CHAP. I. The Doctrine examined, raised from 2 Act. 37.

IT is the saying of the Holy Ghost, 2 Tim. 3. that in the last days perilous times should come, and amongst the list of dangerous persons, he tells us there should be false accusers: de­spisers of those that were good: and yet they should be such as had a form of godliness. And after he hath laid down what they are in them­selves, he also gives a further description of them in their actions: what they should do, and who they should be like, Now as Jannes, and Iambres withstood Mo­ses, so do these men resist the Truth, men of corrupt minds, and repro­bate concerning the Faith: But because the people of God would be fearful what the issue of such things would come to, therefore in ver. 9 he comforts them in this, That they should proceed no further, for their Folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. As if he had [Page 2] said; the way to put a stop to such persons, is to lay open their folly: and to shew the world, that their accusations are false: this course did Moses take with those Egyptian Priests.

The person with whom I am to deal in this Reply, hath shewed him­self in Print, to come in the number of those false accusers, declaring to the world that our practice of Infant-Baptism doth fight against and destroy, seven fundamental points in the Christian Religion; by which we may see his Charge mounts very high, and either he must make it good, or else he will fall under the guilt of his own folly and blindness, if not wickedness so to affirm. And will be also thereby brought un­der that following description to be a resister of the Truth, Co-partner with those false Priests before mentioned.

I have therefore dealt with him not only in those particulars where­in the accusation lyes, but have begun and ended with his whole piece: to unvail and discover the rottenness and deceit thereof, that so, such who through weakness have been ready to embrace this error in their hearts, may in time dislodge it.

These are the days wherein men heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; for what is writ in this book, called The Doctrine of Bap­tisms, is no more then what long since he publikely taught, as may be gathered from his own words. But doubtless, if a man should desire an account of his Ministerial Authority, by which he entitles himself a laborer; it would appear to be more from men then God; and that he was never ordained, to such a work: But is rather in the number of Jeroboams Priests, who was made of the lowest of the people, in the fullest extent of that word.

In pag. 5. We have the ground-work and foundation of all the en­suing discourse, laid down in this Doctrine. That it is the duty of all that believe and repent to be baptised; which though it be truly raised, yet 'tis falsly applyed, I shall therefore examine this Doctrine in the application of it. For as 'tis true, that he that believes and repents, being converted from Judaism or Heathenism, ought to be baptized; As such were they to whom the Apostle preacht in this Act. 2. from whence this Author takes his Text; I say, as the application of this Doctrine is true to such that never yet imbraced the Gospel, and so ne­ver practised that Ordinance, so on the other side, to apply it in such universal terms to those that have embraced the Gospel, and have been baptized, is unsound. For though a Doctrine be never so truely rais [...]d yet if it be not as truely applyed, it is a wrenching and abusi [...]g the Scri­ptures, which is easily done, when we consider not the diffe [...]ence a [...]d [Page 3] nature of the Auditors: to cleer which, let us come to some instances; suppose a Church be truely constituted, of which, a great part may be hypocrites, such as were Judas, Magus, Ananias and Saphira, Hy­meneus, Alexander, Phyletus, mentioned in the Scriptures, all which were never true believers. These, all these, or any of these becoming true Converts, and such as truely repent of their wicked Hypocrisie; is [...]his a Doctrine fit to be applyed to them; without doubt such a pra­ctice would quickly overturn the Authors dipt Societies: If he be true to the principles of this Doctrine, as by himself it is applyed; or else his words do imply that such Doctrines of Faith and Repentance is to be preacht onely to such as are without the Church, as if those that [...]ere within had no need thereof: when as we know they are Doctrines of the Gospel: which is the kingdoms Gospel, and belongs to such as are within as well as without the kingdom; were I a Minister and should come amongst master Patients people, and preach this Doctrine, and apply it as he doth; would he not think it very much knockt out of joynt in the application, to tell them it is the duty of all, who real­ly repent and believe to be baptized; doubtless there is no rational Christian but would so judge: If therefore it holds in one, it must hold also in the other, for it is not persons being hypocrites, or carnal, that nullifies their baptism: no though the Administrator and manner also be circumstantially corrupted and defective: what if John had baptized onely by pouring out water which he did (as shall be after proved) when he should have plunged and dipt them as this Author doth; The Ordinance had not been thereby null and void for want of that circumstance. So on the other hand, should this Doctor of dip­ping convert a Heathen or Jew, and plunge him, when he should have onely poured the water on him after the Primitive practice, yet the baptism stands in force still; yea, though the Author so dipping be no true, real, but a pretended Minister; as Ziphora's circumcising stood in force though she were a defective Administrator; and this is the general sense of Protestant Authors; that those Children or persons that receive Popish baptism by their Priests after they are really con­verted to the Faith of Christ, ought not again to be baptized: and yet we see they are as ignorant as heathens: by what therefore is said, it is apparent the forementioned Doctrine is not to be extended to all alike, and though it be an undoubted truth amongst such as preach to the heathens in New-England, or to such amongst our selves as are yet un­baptized, yet it is not therefore a sutable Doctrine to such as have been before baptized either there or elsewhere. And yet we see with what [Page 4] fury, and heighth of Confidence this theam is prosecuted throughout all his book: Tis a like Argument with this When Christ sent his Mi­nisters to preach and baptize, their Commission was to go into all the World. Therefore he that is a true Minister of the Word and Baptism must be an Itinerary preacher. Augustus Caesar a Tyrant taxt his peo­ple; therefore it is lawful for all Magistrates to tax their subjects: which last hath been a Doctrine so raised by the Author in my hear­ing.

