, that would make an ill use of that their Liberty, Gal. 2. 3, 4. this Paul could never have done, in case Circum­cision, in the nature of the act, had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Justification. By which it appears that the action in its own nature, did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law, but from the Intention of the Agent; and there­fore as the Apostle rightly argues, if a Man be circumcised with this design to be justified by it, he would thereby bind himself to the whole Law, and frustrate the Death of Christ to himself; but it was now to have its Funeral with all [Page 54] other parts of the Ceremonial Law which vanish'd, and were accomplished in the Death of Christ; and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time, the Apostle thus thunders against it. Had this been observed, as also the like abuse of the Moral Law, you would have known how to have re­conciled the Apostles Encomiums of them both, with his sharp Invectives against the one, and the other. But being Igno­rant of these two great and necessary Distinctions of the Law, according to Gods Intention in the Promulgation of it at Sinai, and the carnal Jews Sense of it, as a pure Covenant of works, against which the Apostle so sharply inveighs in the places by you cited, all your 23 Arguments from Page 183. to Page 187. fall to the Ground at one stroke, your Medius Terminus having one sense in your Major Proposition, and another in your Minor; and so every Argument hath four Terms in it; as will easily be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them.

So in like manner in your arguing here against Circumcision, as a Bond to [Page 55] keep the whole Law; and as such va­cating the Death of Christ, is a stumble at the same stone, not distinguishing as you ought to have done, betwixt an Obligation, arising out of the nature of the work, and out of the end and inten­tion of the Workers, and this every learned and judicious Eye will easily dis­cern. But we proceed to

Argument IV.

That which in its direct and primary end, teacheth Man the Corruption of his Nature by Sin, and the Mortification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ, cannot be a condition of the Covenant of works; but so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it.

This Ordinance supposeth the Fall of Man, points to the Means and Instru­ments of his Sin and Misery; and also to the Remedy thereof by Christ. (1.) It singles out that Genital part, by which original Sin was propagated, Gen. 17. 11. Psalm 51. 5. to this the Sign of the Cove­nant is applied in Circumcision, for the Remission of Sins past, and the Extirpa­tion of Sin for the future. (2.) There­fore it was instituted of God, that Men [Page 56] might see both the necessity and true way of Mortifying their Lusts, in the vertue of Christ's Death and Resurrection; whereof Baptism, that succeeds it, is a Sign now, as Circumcision was then; as is plain from Col. 2. 11, 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, where­in also ye are risen with him, through the Faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. 'Tis clear then, that Cir­cumcision directed Men to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, as the true and only means of mortifying their Lusts; and if it did so, sure it was not the Co­venant of Works, for that gives Fallen Man no hint of a remedy. (3.) It was also a discriminating Sign or Token, be­twixt the Church and the World. God's People, and the Heathens, who were accordingly denominated from it, the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, the Holy Seed and the Gentiles. And now under the New Testament, the Children of Abraham by Faith, and the Children of the Flesh. This also shews it can­not be the Covenant of Works; for in [Page 57] that Covenant all are equally and alike concluded under Sin and Misery, Ephes. 2. 3. and there is no difference made by that Covenant betwixt Person and Per­son, State and State.

If this be not enough to evince, that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Co­venant of Grace, I promise you many more Arguments to prove it, as soon as I shall find these refuted, and your con­trary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded. You see how genuine, na­tural and congruous to Scripture the no­tion of it as a Covenant of Grace is, and all the World may see how harsh, alien, and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision, as a Covenant of Works, is. You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion. Exemp. gra.

That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law, which was dedicated with Blood, and therefore could be no [...]art of the Moral Law or Ten Com­mandments, which was (say you) the Co­ [...]enant of Works; and yet that it is of [...]he same nature; and that it's clear [...] is no other than a Covenant of [Page 58] Works. Don't you there distinguish and confound all again? blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause, and commit a greater Absurdity present­ly than you charged him with? Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood, was sealed by Christs Blood? Pray, Sir, consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applyed, it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually apply'd, or to nothing.

Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis, to say with Bellarmine, That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution, and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself? it exclu­ded even Isaac the Type of Christ, and Jacob a Prince with God. O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions!

Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two, and of the pure promissory part to make a Cove­nant of Grace; and of the other part, which you your self call a Restipulation, to make another quite opposite Cove­nant? Don't you magnifie the Bounty [Page 59] and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses, and then destroy it all, by putting him at once under a contrary Covenant, and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies?

Don't you make Circumcision in its own Nature, without respect to the in­tention of the Person, an Obligation to the whole Law, and that which frustrates the Death of Christ, and yet must grant, that Paul himself took Timothy and cir­cumcised him, and yet thereby brought him under no such dangerous obligation to the Law? In a word,

You reject all those Covenants as le­gal, that have any conditions in them, or respect to any thing that is to be done by us, and allow Gen. 12. and Gen. 22. to be pure Gospel-Covenants of Grace; and yet in the first Abraham is bound to walk before God and be perfect; and in the other God saith, For because thou hast done this thing, surely blessing I will bless thee.

And so much for Abraham's Covenant.

Argument I.

If we cannot be Justifyed or Saved till we believe, then Faith is the Condi­tion on which those consequent Benefits are suspended.

[Page 66] But we cannot be Justisied or Saved till we believe. Ergo.

The Sequel of the Major is evident; for as was said before, a Condition is the Suspension of a Grant, till something future be done. The Minor is plain in Scripture, Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that righteousness was imputed to him, but for our sakes also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe. [...], Qibus futurum est ut imputetur, to whom it shall come to pass, that it shall be imputed, if we believe: And Acts 10. 43. Whosoever believeth on him, shall receive remission of sins. John 3. 36. He that believeth not, shall not see life, but the wrath of God remaineth on him; with multitudes more. Now, Sir, lay seriously before your Eyes such Scriptures as these, that promise Salvation to Be­lievers, and threaten Damnation to all Unbelievers, as Mark 16. 16. doth, and then give a plain and clear Answer to this Question; either the positive part of that Text promises Salvation abso­lutely to Men, whether they believe, or believe not, and consequently Unbeliev­ers shall be saved as well as Believers: and the negative part threatens Damna­tion [Page 67] absolutely to Sinners, as Sinners; and consequently all Sinners shall be damned, whether they believe, or believe not; or else if you allow neither to be abso­lute, but that none can be saved till they believe, nor any damned when they do believe; is not that a conditional Pro­mise and Threatning?

Argument II.

If Gods Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. and that Gen. 17. 2, 3. were (as you say) pure Gospel-Covenants of Grace, and yet in both some things are required as Duties on Abraham's part, to make him partaker of the Benefits of the Promises; then the Covenant of Grace is not absolute, but conditional.

But so it was in both these Cove­nants. Ergo.

The Minor only requires proof, for which let us have recourse to the places, and see whether it be so or not.

(1.) For the first you instance in as a pure Gospel-Covenant made with Abra­ham, Gen. 12. 2, 3.. I must confess, as you dismember the Text, pag. 229. by choosing out the second and third Verses, [Page 68] and leaving out the first, which was the Trial of Abraham's Obedience in for­saking his native Country, and his Fa­thers House; I say, give me but this liberty to separate and dis-joyn one part of a Covenant from the other, and it's easie to make any conditional Covenant in the World to become absolute: For take but the Duty required, from the Promise that is made; and that which was a conditional, presently becomes an absolute Grant. Suppose, Sir, that Abraham had refused to leave his dear native Country and nearest Relati­ons, as many do; think you that the promised mercies had been his? I must plainly tell you, you assume a strange li­berty in this matter, and make a great deal bolder with the Scriptures than you ought; and the very same usage the o­ther Scriptures hath.

(2.) For when you cite your Second Covenant with Abraham, you only cite Gen. 17. 2, 3. and then call it an absolute Gospel Covenant; when indeed you made it so, by leaving out the first Verse, which contains the Condition o [...] Duty required on Abraham's part; fo [...] thus run the three first Verses. An [...] [Page 69] when Abraham was ninety nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God, walk thou before me, and be thou perfect, and I will make my Covenant between me and thee, &c. Here an upright Conversation before God is required of him, at God's en­trance into this Covenant with him; but that is, and must be omitted, and cut off, to make the Covenant look ab­solute. I am really grieved to see the Scriptures thus dealt with, to serve a design.

Argument III.

If all the Promises of the Gospel be absolute and unconditional, requiring no Restipulation from Man, then they cannot properly and truly belong to the New Covenant.

But they do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant: Therefore they are not all absolute and unconditional.

The Sequel of the Major is only lia­ble to doubt, or denial, namely, That the Absoluteness of all the Promises of the New Testament cuts off their Re­lation to a Covenant; but that it doth [Page 70] so, no Man can deny, that understands the difference between a Covenant and an absolute Promise. A Covenant is a mutual Compact, or Agreement betwixt Parties, in which they bind each other to the Performance of what they re­spectively promise: So that there can be no proper Covenant, where there is not a Restipulation, or Re-obligation of one part, as well as a Promise on the other. But an absolute Promise binds only one Party, and leaves the other wholly free, and unobliged to any thing in order to the enjoyment of the good promised. So then if all the New Testa­ment Promises be unconditional and ab­solute, they are not part of a Covenant, nor must that Word be applied to them; they are absolute Promises, binding no Man to whom they are made, to any Duty, in order to the enjoyment of the Mercies promised: But those Persons that are under these absolute Promises, must and shall enjoy the Mercies of Par­don and Salvation, whether they re­pent, or repent not; believe, or believe not; obey, or obey not. Now, to what Licentiousness this Doctrine leads Men, is obvious to every Eye. Yet this ab­soluteness [Page 71] of the Covenant (as you im­properly call it) is by you asserted, pag. 229, 230. there is (say you) no condi­tion at all, 'tis wholly free and abso­lute, as the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. Gen. 17. 2, 3. Thank you, Sir, for making them so; for by cutting off the first Verses, where the Duty requi­red on Abraham's part is contained, you make them what God never intend­ed them to be. And the same foul play [...]s in Deut. 30. where you separate the plain condition contained in vers. 1, 2. from the Promise, vers. 6. Or if the Condition, vers. 1, 2. be not plain enough, [...]ut you will make it part of the Pro­ [...]ise, I hope that after in vers. 10. is too [...]lain to be deny'd. As to the other Texts more anon: Mean time see how [...]ou destroy the Nature of a Cove­ [...]ant.