CHAP. II. Relating to the Administrator answered.

HAving examined the Doctrine and foundation let us come to sur­vey the building to see what work is made there; he goes to o­pen and explain what is meant by baptism, and so leads us to a new Text, which indeed usually leads the Van Argument: but is here brought in as a prop to uphold the Doctrine before raised, Mat. 28.18. From which two places he hath ingaged to run through the whole Controversie of Baptism in four Essentials by him so called,

• 1. The Minister
• 2. The Form
• 3. The Name into which
• 4. The Subject.

All which being laid down as so many Essentials, if any one be want­ing, the baptism in his sense is made null and void: we are therefore come to examine these several heads, and first the Minister or Admini­strator: p. 6. preaching Disciples go ye therefore, but when he afterwards comes to explain his meaning, who they are, he speaks thus, That Di­sciple that can bring down God to the soul, and the soul up to God, is a lawful Minister of baptism.] I shall therefore a little search into this unheard of qualification, according to the place by him quoted; first the persons spoken of, had an immediate Commission from Christ. Go ye therefore: Secondly, The persons sent were Apostles; men in Office, men of Gifts, for the work; Go teach all Nations, baptising, such they were that baptized in a way of office, power, and authority; And be­cause these, therefore every man that undertakes to preach by a Gift, either occasionally or intentively not having any Commission or Call thereto may baptize: is this any lawful deduction, or rather is it not the [Page 5] way to destroy the Ministry? by this rule, if there be twenty in the Church of which this Author is a labourer, or Minister, that can preach (or talk rather) as well as himself, they shall therefore take his power of administring these Seals out of his hands. When as both he, and they are bound to desist from any such actions until they are duly and solemnly admitted into an office that capacities them for the work; And the contrary is condemned by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. Are all Apostles, are all Prophets, are all Pastors and Teachers, &c. And therefore God hath set every member in the Church to be useful to the body in his due place: as are the members of the natural body, and not one to intrude upon the other. Consider further

Secondly, If that be all the qualification required for the admini­stration of Sacraments before mentioned, then may a woman be a lawful administrator; for though the title of preaching Disciples reaches onely to the Males: yet that kind of explanation will reach fe­males. What if such a one as Priscilla, who was a Disciple, should amongst many of her own Sex, be an instrument to convert some to the Faith? I hope it cannot be denyed but she brings down God to the soul, is it therefore lawful for her to baptize? there must therefore such a restriction be put upon the words, as confines them to persons in office, or else we are like to come to a strange kind of Reformation at last. But indeed this kind of qualification, though the full current of the words are rough and harsh; yet may it well suit with their practice, for though they lay much weight upon the thing it self, called the Or­dinance: yet are they very loose in this which he calls an Essential, namely the Administrator, for if the Pastor or Officer be absent, or sick (but usually they have neither) if the people do but desire such a bro­ther to baptize and give the Sacraments, although it be but for a day, this is lookt upon as a sufficient warrant to make such a person fit for the work, and thus the practice thereof shall run in the vein of Disciple­ship, one baptising the other, which is expresly against the very nature of the Ordinance, and all Scripture examples and presidents. Look up­on John the Baptist a Prophet, a man sent by God, the Disciples of Christ, all by himself called and Commissioned: and so they were to administer baptism in a way of Office to the end of the world, and not onely the Apostles, but their successors also, Pastors, Teachers. Which are as well given to the Church, as the Apostles, Prophers, & Evangelists, Eph. 4.11. and do and shall continue so long as the Commission remains till the worlds end: had it been given equally alike to all the Church Disciples, he would not have singled out persons in Office: so Philip [Page 6] an Evangelist called by a voice from Heaven, Ananias called by a visi­on from God Act 9.