Object. But, say you, pag. 233. To im­ [...]ose new Conditions, though never so [...]ild, is a New Covenant of Works with me Mercy, but not a Covenant of race, properly so called.

Sol. T's true, if those Works or Acts ours, which God requires, be under­ [...]od of meritorious Works in our own [Page 72] Strength and Power to perform, it de­stroys the Free Grace of the Covenant; but this we utterly reject, and speak on­ly of Faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, which receives all from God, and gives the entire Glory to God, Ephes. 2. 5, 8.

Obj. But you will say, If Faith be the Condition, and that Faith be not of our selves, then both the Promise and the Condition are on Gods part; (if you will call Faith a Condition) and so still on our part the Covenant is absolute.

Sol. This is a mistake, and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest; though Faith (which we call the Condition on our Part [...]e the Gift of God, and the power of Believing be derived from God; yet the act of believing is pro­perly our act, though the power by which we believe be of God; else i [...] would follow when we act any Grace, as Faith, Repentance or Obedience, tha [...] God believes, repents, and obeys in us and it is not we, but God that doth al [...] these. This, I hope, you will not dar [...] to assert: They are truly our Works though wrought in Gods Strength, Is [...] 26. 12. Lord, thou hast wrought all o [...] [Page 73] works in us, (i. e.) Though they be our Works, yet they are wrought in us by thy Grace, or Strength.

As for Dr. Owen, 'tis plain from the place you cite in the Doctrine of Justi­fication, pag. 156. he only excludes Con­ditions as we do, in respect of the dig­nity of the Act, and is more plain in his Treatise of Redemption, pag. 103, 104. in which he allows Conditions in both the Covenants, and makes this the dif­ference, That the Old required them, but the New effects them in all the Fe­derates.

I know no Orthodox Divine in the World that presumes to thrust in any Work of Mans into the Covenant of Grace, as a Condition, which in the Ar­minian Sense he may, or may not per­form, according to the power and plea­sure of his own Free-will, without the preventing or determining Grace of God; which preventing Grace is contain­ed in those Promises, Ezek. 36. 25, 26, 27. &c. Nor yet that there is any meritori­ous Worth, either of Condignity or Congruity in the Popish Sense, in the very justifying Act of Faith, for the which God justifies and saves us. But we say, [Page 74] That though God in the way of prevent­ing Grace works Faith in us, and when it is so wrought, we need his assisting Grace to act it; yet neither this assisting nor preventing Grace makes the act of Faith no more to be our Act: 'Tis we that believe still, tho in Gods Strength, and that upon our believing or not be­lieving, we have, or have not the Bene­fits of Gods Promises; which is the ve­ry proper Notion of a Condition.

Argument IV.

If all the Promises of the New Co­venant be absolute and unconditional, having no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us, nor Duty done by us; then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty, nor can we take comfort in Sanctification, as an Evidence of Ju­stification.

But it is a Christians Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs, and he may take comfort in Sanctificati­on, as an evidence of Justification. Ergo.

[Page 75] The Sequel of the Major is undeniably clear, for that can never be a Sign or Evidence of an Interest in Christ, which that Interest may be without; yea, and as Dr. Crispe asserts, according to his Antinomian Principles, Christ is ours (saith he) before we Dr. Crispe 2d Vol. of Christ exalted. Serm. 14. have gracious Qualifications. Every true Mark and Sign must be inseparable from that it signifies. Now, if the works of the Spirit in us be not so, but an Interest in Christ may be where these are not; then they are no proper Marks or Signs; and if they are not, it cannot be our Duty to make use of them as such; and conse­quently if we should, they can yield us no Comfort.

The Minor is plain in Scripture, 1 John 2. 3. Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his Commandments. The meaning is, we perceive and dis­cern our selves to be sincere Believers, and consequently that Christ is our Pro­pitiation; when Obedience to his Com­mands is become habitual and easie to us. So 1 John 3. 19. Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him, (i. e.) by our sincere cordial [Page 76] love to Christ and his Members, as v. 18. this shall demonstrate to us, that we are the Children of Truth; and again, 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life; because we love the Bre­thren. With Multitudes more to the same purpose, which plainly teach Chri­stians to fetch the Evidences of their Justification out of their Sanctification, and to prove their Interest in Christ, by the works of his Spirit found in their own Hearts.

And this is not only a Christians Li­berty, but his commanded duty; to bring his Interest in Christ to this Touch-stone and Test, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves, prove your selves, &c. 2 Pet. 1. 10. Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure, (i. e.) your Election by your calling. No Man can make his Election sure a priori, nor can any Man make it surer than it is in se, therefore it is only capable of being made sure to us a poste­riori, arguing from the work of Sancti­fication in us, to God's eternal choice of us.

And as the Saints in all Ages have taken this course, so they have taken great and lawful Comfort in the use of [Page 77] these Marks and Signs of Grace, 2 Kings 20. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 12.

I am sensible how vehemently the Anti­nomian Party, Dr. Crispe, Mr. Eyre and some others do oppugn this truth, re­presenting it as legal and impracticable (for they are for the absolute and un­conditional Nature of the new Covenant as well as you) but by your espousing their Principle, you have even run Ana­baptism into Antinomianism, and must by this Principle of yours, renounce all Marks and Tryals of an Interest in Christ, by any work of the Spirit wrought in us. You must only stick to the imme­diate Sealings of the Spirit, which if such a thing be at all, it is but rare and ex­traordinary.

I will not deny but there may be an immediate Testimony of the Spirit, but sure I am his mediate Testimony by his Graces in us, is his usual way of seal­ing Believers. We do not affirm any of these his works to be meritorious causes of our Justification, or that con­sidered abstractedly from the Spirit, they can of themselves Seal or evidence our Interest in Christ. Neither do we affirm, that any of them are compleat [Page 78] and perfect Works; but this we say, that they being true and sincere, though imperfect Graces, they are our usual and standing Evidences to make out our Interest in Christ by. And I hope you and the whole Antinomian Party will find it hard, yea, and impossible, to remove the Saints from that comfortable and scriptural way of examining their In­terest in Christ, by the Graces of his Spirit in them; as the Saints who are gone to Heaven before them, have done in all Generations.

Argument V.

If the Covenant of Grace be altoge­ther Absolute and Unconditional, re­quiring nothing to be done on our part, to entitle us to its Benefits; then it can­not be Man's Duty in entring Covenant with God, to deliberate the Terms, count the Cost, or give his consent by word or writing, explicitly to the Terms of this Covenant.

But it is Man's Duty, in entring Co­venant with God, to deliberate the Terms, and count the Cost, Luke 14. 26. to 34. and explicitly to give his [Page 79] consent thereto, either by Word or Writing, Ergo,

The Sequel of the Major is self-evi­dent; for where there are no terms or Conditions required on our part, there can be none to deliberate or give our consent to; and so a Man may be in Co­venant without his own consent.

The Minor is undeniable in the Text cited. If you say these are Duties but not Conditions; I reply, they are such Duties, without the performance of which, we can have no Benefit by Christ and the new Covenant, Luke 14. 33. and such Duties have the true suspending nature of Conditions in them. If you say they are only subsequent Duties, but not antecedent or concomitant Acts; the 28th Verse directly opposes you, Let him first sit down and count the cost: And for those overt acts whereby we expli­citly declare our consent to the terms of the Covenant, at our first entring into the Bond of it, I hope you will not say that's a legal Covenant too, Isa. 44. 3, 4. I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and flouds upon the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon thy Seed, and my Blessing upon thine Off-spring, and they shall spring [Page 80] up as among the grass, as willows by the water-courses. One shall say I am the Lords, and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, &c. A plain allusion to Souldiers, when they List themselves under a Captain or General. What re­mains now, to reply to these Arguments? but either that the places by me cited and argued upon, do not intend the new Covenant under which we are, or that this new Covenant hath its Conditions, and is not altogether Absolute, as you have asserted it to be.

And thus Sir, you are fairly beaten off (if I mistake not) from the new Ground you had chosen and marked out to raise your Battery upon, to demolish that strong Fort which secures the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism, and you must return again to the old answers of Mr. Tombes and others, to our solid and substantial Arguments from Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. which have been bassled over and over by Baxter, Blake, Sydenham, and many other stout Cham­pions for Infants Baptism.

[Page 81] All that I am further concerned about, is to examine so many of those Scriptures as you have spoken to, which are by us produced in defence of those four Grounds or Principles mentioned in the beginning of this Discourse, whereon we establish the Right of Infants Baptism; and to vindicate those Scriptures from your strained and injurious Interpreta­tions of them. Which being done, they will each of them stand in those emi­nent places of Service, where they have been so long useful to the Cause we de­fend.

As for your pretended Solutions of the incomparable Mr. Baxter's, and the learned and acute Dr. Burthogg's Argu­ments; I admire at your Confidence therein; and let me tell you, without breach of Charity, 'tis an high piece of Confidence in you, to throw the Gantlet and bid Defiance to two such Worthies yet alive, and easily able to detect your Folly in the Weakness and Impertinency of your Answers. Alas! my Friend, you little know what it is to have such weak and inartificial Discourses as yours, brought under the strict Examen of such acute and judicious Eyes. But

Nor will I presume to anticipate either of their Answers to your Discourse, (if they shall think it worthy of an Answer) but rather briefly reflect upon what you return to the Arguments of those emi­nent Divines that are gone to Glory, in the Faith of that Truth you oppose; and are not capable of defending their solid and regular Interpretations of Scriptures, against the Notions you force upon them, contrary both to the Grammar and Scope of several of them.

And here Sir, in the beginning, let me mind you what a learned and judicious Person saith, about all Interpretations of Scriptures. Four things (saith he) commend an Interpretation, and establish it as a King upon the Throne, against whom there is no rising up.

• (1.) If the Letter and Grammar of the Text will fairly bear it.
• (2.) If the Scope and Argument of the place will close directly with it.
• [Page 83] (3.) If the Interpretation set up a­gainst it, cannot stand before both, or either of the former.
• (4.) If the Judgment of learned, wise and impartial Men, be found gene­rally agreeable to it.

According to these Rules (whereat you can have no just Exception) I shall briefly, yet I hope clearly and sufficiently, answer some of the Replies you make to the Arguments of those deceased Wor­thies: And

(1.) In Page 1. you produce Mr. William Allen's Argument ad hominem against your Practice. He tells you your own Principle condemns you, for you reject the Baptizing of Infants; because there is no Example in the New Testament for it; and yet baptize Persons at Age, whose Parents were Christi­ans, which is as much without a Gospel-pre­sident or example as the former. The Sum of your Reply is, That though it should be granted, that there is no express example for the Baptizing of such in Scripture, yet there are Examples enough concerning the Baptism of Believers.

[Page 84] Reply. Here you grant all that Mr. Allen objects, viz. That you are altogether with­out Example or President for your Pra­ctice; And object to him and us what neither he nor we ever scrupled or de­nied, viz. The Baptizing of some adult Persons upon the personal Profession of their Faith. I have done it my self, and in like Circumstances am ready to do it again. Once you clearly yield it, that you have no President nor Example for your Practice in the Gospel. That's all that he seeks, and what he seeks you plainly grant. As to the Precept and Examples of Baptizing adult Believers, whose Parents were Unbelievers, and themselves never baptized in Infancy; that's not the Point you are now to speak to: Nor have we any Controversie about it. Certainly you are none of the fittest Persons in the World, to clamour so loudly against us for want of express Presidents for Infant Baptism, whilst your self confesses you want even one Presi­dent in the New Testament to legitimate your own Practice; and in the mean time are found in the sinful neglect of a sweet and heavenly Gospel-Ordinance, viz. the singing of Psalms, for which [Page 85] you have both Precept and President in the Gospel, Col. 3. 16. James 5. 13. 1 Cor. 14. 26.

(2.) It is objected against you, Page 2. That if the Commission Matt. 28. ex­cludes none from Baptism, but such as are to be excluded by the order therein to be observed, and if Baptizing and Teaching are to precede or follow one the other, as there named by Christ, then these two Con­clusions will follow. (1.) That Infants are not there excluded from Baptism. (2.) That a Person may be baptized before he be taught; for there we have First [...]. Disciple all Nations, make them Disciples or Christians. Secondly, We have [...], which literally to translate is Baptizing-teaching. Now then Discipling being a general word, that contains in it the two others that follow, viz. Baptizing and Teaching; and being the Imperative Mood, whereas the other two are Participles; it is manifest, that the whole Command or Commission is given in that, and the mode of Execution in these; and if the mode of executing that gene­ral Commission be expressed in these, where Baptizing is first, and teaching comes after; what is become of the order [Page 86] the Antipoedobaptists have so long talk'd of?

The Summ of your Answer is, That if Baptizing be first, and teaching comes after; then it will follow, that the Apostles understood not their Commission aright, for they first preached, and then baptized them that by their preaching believed, Acts 8. Acts 10. Acts 2. with many other places you heap up to the same purpose, and therefore Infants must be excluded by that Commission, because uncapable of being taught. And therefore let us criticize as we please, upon Imperative Moods and Participles, the case is clear, Teaching must go before Bap­tizing.

Reply. It had been more modest to suspect, that you understood not the Text aright, than that the Apostles un­derstood not their Commission aright. The order of the words (as this well fortified Objection declares, and you can­not deny) puts Teaching after Baptizing; and though we should allow you that they discipled adult Persons by teaching, and taught others Baptized in Infancy, after their Baptizing them; in both they followed their order and commission in Discipling the Parents by Preaching, and [Page 87] teaching their Children Baptized by ver­tue of the promise to them, after their Baptism: For he declares, Acts 2. the Promise is to them, and to their Chil­dren, which gives a right of both unto Baptism; and so teaching, according to the order of this Commission, may be an antecedent Duty to the Parent, and a subsequent Duty to him and his baptized Children: For if [...] includes Teaching before Baptizing, why should not [...], which is put after Bapti­zing, respect the subsequent Duty of teaching both the one and other?

(3.) Mr. Allen's next Argument, men­tioned by you, pag. 5. is taken from Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Whence he ar­gues against your Objection of the In­capacity of Infants for Baptism, That if they are capable of Interest or Member­ship in the Kingdom of Heaven, or Church, they are equally capable of the Sign or Cognizance, which is Baptism.

To this you reply three things: (1.) That it remains to be prov'd, that these lit­tle Children were Infants, and not grown Boys or Girls, capable of making an actual [Page 88] profession of their Faith in Christ. (2.) 'Tis doubtful whether they were for present in the Kingdom of God, or were only elected, and so in time should be of his Kingdom. And (3.) Whatever they were, they were brought unto Christ, who himself baptized not; not to his Disciples, who did baptize.

Reply. Your first Exception is vain and groundless; that they were very young and little ones, appears not only by Christs taking them in his Arms, but from the very Notation of the Word [...], a Diminutive Word, signifying a little Child or Infant. So John was call'd when New-born, Luke 1. 76. and Christ when he lay in the Manger, and Moses when among the Flaggs. And if this be not enough, St. Luke gives them another Name, Luke 18. 15. [...], Infants, a word given to a Child in the Womb, Luke 1. 41. And for what you object out of Piscator, that the same word is us'd of Timothy, who knew the Scriptures from a Child; 'Tis an evident mistake, or shift, for the word is [...], He knew them not being an In­fant, but from his Childhood or Infan­cy; that is, when he had past his Infant State, in which State th [...]se were that [Page 89] were brought unto Christ. And (2.) Whereas you question their present Right in the Kingdom of God, or whether it were not future by vertue of their Ele­ction? The Text will not allow your Interpretation, [...], of such is, not [...], shall be the Kingdom of God. Their present Church-mem­bership asserted by Christ, is also a known Rule to regulate for the future, the Disciples Carriage towards them, which was too severe, harsh, and there­fore highly displeasing to Christ; but by telling them they were Members of the Church, or Kingdom of Heaven (they being very probably the Infants of be­lieving Parents, as their bringing them unto Christ with such affection, through the Frowns and Repulses of the Disci­ples, shews) he gives them a known and plain Rule how to distinguish Infants, and regulate their Carriage towards them, which God's Election can never be, that being an unrevealed Secret. And (3.) Whereas you say Christ did not Baptize them. I reply, We never ur­ged this Scripture to prove he did so, but only to prove their Chruch-membership; which methinks Christ asserts as plainly [Page 90] as words can assert it, when he saith, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; and tho you use to quibble at the word [...], of such, as though it respected not the pre­sent Infants, but grown Persons, resem­bling them in humble and innocent qua­lities; Mr. Sydenham hath sufficiently baffled that Interpretation, by shewing its inconsistence with the Scope and Ar­gument of the place, and how ridiculous this Sense would be, when reduced to a formal Argument.

(4.) The fourth Argument you pre­tend to answer, pag. 8. is drawn from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children un­clean, but now are they holy. To this you answer two things. (1.) That the Holi­ness here spoken of, is not a Federal, but a Matrimonial Holiness, namely, Legiti­macy, and is as much as to say, your Children are no Bastards, seeing one of you is a Believer.

Reply. If this be true, and the genuine Sense of this Text, then all the Children in the World, not immediately descen­ded from one or both believing Parents, must of necessity be all Bastards, and their Parents, how solemnly soever mar­ried, [Page 91] must live in uncleanness; and what mad Work (think you) will this Assertion make in the World? And how many Millions of Persons will it nearly touch, both in point of Honour, and Inheri­tance?

(2.) You say, Though the Holiness here spoken of should be allow'd to be a Federal or Covenant Holiness, yet for want of an express Institution, it will not warrant our Practice.

Reply. The Holiness of the Children being granted to be a Covenant Holiness, none can deny them to be within the Covenant; how else come they to be holy by Covenant? and if within the Covenant, who can deny them the Ini­tiating Sign, which is Baptism? Or how shall they ordinarily be visibly admitted into the Visible Church without it? The Connection betwixt their Federal Holi­ness and right to Baptism, will appear plain enough from Acts 2. 38. which you come next to speak to.

(5.) You attempt to answer Mr. Allen's argument from Acts 2. 38. Be baptized, or the promise is unto you, and to your Chil­ [...]ren, and unto all that are afar off, even [...]s many as the Lord our God shall call.