Obj. But Baptism is an Ordinance that belongs to the Church, and it is in their power to give the keys as they shall judge fit.

Answ. The Church can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth: nothing without the rule. If granted that all the males have their votes, yet the administration of the keys lies in the Office or An­gels power, for administration of the Seals Rev. 21.12. Ezek. 44.5, 11. Thirdly, Consider yet further how shall we know who is enabled to bring down God to the soul, and the soul up to God? Conversion is an act of Grace▪ and not in the Creatures power; and though a Mi­nister may be truly called to the work by God and man: yet we know the word may not work for many years, but like seed, may lie hid in the ground, yet, must not this man baptize any, by this rule, though con­verted by others, because the success of his own labour lies hid, so as that he is not able to say he hath been instrumental in that kind to the souls of his hearers.

In pag. 7. He strikes down our Ministry at a blow, and indeed oppo­seth diametrically what before he affirmed: That though a Minister do preach so as to convert, and bring down God to the soul, yet if he be ignorant of this practice of dippping, which he calls the true way of dispensing the Ordinance and a fundamental: he is no justifi­able Minister, that in stead of dipping shall sprinkle carnal ignorant Children. By which we may see that the foundation of a true Ministry in his sense, lies more in the water then in conversion: For he de­nies any true Gospel Ministry, but those of his own stamp. So that when the Apostle Paul affi [...]ms the truth of his Ministry was evidenced by that Seal, the seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. 9.2. This Author would have it run The seal of a justifiable Minister, are ye in the water: and thus he destroys not onely the present Ministry of Christ in this world: but also that of the Apostles themselves. For as I shall afterwards prove, they were all strangers to this practice of dip­ping, their manner being by pouring water on the subject: If Jesus Christ shall then justifie our present Ministry in sealing their labors, it is too bold an act for a man of such a feeble practice to condemn them. Thus the Reader may see his result on both hands; when the Argument is brought against our practice: then no man is a lustifiable Minister, except he know how to plunge, and doth so practice, when he comes to shew what a lawful administrator is in his sense, then he that can bring down the soul to God: so that we may from hence see, what [Page 7] a Babel Ministry this man of contradictions would set up in the world: If I should here ask the Author of this new Baptism, under what Mini­stry he was converted, no doubt but his answer would be very favour­able to those, whom he here opposeth. Remember then your third Doctrine; That 'tis the disposition of such, that have the beginning of saving light, to desire more; and that from them whom God hath spoken to their souls by: Or else you may question whether you have any light at all. But because 'tis to speak a word for the truth, in op­posing error, let me therefore return him Talion Law.

1. He that takes the Covenant of Grace for a Covenant of Works, can be no Gospel Minister, because ignorant of the Gospel in the fun­damentals thereof.

2. He that affirms a Believer at one time may be under two Cove­nants of Works and Grace, he is no Minister of the Gospel.

3. He that denies the extent of the Covenant of Grace to be as large and compleat under the Gospel, as it was under the Law, can be no Minister of the Gospel.

4. He that is not lawfully Ordained to the work of the Ministry, he can be no lawfull Minister, because like the false Prophets, he runs before sent.

5. He that shall by his Doctrine and Practice, put greater burthen and yoaks upon the necks of Christians, then ever the false Teachers did by Circumcision, Acts the 15. he is no warrantable Minister: But such a one is this Author of the Doctrine of Baptisms; ergo. The Mi­nor I shall make appear through this whole discourse, given in as an Answer to his Book. Lastly, as to that contempt and reproach which he casts upon the seed of Believers, who are Abrahams chil­dren, calli [...]g them carnal, ignorant, as though they were uncapable of any good: Let him that rails know, that he that casts off Abrahams seed when infants, as not fit matter for worship, doth keep them out as an unclean thing: And so, though God hath separated them to a holy use; they are made unholy, and kept off as execrable, and so ac­cursed: Which the Lord no doubt foresaw, when he gave Abraham that promise, Gen. 12. I will curse him that curseth thee. I say this, this word of the Lord will at last reach such, and pull them down, if their [...]est were built as high as the stars of heaven. Therefore hear and fear, and do no more so wickedly, all ye that hope for the blessing of Abrahams Covenant.

CHAP. III. His second Essential, relating to the manner of Baptisme by Dipping, answered.