[Page 92] On this Text you know we lay very great stress, for the Proof of Infants Baptism; and it deserves a remarque, that you wholly Suppress our Arguments drawn from that Text, but however re­turn an Answer to them all, such as it is. You first tell us, The Promise here spoken of, is not a promise of any external privi­ledges, but the promise of the Gospel, or the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.

Secondly, That the Promise was not to their Children as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other uncall'd by the Lord, but only a promise of remission of Sins, and re­ceiving the Holy Ghost, upon their actual Repentance, which Infants cannot perform, and therefore cannot here be intended. This is the true and whole Sense of your Answer.

Reply. Now because you have wholly omitted our Argument from this Text, (for which doubtless there was some reason) I think my self oblig'd to let the World know how we expound it, and what we duly infer from that Exposition of it: And then let the Reader judge, whether by the forementioned Rules of a just Interpretation, you or we are in the right.

[Page 93] (1.) We observe this famous Text to contain the first Argument used by the Apostle, after Christs Ascension, to per­swade the Jews to embrace Christianity, by repenting, and submitting themselves to Baptism, the initiating Sign of it; and therefore here we justly expect much Light about this controverted Point; nor doth the Apostle in this Text de­ceive our expectation.

(2.) We take it for granted, that the direct and proper Scope of this place, is to perswade the Jews (to whom St. Peter preach'd) to repent and be baptized. This you allow, when you say, pag. 10. He uses it as a Motive why they and theirs should actually repent and be baptized. In these two then there is no Controversie.

(3.) We take it for certain, that the Promise here referr'd to by Peter is that gracious Promise, Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy Seed; the adjoyn­ing of their Children to them (saith Cal­vin (and with him runs the general current of Expositors) depends on the Words of that Promise, Gen. 17. 7. If you be not satisfied with this, but rather will refer it to Joel 2. 28. you are then oblig'd to answer Mr. Sydenham's Argu­ments [Page 94] a fortiori, from that reference. But you make no Exception at all to this Accomodation of it: And then the Sense must be this, The Promise shall run as before, to you and to your Chil­dren.

(4.) We say, that except it had had relation to the Covenant with Abraham, there had been no occasion or reason at all here to have mentioned Children, as well as Parents; The promise is to you, and to your Children: It had been enough, if he had only intended the believing Pa­rents, exclusive of their Infant Seed, to have said, The Promise is made to as many as the Lord our God shall call. What reason or occasion was there to bring in their Children at all?

(5.) We find here the Children both of believing Jews and Gentiles mention­ed in the Promise, accompanying the Precept of Baptism, and the Precept to them built upon the Promise, as that which gave them their Title to Baptism, [...], for the Promise is to you and to your Children. In the same Line that he mentions Baptism, he also mentions the Promise, upon which their Right is founded; and in the same [Page 95] Breath with which he mentions their Children, he also mentions the Promise; which he would never have done, had his design been to have excluded their Chil­dren from both, or either of them; especially seeing their Children had been so long in the possession of both. These things are obvious, natural, and every way agreeable both to the Grammar and Scope of the Text; whence we argue

Arg. If the Promise be the same to Believers under the Gospel, that ever it was to Abraham, and his natural Seed, then the Children of Believers by ver­tue thereof, have as good a Title to Baptism, as Abraham's Children had to Circumcision.

But the Promise is the same, Ergo, &c.

Next, let us consider your Answers.

(1.) You say, The Promise here spoken of is not a Promise of any external Privi­ledges, but the Promise of the Gospel.

Reply. Your Distinction is vain and groundless, for it opposeth Promises that contain external Priviledges, to Gospel Promises, contrary to 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath promise of the Life that now is, and of that which is to come. Secondly, [Page 96] Circumcision then, and Baptism now, which have both their Foundation in that Promise, contain Priviledges in them of both sorts. This no Man can deny, but he that thinks it no Priviledg to be admitted into the Vi­sible Church by the external initiating Sign, and to be thereby distinguished from the Pagan World. You have no Warrant therefore to divide those things which God hath united.

(2.) You say the Promise was not to them as Believers Seed, nor to any uncalled by the Lord.

Reply. Your meaning is, that these Words [as many as the Lord shall call] are a Limitation of the Promise to them only, whether Parents or Children, that are actually called; let this your In­terpretation be compared with, and ex­amin'd by the Scope of the Text, which you confessed before to be a Mo­tive to perswade them and theirs to Repentance and Baptism, and see if it can stand before it, as ours doth: For if this be the meaning, then the Apo­stle's Argument must run thus: I ex­hort you, convinced Jews, to Repen­tance and Christian Baptism; for [Page 97] whereas you and your Children have hitherto been an holy Seed, and the Pro­mise formerly was to them as well as you; but now the case is alter'd; if you your selves repent and be baptiz'd, you shall have the benefit of the Promise; but as for your Children, they shall be in the self-same case and state with the Chil­dren of Pagans and Infidels: Indeed, if any of your Children shall hereafter be­lieve, they shall have benefit by the Pro­mise, but no more than the Childen of Pagans and Infidels, which upon Repen­tance shall be equal with them. Repent ye therefore, and be baptized, for the pro­mise is unto you, and to your Children. This, and no other, must the Apostles Motive be, according to your Interpretation and Limitation of his Words.

We make the Motive or Argument to run thus: God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham, in sending that blessed Seed, in whom he promised to be the God of him and his Seed; yea, and of all believing Gentiles, as well as Jews and their Children: Don't you therefore by your Unbelief deprive both your selves, and your dear Children, of the mercies and priviledges of so great a [Page 98] Promise? Repent therefore, and be baptized, for the Promise is unto you, and to your Children, &c. Let the im­partial Reader judge both, and the ac­knowledged Scope of the place determine the matter: And as it cannot stand with the scope of the place, so neither (as Mr. Sydenham hath plainly evin'd) with the Grammar Infant-Baptism, pag. 45, 45. of the Text, nor Rules of Logick, by which (according to your Exposition) the Word [Children] must be redundant and superfluous, as being neither comprehended under Jews or Gentiles, those that are near, or far off; into which two Classes or Ranks the Text distributes the whole World, but must stand out of the Text, as a Party by themselves; though expresly men­tioned in it, as those to whom the Pro­mise belongs. But enough of this.

(6.) Having vindicated Acts 2. 38, 39. which confirms our Fourth Assertion, viz. The Identity of the Promise the Jews were, and we are under: We pro­ceed next to vindicate 2 Col. 8. 9, 10, 11, 12. whereby we prove the Succession of Baptism to Circumcision, and vindicate it from that Foreign Sense you force upon [Page 99] it, to the great Injury of the Text, as well as of our Infants, whom you ex­clude from any concernment therein.

Without any representation at all of the grounds on which we proceed, to prove the Succession of this Ordinance to that, you as rashly as confidently call it a groundless Inference; which, whether it be or no, let the Impartial judge, when they shall see the grounds on which we build that Assertion.

(1.) 'Tis out of Controversie, that the Scope of this place is to take off the Colossians from Circumcision, and other Jewish Rites and Ceremonies, which the False Teachers at that time earnestly en­deavoured to reduce them to, as appears vers. 4. to be his plain design, And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words; and he saith it with great concernment of mind, as appears vers. 1.

(2.) 'Tis as plain that the Argument by which he establishes them in the truth of the Gospel, and secures them against the danger of returning to those Jewish Rites, especially Circumcision, is drawn from their Compleatness in Christ without it, vers. 9. & 10. and that whatsoever they had under Circumcision, they now [Page 100] enjoy in as compleat and full a measure and manner, as ever Abraham and his Seed did. And ye are compleat in him, i. e. in Christ.

(3.) To evince this he instanceth in the very case then under Debate, viz. Circumcision, vers. 11, 12. And first di­stinguishing of a two-fold Circumcision, one made with, and the other without Hands, which he calls the Circumcision of Christ: He tells them, as to both of these, namely, Inward Circumcision of the Heart, and the external Sign thereof too, both are fully answered in Baptism, in whom also ye are circumcised with the Cir­cumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, ver. 11, 12. that is, look as before inward Circum­cision of the Heart was signified by out­ward Circumcision of the Flesh, as the proper, direct and appointed Sign of it: So now, the same inward Circumcision or Regeneration of the Soul, is as really and fully signif [...]ed to you by the new Gospel Sign of it, which is Baptism: And therefore you are as compleat, in respect both of outward and inward Priviledges now, as ever Abraham and [Page 101] his Seed were. Do but convert the Pro­position, and suppose the Apostle's Design had been to take them off from Baptism, and bring them back to Circumcision, and in order to it had said, In whom ye are also baptized with the Baptism of Christ, being circumcised with him: Would not the Substitution of Circum­cision in the place of Baptism have been clear? And why is not this as clear as that would have been?

(4.) We further say, That except he had intended in these Words to have placed Baptism as an external Ordinance, in place and stead of outward Circum­cision, he could never have pitch'd upon a worse Instance than that of Circumci­sion, which was so much valued by them: Yea, from the very instance he brings, he had put a strong Objection into their Months against his Assertion, vers. 10. That we are every way as compleat without it, as the Jews were with it; for then their Children enjoyed an Ordinance of great value, which ours are deprived of, having none under the Gospel in lieu of it. Hence we argue,

[Page 102] Argument. If the Ordinance of Bap­tism now be appointed to answer the same ends that Circumcision did to the Jews, and to make us every way as com­pleat in Priviledges, as Circumcision did them, then it comes in the place and room of it; and our Children have the same right to this, as theirs had to that.

But the Antecedent is plain from the Scope and Argument of the Apostle in this Text and Context.

Ergo, So is the Consequent.

The Sum of your Answer is, (1.) That Circumcision in the Flesh is neither express'd, nor meant here, but that of Christ in his own Person. (2.) That if Baptism had been intended to have come in the place of Circumcision, then it would follow that Fe­males must be excluded from Baptism.

Reply. Your first Answer is manifest­ly false; for if the Apostle distinguishes of a two-fold Circumcision, one made with Hands, the other made without Hands, then 'tis manifest he means Cir­cumcision in the Flesh, which is now abolished, and all its ends and uses an­swer'd in Gospel-Baptism. And where­as you say, the Circumcision here spoken [Page 103] of, is no other but the Circumcision of Christ in his own Person; I would gladly know how the Colossians are said to be circumcised in Christs personal Circum­cision only? And whether the Baptism here spoken of, wherewith they are said to be buried with him, be not meant of Christs personal Baptism too? and con­sequently there is no need of the out­ward Ordinance to pass upon them or us; but especially 'tis worth while for you to explain the Reason why he calls the Co­lossians Circumcision a Circumcision of Christ made without hands, if he only intends Christs personal Circumcision; when we all know that Christs personal Circumcision was a Circumcision made with Hands; and could not possibly be such a Circumcisiou as theirs was, consist­ing in the putting off of the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, or Mortification of their Corruptions. Christ had no Sin by Propagation to put off or mortifie in his own Person.

(2.) Your Second Answer is no less absurd, That if Baptism, according to our Argument, succeeds in the place of Cir­cumcision, then Females must be excluded from Baptism. You had as good have [Page 104] said, That the enlargement of the Pri­viledg under the Gospel, is no good Medium to prove we are as compleat now under Baptism, as they were under Circumcision: Cannot Baptism stand in the place of Circumcision, because it an­swers all its ends, with an advantage? This to me is a very strange Answer; however it must stand in the place of a better, rather than Baptism shall stand in place of Circumcision.

Obj. But if Baptism succeed in the room of Circumcision, and there be such an Analogy betwixt them as you pre­tend, then it will follow, that you are oblig'd to Baptise your Children the Eighth Day, as they Circumcised theirs.

Sol. The Objection is frivolous and vain; no Man that I know doubts but the Lords Supper succeeds in the room and place of the Passover. Christ was the substance of that as well as this, and that was abrogated by his Institution of this, the very same Night, as soon as he and his Disciples had celebrated the one, the other was instituted, and immediately succeeded it; and yet Chri­stians are not oblig'd to the same Month, Day, or Hour for the Celebration of the [Page 105] Lords Supper: the Analogy is betwixt the substantial parts of both, amongst which the Spiritual Mystery, Principal Ends, and proper Subjects are of principal Con­sideration; not the minuter Circum­stances of time and place. In the Pass­over and the Lords Supper there is a Correspondence betwixt the proper Sub­jects of both: No uncircumcised Person, or Stranger to the Covenant might eat of that, Exod. 12. 43, 48. No unbe­lieving Person, uncircumcised in Heart, hath a right to this, 1 Cor. 11. 27, 28. So in the other, The Infants of God's Covenanted People were the proper Sub­jects of Circumcision then, and so they are (say we) of Baptism now; for the same Promise is still to Believers and their Children, Acts 2. 38, 39. Here lies the Analogy, and not in the variable circumstances of time.

Whereas you say, pag. 12. Baptism cannot succeed Circumcision, because it leaves no Character or Mark upon the Body, as that did. This very Objecti­on of yours is borrowed in express Words from Socinus, that Enemy of Christ, in Disp. de Bap. pag. 113. and ful­ly answered by Maccovius, Loc. Com. pag. 830, 831.

[Page 106] Object. But it will be further said, that according to our Opinion there can be no Analogy or Correspondency betwixt the very Subjects of both Ordinances; for Infants at eight days Old were the proper Subjects of Circumcision, but the Subjects of Baptism were adult believers, from the time of it's first in­stitution. And so the Analogy fails in the very Subjects.

Sol. This Objection is grounded upon a great Mistake, 'tis your Opinion not ours that destroys it. For with us it lyes fairly in these three respects of it (1.) We find that at the first institution of Circumcision, Abraham the Father, at Ninety Years old, and all the Men of his House, were first Circumcised, Gen. 17. 25, 26, 27. Answerably, at the first in­stitution of Baptism, Parents, Masters of Families, &c. being adult believers, were first Baptized. (2.) After the Cir­cumcision of Abraham and the Men of his House their Infant Seed were also Cir­cumcised, the promise belonging to them, as well as their Parents. Answerably under the Gospel the whole Families of believers were Baptized, and the promise runs to their Infants under the Gospel as [Page 107] it did before, Acts 2. 39. (3.) As in the days of Circumcision, if any stranger that had not been Cicumcised in his In­fancy, should afterwards become a Prose­lyte, and joyn himself to the Lord, he was to be Circumcised, of what ever Age he was: So now, if any Infidel shall be con­verted, he is to be Baptized upon his Per­sonal Profession of Faith. And so much for the Analogy. As for your Correspondency of Identity I cannot understand it.

I meet with little more in your first Part, werein I have any concernment; only there I find four Arguments in Mood and Figure against the Innovation of Symbolical Rites by Humane Authority, into the Worship of God; which is cer­tainly the best Page in your Book. And of them I have nothing to say, but that they are good Ware, and I very well know the Mark and Number of that Parcel of Goods, and to whom they properly belong.

But yet before I dismiss your Book I think my self concern'd to Vindicate one place of Scripture more, viz. Rom. 11. 16, 17. Which I alledg'd in the beginning, for the confirmation of our first Proposi­tion, viz. That Gods Covenant with Abra­ham, [Page 108] Gen. 17. is the same Covenant for Substance we Gentile Believers are now under. If the first Fruits be holy, the lump is also holy. And if the root be holy, so are the bran­ches; and if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive were'st graf­ted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive Tree: boast not against the branches, &c. This place is deservedly of great value with us, to prove that we Gentile Believers, with our Infant Seed, are invested un­der the Gospel with the same Substan­tial Priviledges that the Jews and their Infants formerly enjoy'd. Here without opening one term, you proceed in your wonted manner, confidently to deny the Arguments of our Learned Divines from this place. I shall therefore open this Fa­mous Text, and regularly deduce the right of Gentile believers Infants to Baptism from it; and here, keeping to the rules above,

(1) I note that ver. 13, 14, 15. give us the true level and scope of the Apostles Argument, which is to prove the calling in again of the Jews, though for the pre­sent broken off; and on this ground to excite himself to all diligence for their [Page 109] conversion, and suppress all glorying and boasting in the Gentile Believers, as if they were more worthy than those, be­cause they fill their Rooms and places.

(2) To prove the calling again of the Jews he argues strongly, ver. 16. from the Federal Holiness derived to the branches from their root or Ancestours, namely, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with whom the Covenant was made, Gen. 17. For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy. And if the root be holy, so are the branches, (i. e.) Abraeham, Isaac and Jacob being in Covenant with God. A Federal Holiness is from them derived to the branches. And this can be no other than a Federal Holiness, because those their Ancestours were utterly uncapable to transmit any inherent Holiness to them; That being the Incommunicable Prerogative of God. This Federal Ho­liness lying still in the root, (the Co­venant with Abraham) will recover the branches again to Life, though at pre­sent many of them be broken off, as Job speaks in another case, Job. 14. 7, 8, 9. There is hope of a Tree though it be cut down, that it will Sprout again; and that the tender branch thereof will not cease [Page 110] though the root thereof wax old in the Earth, and the Stock thereof dye in the ground; yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant.

(3) We affirm by the Authority of this Text, that all the Jewish Nation was not broken off, but only a part of it: So the 17th. ver. plainly declares; And if some of the branches be broken off, &c. Not all, but some. For many of them were converted to Christ. We read of Three Thousand at one Sermon, Acts 2. And multitudes more at other times; all these converted Jews stood in the Apostles time, as branches in the true Olive, still enjoying all their priviledg­es: And that which brake off them that were broken off, was nothing else but their own unbelief, ver. 20. Well then, because of unbelief they were broken off. For at the promulgation of the Gospel, a new Article was added to their Creed; namely, that this same Jesus whom they had crucifyed, is the promised and true Messiah. This some believed, and so stood by Faith, still enjoying all their ancient priviledges of the Covenant: others believed not, and their unbelief broke them off.

[Page 111] (4.) We find in this place two sorts of Branches growing upon this Root Abraham; some natural Branches, name­ly Jews by Nature, embracing Christ by Faith; others wild and foreign Branches, viz. Gentiles by Nature, but ingrafted by Faith, and by their Ingrafture growing among the natural Branches, and with them partaking of the Root and Fat­ness of the Olive-tree, vers. 17. that is, the rich Priviledges of the Covenant, and Promise to Abraham, Gen. 17. I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed. This is the sweet Juice or Fatness of the Olive-tree, which both sorts of Branches live upon, vers. 17. some on the external, others on the internal, some on both.