THe second Essential he so calls in this Doctrine of Baptismes, is the manner thereof, by Dipping, not sprinkling. To prove which, though he say the word is rendred to Dip, Dous, Drown, or Plunge, in this he speaketh with a hood-wink'd understanding, and must shake hands with the Roman Tribe, that acts from an implicite faith, belie­ving as learned men tels him; though yet he can hardly afford them a good word, or charitable censure. As for the place he brings, 2 Kings 5.14. where the Prophet bids Naaman go wash in Jordan seven times, and he dipt himself. Answer, Though washing is sometimes by dip­ping; yet not alwaies, yea but seldom. A man may properly be said to wash himself in a River, though he only dips in his hand, and casts water about him, which is most frequent and usual, both in our pra­ctice, and acceptation of the word, either in our vulgar, or in Scripture dialect: Were a man to wash his face or head, must he needs dip it; and so of any other part, or the whole body: But let us search the Scriptures, Mark 7.4. Except they wash they eat not; and Luke 11.30. They marvail at Christ, that he had not first washt before dinner: Is any man so void of reason to think, that before the Pharisees sate down, they plunged themselves: And Christ, who well knew what the word to baptize, or wash, signified, gives them such an answer as relates to the powring out of water, so washing onely the outside of things, verse 39.

Had their cups and platters, tables and beds, been dipt, and so washt, then had inside, outside, and every side, been washt. The word then hath a promiscuous acceptation, some times taken one way, some times another; as Sidnam clears this, Budeus, Scapula, Pasor, Grotius, do give the sense of the word: Therefore to no purpose is this unlearned Authors Appeal to the Greek, Latin, and English Churches: Though yet, 'tis considerable, that he should acknowledge such as Churches, whom his words and practice do so much cry down; therefore I doubt his charity is much of the same nature with those of the late fifth Mo­narchy; who though they would use the word of Protestant Churches, yet they did look upon them but as the outworks of Anti-Christ, which were first to be storm'd: For there is scarce a Book extant of the [Page 9] Anabaptists, but hath a touch thereof; such is that Peece called The Storming of Antichrist, which came out long since, and others of the like stuffe.

Secondly, he tells us that the phrase in which Baptism is rendered, doth usually, and necessarily import such a thing, And therefore when mention is made of Baptizing, 'tis commonly translated, in, or into, and therefore suits most with dipping, and not that preposition [with] which suits most with sprinkling; and when our translation tells us that Iohn Baptized with water, he would correct it within water; and instead of ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost and with fire, it should be rendred in the holy spirit and in fire.

Answ: W [...] may see to what height ignorance is mounted, when he that knows not what a preposition is, shall undertake to mend transla­tions: what property of speech can there be in that phrase, Mark 1.8. to say hee shall baptize you in the holy Ghost, and in fire, when the word is, with: is it possible for a man to be dowst, drown'd or plung'd into the holy Ghost, methinks he might blush to shew his ignorance.

But to make this clear, let's view and compare the place with Acts. 1.5. For Iohn truely baptized with water, so Mark 1.8. I have bap­tized you with water, and Math. 11. I indeed baptise you with water but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost, and with fire, would it not be strange to read it into fire, considering also, that these words relate to the pouring out the holy Ghost, spoken of Acts 2.3. and there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like unto fire, and it sat upon each of them, they did not sit in the fire, but the holy Ghost like fire sate upon them; and then in verse. [...]7. the Apostle Peter, who very well knew what was meant by the word Baptize, interprets it, by Ioell 2.31 to be the powring out of the spirit prophesied of. And thus when Christs tells them of their being Baptized with the spirit, it appears to be meant of the spirits pouring out, so that from hence its evident, that Iohns Baptism was by pouring out water, and not plunging into water, or else it would not have been so conjunctively plac'd with the the manner of the spirits Baptism: Iohn truely Baptized with water, but ye shall be Bapti­zed with the holy Ghost. For as the pouring out the holy Ghost was the true Baptism of the Spirit, so Iohn truely Baptizing with water, was by powreing it out also; let but any Englishman reade it that knowes but how to make sence of what he reads, & it must of necessi­tie gives a dash to all their plunging; Let therefore such as have been deluded into so groundless a practice consider it and repent thereof.

A second paralell instance to confute this practice of dipping, is that [Page 10] of Israels being Baptized in the clouds & in the Sea 1 Cor 10. which by Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, as before Peter was of the Iews, is called a Baptism: and by what principle of reason or conscience, can any man think that Israel was plung'd into either cloud or sea, when the word of God tels us they marcht through the sea upon drie land: Exo: 14: 22. the waters being divided, yea Davids relating to this very march of Israel Psalm the 77.15.17. tells us that this Baptism (which Paul so calls, in which beleevers and their seed were Baptized) was by pouring out water, and not plunging into water: For thus the word runs, the clouds poured out water.