(5.) These naturally wild, but now engrafted Branches, viz. the Believing Gentiles, being grafted by Faith amongst the natural Branches, and with them sucking the Fatness of the same Root and Olive, that is to say, the Priviledges, Ordinances and Franchises of the Church; we cannot but judge it to be a natural, clear and necessary Consequent, that the same Priviledges the natural Branches once had, and the remaining Branches, amongst whom the Gentile Believers were [Page 112] ingrafted, then had; the very same the Gentile Believers and their Children do now enjoy, by vertue of their Interest in the same Root; else we cannot un­derstand how we should be said to par­take with them of the root and fatness of the Olive: Certainly the Sap is the same, which the Root sends into all the Branches, whether they be natural, or ingrafted ones; and is as plentifully communicated to the ingrafted, as to the natural Branches: For the watering of this Olive with the more rich and plenti­ful Grace of the Gospel, must make the Olive-tree as s [...]t and flourishing as e [...]r it was to supply all its Branches, and [...]ore than ever before.

Seeing then we Gentiles have (1.) The same grafting into the true Olive. And (2.) That our present grafting in, is an­swerable to their present casting out. And (3.) That their re-ingrafting in the end of the World, shall be the same for substance that ours now is, and their own first was: For when they were first taken in, they and their Children were taken in together; when they were bro­ken off, they and their Children were broken off together; and when they [Page 113] shall be taken in again, they and their Children shall be taken in again. And (4.) Seeing all these their expected mer­cies are secured to them by the Cove­nant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which will extend again to them, when their Unbelief shall be taken away: Me­thinks (as was said before) nothing can be clearer than this Conclusion, That we Gentile Believers are now invested with the same Priviledges they once enjoy'd, and our Children have the same Federal Holiness, or relation to the Covenant theirs had, by be­ing grafted amongst them, and living on the same Sap they did, and that by the [...]ame Promise, Acts 2. 39.

But you will say, There's no mention [...]ere made of the grafting in of our Children with us. We reply, Neither [...]s there any mention here made of the [...]reaking off of their Children with them, [...]hich yet was so. Nor was there need [...] say it, seeing both their Infants and [...]urs, are comprehended in the Parents, as [...]wigs are comprehended in the Branch, [...] Buds in the Graft; and the one be­ [...]g holy, so is the other: And this Fede­ [...]l Holiness of the Children is not only [...]entioned in this Chapter, vers. 16. but [Page 114] also in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now are your Chi [...] dren holy. And the very same Promis [...] which conveigh'd the Fatness of th [...] Olive to Abraham's natural Seed, man [...] festly extends it self to the Gentile Be [...] lievers Seed, Acts 2. 38, 39. And [...] Men will not shut their Eyes, and stud [...] Evasions, what can be plainer fro [...] Scripture in this Explication and Appli­cation of this place! We have with [...] the Consent of the generality of Orth [...] dox Expositors; the Sense it self is g [...] nuine, easie, and unconstrained; agre [...] able with the Letter and Scope of t [...] Text; whether the Sense you set [...] against it be as probable as this, [...] come next to examine. And truly, Si [...] your Answer is as ambiguous as a D [...] phic Oracle: For (1.) You tell us, pag. [...] That the ingrafting spoken of in this place, into the invisible Church by election. We s [...] it is into the visible Church by Profess [...] of Faith; for we know not how to [...] derstand any breaking off from the i [...] visible Church, nor falling from Elec [...] on: But 'tis like you better consider [...] the Consequents of that Opinion dra [...] upon you by Mr. Sydenham in his 85 [...] Page, and therefore nauseating th [...] [Page 115] Dregs of Arminianism, you speak more Orthodoxly to the Point, pag. 27, where you honestly acknowledge, That the Church of the Jews and Gentiles, as to the true Essence and inward Substance of either, is one and the same; in which respect the believing Gentiles (according to the Apostles Metaphor) are here said to be grafted in amongst them, and with them to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-tree; and in reference hereunto it's rightly added by the Apostle, that the gifts and callings of God are without repen­tance. The inward Substance of the Church and Covenant of Grace whereon it is found­ed, being invariable, and which shall for ever remain immoveable, though the outward Form and Administration be not so. Well then, from hence we have gained two things: (1.) That the Church of the Jews and Gentiles are essentially and sub­stantially the same Church. (2.) That the Jews were not broken off from the invisible Church, or from Faith and Election; for these you truly say are invariable and immoveable; and if you had deny'd it, the Apostle assures us, that the foundation of God stands sure; and that the gifts and callings of God are with­out [Page 116] repentance. But what then was their breaking off, and the Gentiles grafting in, which made this great alteration in the Church? Can it be any thing else but our ingrafting into the Visible Church by the Profession of our Faith, from whence the Jews were broken off from their unbelief? For certainly from the Invisible Church they were not bro­ken off, and into the Invisible Church multitudes of professing Christians are not ingrafted. 'Tis evident therefore, by grafting us into the Olive-tree, he means the Visible Church; and by the Fatness thereof, the Ordinances and Pri­viledges of that Church: Though we deny not but all sincere Professors are Members of the Invisible Church also, and do belong to the Election of Grace; but that's not the breaking off, or graft­ing in here spoken of. And now having given up Mr. Tombes his Notion of the Invisible Church and Election, you are again put to your Shifts, and must ei­ther shuffle, and seek to hide your self in an heap of strange and unintelligible Distinctions, or (which had been much fairer) honestly have yielded the Cause; and where-ever you met with them, I [Page 117] find a whole Troop of distinctions ral­lied together, for this purpose pag. 23, 24.

This grafting in (say you) may be either into the visible, or invisible Church; either by Faith, or profession of Faith; or by some outward Ordinance. Children may be either grown Men or Infants. The ingrafting [...]n, may be either certain, or probable. Certain, either by reason of election, or their natural Birth; being Children of believers. Proba­ble, as being likely; either because frequently, or for the most part it happens so: Though necessary, and so not certain; the thing to be prov'd is, That the Children of be­lievers are in the Covenant of free grace, in Christ, and by vertue thereof to be Baptized into the communion of the vi­sible Church.

Reply. Words enough, and distincti­ons enough to reduce the Text to an in­divisible point. But whither doth all this tend? I will ask you Two or Three plain Qestions, and then make what use you please of your distinctions. (1.) Whe­ther the Breaking off of the Jews and the ingrafting of the Gentiles here spoken of, have Relation to the invisible Church by election, or to the visible Church by profession of Faith, and some outward [Page 118] Ordinance? (2.) Whethether if it were into the visible Church by profession of Faith, that the Gentile believers were grafted in; as doubtless it was (and by relinquishing the former sense you here seem to yield it, saying this ingrafture may be certain upon the account of na­tural Birth, being Children of believers;) then I would fain know why you so state the Question, as to make the certainty of Believers Childrens interest in Christ, to be the only ground of their admission into the Communion of the visible Church? This (say you) must be prov'd, or no Baptism for them.

Alas poor Infants, to what hard terms are they here tyed up! Very much harder than the terms any of your one Society are tyed to; and if Baptism must be su­spended till this point can be clear'd, that the person to be Baptized be first in Christ, and in the Covenant of free grace, as to the saving benefits thereof; Then fare­wel to all Baptism both of Infants, and adult prof [...]ssours too. For how can you prove that the persons you Baptiz [...] are all or any of them really in Christ? May they not deceive you as Simon Magus did Peter? I did not think you had proceeded [Page 119] in this matter upon a Certainty, but a Probability; and if you proceed with yours upon the grounds of Probability, how come you to tie up the Children of Believers to a certainty of their Interest in Christ, as the antecedent suspending condition of their Baptism? We need dispute no more about the proper Sub­jects of Baptism, for by this account we have lost the Ordinance of Baptism it self.

We thought, Sir, that our Childrens Title to Baptism was derived to them from their believing Parents, as the Children of the Jews was to Circum­cision, from their circumcised and pro­fessing Parents; and that the same Pro­mise which conveigh'd their Childrens Priviledge to them, Gen. 17. had con­veig'd the right of Believers Children to Baptism unto them also, Acts 2. 38, 39. and that the root being holy, the branches are holy also, that is, federally holy, Rom. 11. 16. But to this you make such an Answer as astonishes me to read, pag. 26. where allowing Abraham to be the Root, you say, The Holiness here spoken of, is first in respect of Gods Election; Holiness per­sonal, and inherent in God's intention, Ephes. [Page 120] 1. 4. He hath chosen us in him, that we should be holy. (2.) 'Tis also Holiness derivative, but not from any Ancestors, but from Abraham only; and that not as a natural, but a spiritual Father, wherein he is a lively Image or Figure of Christ; and is derived from the Covenant of Grace, which passed in his Name to him and his Seed. And lastly, It shall be inherent, being actu­ally communicated by the Spirit of God, when they shall be actually call'd.

Reply. Here we see into what Brakes and Pits Men run themselves, when they depart from the plain and safe Path in Explications of Scripture. Here is such a tripartite Distinction of Holiness, as I never met with before. (1.) Here is personal Holiness inherent in Gods intention. By this you must either mean Sanctifica­tion decreed for them, and to be be­stowed on them at the time of their Calling; and then it is coincident with the third Member of your Distinction: Or else you mean, that it is Holiness in­herent in the Intention of God, as an Accident in its Subject; and then the Simplicity of Gods Nature resists your incongruous Notion. But it would be a less Crime, to confound the first with the [Page 121] last Member of your vain and self-created Distinction, than to speak things so re­pugnant to the simple and uncompound­ed Nature of God.

Or if your meaning be, That this Holiness is in God by way of Intention, but in them by way of Inhesion; that will not deliver you out of your Confu­sion neither, but run you into greater; for then you confound the immanent with the transient Acts of God, and make the same thing, at the same time, to be pure­ly in Intention, and in Execution; or to be only in Gods Purpose to bestow here­after, and yet at present inherent in the Persons he intends it for; so that I must leave your strange Notion of Personal Holiness inherent in Gods Intention, to be clear'd by a more Metaphysical Head than mine; or else to stand among other rare and unintelligible Notions, to be admired and applauded by the ignorant Reader.

But then, when we come to the Se­cond Member of your Distinction, I am as much at a loss to find your Sense as before: For there you tell us, The Holi­ness here spoken of is a Derivative Holiness also, and that from Abraham only, and [Page 122] from him not as a natural, but a spiritual Father, resembling Christ herein.

Reply. This word derivative is an equivocal word, and may signifie either inherent personal Holiness, or Federal Holi­ness, for both of them are derived. If you say the former, it looks too black and horrid for me to believe you mean it, though you should say you mean it; for then you make Abraham not only the Figure and Image of Christ (as you speak) but Christ himself, by attribu­ting to Abraham Christs incommunicable Property and Prerogative. Then Abra­ham may say to all his Children, as Christ doth, John 15. 4, 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches, &c. I am he that sanctifies you: But if you mean the last, (as necessarily you must, if you mean any thing that hath Orthodox Sense in it) then this derivative Holiness you speak of is not personal Holiness, or internal Sanctification, but federal Holiness, deri­ved from Covenanted Ancestors or Pa­rents to their Children; and therein you come over to us, and to the true Sense of the Text. But why must this be squeezed from you with so much difficulty? And why did you hide this federal Holiness under an equivocal term, lest you should [Page 123] seem to yield the Controversie with a Word? this is not fair.

Object. If you say we are too hasty, and triumph before the Victory; for though you do yield it to be a federal Holiness, yet it is such as can be derived from no other Father or Progenitor but Abraham only.

Sol. Yes, Sir, I hope you will allow Isaac and Jacob at least to be the Root and First Fruit as well as Abraham, see­ing the Covenant was joyntly and ex­presly made with them all three; and thereby they became the Root and First Fruit of that holy Nation: And if that People be called the Seed of Abraham, they are also called the Seed of Jacob; and if Fatherhood he ascribed to Abraham, it is ascribed to Jacob too, Isa. 58. 14. And if Abraham be first named in the Covenant, so is Jacob, see Levit. 26. 42. But if you allow these three Patriarchs, belike that's all you will allow; for you seem to say that no federal Holiness can be derived from any other Progenitors. Good Sir, whatever your own private Opinion be in this matter, allow us to believe otherwise, as long as those Scriptures, 1 Cor. 7. 14. and Acts 2. 39. stand in our Bibles; for we cannot [Page 124] think but the federal Holiness of Children results from the immediate Parents Faith or Covenant Interest, as well as from the remoter Progenitors; else we cannot un­derstand how the Corinthians Children should be holy, or how the Promise should belong to the Children of them that are afar off, viz. the Gentiles, who could derive no such thing to their Children by a Lineal Descent from Abra­ham, but only as they became ingrafted Branches by Faith; and so suck the Fat­ness of the Olive to themselves, and to their Buds, or Childrn, as the natural Branches did. I desire you to consider also how this Covenant passed, as you say it did, to Abraham and his Seed in Christs Name, if it be the same with Adam's Covenant? Did that pass to Adam in Christs Name too?

I have now dispatched what I at first promised and intended, viz. The Con­futation of my Friends Mistakes about the Covenants, and the Vindication of those Scriptures, by which our Arguments deduced from one of them, are confirm­ed. And now I have no further concern­ment with Mr. Cary's Solemn Call, save only to note his high Confidence, rash [Page 125] and most unchristian censures of all his differing Friends and Brethren with which he concludes his discourse, where­in he calls Infants Baptism,

(1.) A great abuse in the Divine Worship. Pag. 242, 243. And yet he that so calls it, never looked half way into the Con­troversie, nor is able without manifest shuffling, and contradiction both to the Words of God, and his own Words, to Answer our Arguments; as is here made too evident.

(2.) That it is no other, than a change of a Divine Institution, and making void the Commandment of Christ, the horrid Sin charged by Christ upon those Hypocrites, the Scribes and Pharisees, Math. 15. 6. With no better than these doth he rank and assiociate the many thousands of Gods choice and dear People, who differ in this circumstantial Point from him.

(3.) He compares it with the Sin of Nadab and Abihu. And with that of Israel, with respect to the Ark, 1 Chron. 15. 13. a Sin which provoked the Lord to execute Judgment by an immediate Stroke in Fire from Heaven upon them. Thus Mr. Cary is ready to call for Fire from Heaven upon his Brethren, Alas! [Page 126] Poor Man, he knows not what Spirit he is of, as Christ told the Disciples in a like case. 'Tis well we are not in his hands to execute the Wrath, as well as charge the guilt upon us. But I hope all this is but Rashness in him.

(4.) He affirms it to be no less than a transgressing of the Law, a changing of the Ordinances; And a breaking of the ever­lasting Covenant. If it be a transgressing of the Law, he should have shewn us in what Scripture that Law that forbids it is, or where God hath repealed his former Grant to the Children of his Co­venant People: And for the changing of the Ordinances, I am of Opinion 'tis he that is guilty of that Sin and not we; for we have proved God setled this privi­ledge upon the Infant Seed of his People, that the Promise under the Gospel con­tinues still to them, and if he exclude them from Baptism, he changes the Or­dinance of God. And for breaking the everlasting Covenant, for which he cites Isa. 24. 5, 6. the Lord make him sensi­ble of the Danger he hath put himself under from that very Text he produces against us; for it's manifest that the Co­venant there spoken of, is Gods Cove­nant [Page 127] with Abraham, renewed with the Israelites at Sinai, which in that Text is truly called an everlasting Covenant; when mean time Mr. Cary hath pro­nounced it to be an Adam's Covenant, and now utterly abolished. Who is it Sir, that Fights against and changes this everlasting Covenant, you or we that are for its continuance to us and our Chil­dren?

(5.) He affirms these things to be of highest concernment to us. If so, then sure it must follow, that Repentance from dead Works, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, must be inferior things to them; for nothing can be higher than the highest, or equal with it. And then by making them the chief Funda­mentals in Religion, as that Expression doth, (if it be not a vain and Sinful Hyperbole) the Salvation or Damnation of Men depends upon compliance, or non-compliance with them. And then whither must you send all Gods People in the World that differ from you? Sir, I find your Brethren in the Appendix to their confession of Faith, Pag. 110, pla­cing one of these which you make of high­est concernment, among the other circum­stances [Page 128] of Religion: And doubtless that is it's Proper place. Nor do I see how they can free themselves from Participa­tion in your Sin, 'till they have admo­nished you for it, and caused you to ex­punge it out of your Book.

(6.) That it is a Setling of our Thre­sholds by Gods Threshold. The Words you recite from Ezek. 43. 8. which speaks of the Idolatrous Kings of Judah and Israel, building Temples and Altars for their Idols, in, or near the Courts of the Temple of God: As the English An­notations on the Text will inform you, an Abomination that defiled Gods Holy Name, a Wickedness not to be Named, and for which the Lord consumed them; And calls it Whoredome in the next Words. Here Sir, you have exceeded all the Bounds of Society and Christian Cha­rity; And made this circumstantial dif­ference about the Proper Subject of Bap­tism, the Grossest Heathenish Idolatry in the World: And consequently dis­solved the Bond of Christian Charity, and broken off all communion with us; for with such Idolaters you ought not to have any communion.

[Page 129] Your more wise and moderate Bre­thren in the place above cited, tell us, they are loath hereby to alienate their Affecti­ons or Conversations from any that fear the Lord, and are willing to participate of the Labours of those whom God hath endued with Abilities above themselves; Qualified and called to the Ministry of the Word; Desirous of Peace and not of renewed Con­tests hereabout. This is a Language of an­other Air. And if they be (as I dare not suspect but they are) sincere in that Profession, they dare not Comprobate such a desperate and unchristian censure as yours is: If they do, then we may easily guess what our Lot and Treatment shall be whenever Anabaptism get the Ascendent in England. We may expect as civil usage as is due to gross Idolaters, and no better. But I hope better things.

(7.) You say, that as these things are of highest concerment, so they ought to be our most serious Practice and endeavour, pag. 243. l. ult. Good Lord, whither hath Zeal for an Opinion Transported you! Our most serious Practice and endea­vour, Sir! I thought the most serious Practice of a Minister had been to Preach Christ, and Salvation to the Souls of [Page 130] Men; And not to Baptize. I am sure St. Paul reckned so, Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to Preach. That is, Bap­tism is not my principal Work, or main business. And ver. 14th. he thanks God he had Baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius. I believe he never utter'd such an expression about his o­ther Work of Preaching Christ. And for all Christians, I thought, the secure­ing of their Interest in Christ, living in the duties of communion with him, Watching their Hearts, and mortifying their corruptions, had been the Object matter of their most serious Practice, and Faithful endeavour; and not the Litigations about Baptism. But I hope these were only inconsiderate expressions, falling from your Pen whil'st you were in a Paroxism of Zeal, or a transport in the height of a conceited Triumph. But whatever was the cause, I am sure you ought to revoke and repent such Words.

(8.) You wish your Testimony rise not up at last as a Witness against us. Sir, we do not apprehend any Cause we have to fear your Testimony against us, or se­verest Censures of us, whilst we are [Page 131] satisfy'd, that as you neither have a Fa­culty or Commission to be our Judge, so neither is there any convincing Evidence in your Reply to our Arguments. But I think you have much more Cause to fear, lest those Arguments should come in at last as a Witness against you, who deny and contemn them; when mean time you are put to most lamentable Shifts, even Contradictions, and somewhat worse, to escape the Point and Edge of them.

(9.) To conclude, You tells us we must not expect the special Presence of Christ to be afforded to us, without our compliance in these Points with you.

Sir, We never yet deserted the Judg­ment or Practice of Infants Baptism, and yet have had (blessed be Jesus Christ for it) great and manifold, sweet and signal Proofs and Evidences of his Presence with us: He hath owned and blessed our Ministry to the Conversion of many; and there are some, and those not mean or few, of our Spiritual Children, now in your Societies in England, who have acknowledged us to be the Instruments of their Conversion: The Lord lay it not to their Charge, who now desert [Page 132] that Ministry in which they first received Christ. But as for the Departure of his Presence, I assure you, Friend, I am more afraid of the Rents and Divisions you now renew so unseasonably among the Churches of Christ, than of any one thing amongst us beside it. It grieved my Soul to see you Quiet a movere, awake a sleeping Controversie, especially in such a Season, when we are little more than half deli­vered from our Enemies and Dangers; you take us by the heel, as Jacob did his Brother, whilst but yet in the Birth. Sir, except you return to a more quiet and Christian Temper than you seem here to be in, I am out of hope that ever you and I shall see those blessed days we have so often with pleasure comforted our selves with the hopes of. [...]wever extend your Charity (if you have any left) so far, as to believe that I am one notwithstanding all this) that am studi­ous of the Churches Peace, and [...]quisi­tive into the Rules of Duty, not daring to hold any Truth of God in Unrighte­ness; and yet well satisfy'd I am in the Path of my Duty, wherein, though we cannot walk together, yet I hope to meet you at the end of our way in our [Page 133] Fathers House, where perfect Light and Peace dwells.

And here I had put an end to this De­bate, had I not received your Return to some of these Sheets, whilst the last of them was under my Hand; wherein I on­ly find four things in which I am con­cerned. In general, you tell me, You are not convinced of any Error, by what I have said. I am sorry to hear it: But consi­dering the nature of Error on one side, and the difficulty of Self-denial on the other, you have not much deceiv'd my Expectation. More particularly,

(1.) You say, As to your hooking the Sinai Covenant into this Controversie, I gave you the first occasion of it; for when you shew'd me your Papers about God's Covenant with Abraham, I told you that you were best first to try if you could prove the Covenant at Sinai to be a Covenant of Works; forasmuch as our Divines are so far from conceiting the Covenant with Abraham to be a Cove­nant of Works, that they will not al­low the Sinai Law it self to be so; and to convince you of it, I lent you Mr. Roberts and Mr. Sedgewick on the Cove­nant, to enlighten and satisfie you about [Page 134] it: But little did I think you had had Confidence enough to enter the Lists with two such learned and eminent Divines, and make them to follow your trium­phant Chariot, shackled with the incom­parable Baxter and Allen, Sydenham and Burthogg, like three pair of Noble Pri­soners of War. But whatever was the occasion, (setting aside your Sin) I am not sorry you have given a fit opportu­nity to enlighten the World in that Point also.

(2.) You seem to fancy in your Let­ter, that I was once of your Opinion about the Moral Law, because you find these Passages in a Sermon of mine upon John 8. 36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, then are you free indeed, viz.

That the Law required perfect working, under pain of the Curse; accepted no short Endeavours, admitted no Repentance, and gave no Strength. But finding me here pleading for the Law, you think you find me in a Contradiction to that Doctrine.

The Words I own, the Contradiction I positively deny; for I speak not there and here ad idem: For in that Sermon, and in those very Words you cite, I speak against the Law, not as God intended it, when he added it to the Promise, but as [Page 135] the Ignorance and Infidelity of unrege­nerate Men make it to themselves a Co­venant of Works, by looking upon it as the very rule and reason of their Justification before God. This was the Stumbling Stone at which all Legal Justiciaries then did, and still do stumble, Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. In this Sense the Apostle in his Epi­stles to the Romans and Galatians argues against the Law, and so do I in the Words you cite; but vindicate the Law in the very same Sermon you mention, as consistent with, and subservient to Christ, in the former Sense; and there tell you, The Law sends us to Christ to be justified, and Christ sends us back to the Law to be regulated. The very same double Sense of the Law you will find in this Discourse, and from the mistaken end and abuse of the Law, which the Apostle so vehemently opposeth, I here prove against you, that the Law in this Sense cannot consist with, or be added to the Promise, and therefore make it my Me­dium to prove against you, That the true Nature and Denomination of the Sinai Law can never be found in this Sense of it, but it must be estimated and denominated from the Purpose and In­tention of God, which I have proved [Page 136] to be Evangelical. Try your skill to fasten a Contradiction betwixt my Words in that Sermon and this Discourse. I know you would be glad to find the shadow of one, to make some small Ex­cuse or Attonement for the many faults of that nature you have here committed.

(3.) Your Letter also informs me, that you hear you are answered by one hand al­ready, and for ought you know many more may be employed against you, and I for one; and so we shall compass you about like Bees.

Reply. I have only seen Mr. Whiston's little Book against your Brother Gran­tham, wherein he hath baffled two of your principal Arguments; but you on­ly come in collaterally there, and must not look upon it as a full Answer to your Book, but only as a Lash for your Folly en passant. And for our compassing you about like Bees, methinks you seem to be greatned in your own Fancy by the sup­position or expectation of a multitude of Opponents. You know as well as I, who it is that glories in this Motto, Unus contra omnes. Sir, I think your Mind may be much at rest in that matter. Of all the six famous Adversaries mentioned [Page 137] in your Title Page, there are but two living; and you know mortui non mor­dent; and of the remaining two, one of them, viz. Mr. Baxter is almost in Hea­ven, living in the daily Views and chear­ful Expectations of the Saints everlasting rest with God; and is left for a little while among us, as a great Example of the Life of Faith: And it is questionable with me, whether such a great and Hea­venly Soul can find any leisure or dispo­sition to attend such a weak and trivial Discourse as this.

And as for my self, you need not much fear me; I have not, neither do I intend to vibrate my Sting against you, unless I find you infecting or disturbing that Hive to which I belong, and to which I am daily gathering and carrying Ho­ney; and then who but a Drone would not sting?

(4.) To conclude, in the Close of your Letter you fall into the former strain of Love, assuring me, That the ancient Friend­ship of so many years shall still continue on your part.

Reply. All that I shall return to this, is only to relate a short Story out of Plu­tarch, in the Life of Alexander; where [Page 138] he tells us, That whilst he was warring in the Indies, one Taxiles an Indian King came with his Company to meet him, and saluting Alexander, said, What need you and I to fight and war one upon another? if thou comest not to take away our Water, and the necessaries of Life from us, for which we must needs fight: As for other Goods, if I am richer than thee, I am ready to give thee of mine; and if I have less, I will not think scorn to thank thee for thine. Alexander highly pleased with his Words, made him this Reply, Thinkest thou that this meeting of ours can be without fighting? no, no; thou hast won nothing by all thy fair words; for I will fight and contend with thee in Honesty and Courtesie, and thou shalt not exceed me in Bounty and Liberality.

I say with Taxiles, I had never armed against you, had you not come to take away our Water, and the necessaries of Life, I mean, the Covenant of God with Abraham, which contains the rich Charter of the Gentile Believers Children, and make it an abolished Adam's Covenant, and told us, that we must come up to the Primitive Purity in these things, that is, in renouncing it as a Covenant of Grace, and relinquishing Infants Baptism, as ground­ed thereon.

[Page 139] Sir, Were my one Father alive, I must and would oppose him, should he attempt what here you do. Infant Baptism with you is not; Singing of Psalms, that plain and Heavenly Gospel-Ordinance, with you is not, and will you take away our Benja­min also? What! the Covenant of God with Abraham and his Children in their Generations? all these things are against us. No, Sir, we cannot part with that Co­venant as an abolish'd Adam's Covenant; nor will I give it up for all the Friend­ship in the World.

And yet I will say with Alexander, I will contend with you in Friendship and Courtesie, even whilst I earnestly contend against you for the Truths of God, which you have here opposed, and I have endeavoured to vindicate.

One Word more before I part with you, I do assure you, and the whole World, that in this Controversie with you, I have not knowingly or advisedly misre­presented your Sense: If you shall say I did so in my second Argument from the Words p. 179. I assure you, both my self and others could understand you no o­therwise than I did in the Papers I sent you; and when you told me, you meant [Page 140] there was no pardon in either of those Covenants, but that it plainly directed to Abraham's Covenant, you will find I have given you as fair a Choice as you can de­sire, either to stand to your words in the first Sense wherin I understood them, (or which will be the same to me) to your own Sense in which you afterwards ex­plained it to me. And whereas I blame you over and over in my Epistle and Conclusion, for putting the proper Subject of Baptism among the highest things in Religion: Let the Reader view your Conclusion, and see whether you do or not: If you say you speak of the Covenant there as well as of baptism: I allow that you do so; yet I hope 'tis equally as bad, nay indeed and truth, a great Aggravation of your Fault, to make this Article, viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17, is an abolished Adam 's Covenant, one of the highest concernments of a Christian; the Baptism only of Adult Believers another. My consequences from your Words are just and regular, how start­ling soever they seem to you.

If you think fit to rejoyn to this my Answer, I desire you will avoid as much as you can a tedious Harangue of Words, and speak strictly and re­gularly to my Arguments, by limiting, distinguish­ing, or denying, as a Disputant ought to do: If so, I promise you a Reply; but if I find no such thing, it shall pass with me but for waste Paper; nor will I wast time about it. The Lord give us Unity in things necessary, Liberty in things indifferent, and Charity in all things.