If men therfore will not harden their hearts against the truth and blind their owne eyes, here is light enough to shew us what is meant by this word Baptize; the Authoritie of Peter and Paul both eminent Apostles bearing witness to this truth: & yet wee must be deluded from the truth by ignorant men, against not onely the very light of nature, but of Scriptures also. As for that other Preposition example, which he brings in that page of baptizing in the Wilderness, and in Jordan, he tels us it would be improper to render it, with the Wilderness and with Jordan, and therfore would urge it to be as improper in that other place.

I answer, the Reader may from hence also gather how sadly fit this man is for a minister, who to make our practice speake nonsence, doth not himselfe know what belongs to a sense. For because the pre­position [with] is by us maintained proper, when it relates to the matter, or manner, therefore he would have it also as proper when it relates to the place: as if I should say, Master Patient hath baptized with the mil­pool with Dublin, for in the milpool in Dublin.

4. In Pag. 9. his next place he brings to maintain his dipping is that of Paul. 1 Cor 10. already touched on, they were all Baptized to Moses in the Cloud, and in the sea, not with the clouds and with the sea.

Answ: Which is most proper to say, Israel were Baptized by pouring out water from the cloud, and by sprinkling from the sea, or to say, Israel was Baptized by plunging into the cloud, and into the sea, for then they must be all over-whelmed with both. And David in the place before-quoted tells us it was done by pouring out water; was it improper to say, Israel was Baptized in the sea, when they were in the sea? for though God wrought a miracle to divide the waters, that Israel might march upon dry ground, yet was it in the Sea. As when a man hath been in a shoure of raine, Is it improper to say he hath been in the rain, because it is not proper to say he hath been dipt into a cloud? I shall therefore refer this to the consideration of the most [Page 11] judicious of that Judgment (of which, there are many.) What ground of Reason there can be for such a construction as is made of that place, by this Author, and shall also leave that place, Exod. 15.4, 5. to be thought of as an example, That when the Egyptians marched into the Sea, they were baptized in his sence, i. e. Dipt, dowst, and drowned, but not Gods Israel; take heed therefore of your too eager pursuit of Abrahams Seed; who as they were then, so still are baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

Fifthly, In Page 10. the next place he brings for dipping, is in Acts 8.38, 39. Philip baptized the Eunuch, they being both in the water, he dipt the Eunuch, as John did Jesus, Matth. 3.16.

Answ. And much at one, that is, the Eunuch was as much plunged as Christ was plunged; for they were neither of them so baptized. It hath been already proved, that Johns manner of baptizing, was not by plunging, but pouring out water; and therefore that Text, Matth. 3.6. stands for a cypher in this particular. A man may as properly be said to go downe into the water, and come up out of the water, though not wet-shod, as if he had been dipt all over: So was Israel in the Sea properly, and yet not dipt; besides, Philip was as much in the Water as the Eunuch, and in that construction they must be both plunged; but not a word is here of the mode of Baptism, onely he baptized him, the manner must be pickt out of other Scriptures, which may be easily gathered from what hath been already spoken: There may be other Reasons also given, why it could not be by dipping, as that the Eunuch was upon a journey travelling homeward; and there­fore neither he, nor Philip, provided with garments suitable for such a work, it being accidental to them both: For if it be a Gospel Ordi­nance, it must not be done, they being both naked; for so it would have been an action of no good report, contrary to Pauls rule. And indeed, take it in the most serious manner, as now practised yet there is no shew of carriage or deportment suitable to the Majesty of the Gospel of Christ, which may easily appear to any sober Christian, whose eyes are not darkned by ignorance or blinde zeal: For what gravity can there be for a Minister, who is Gods Ambassador to the World, 2 Cor. 5.20. to put off his shooe's and stockings, and to lead a Gentlewoman by the hand into a River, and throw her on her back? Is this a deportment fit for Ambassadors that come from God? whose holiness is such, that will not permit a Woman to be uncovered or unvailed in the Church, and shall we think then he will own such inhumanities? Methinks the very naming hereof should be a sufficient [Page 12] confutation, which is enough to make a modest face to blush. Also considering, that either Subject or Administrator, and perhaps both, may be of so tender, weak, and feeble constitution, as they are not able to undergo the cold. Many such considerations falls in, that were it practised amongst Heathens, that do by nature the things contained in the Law; that very light amongst them would condemn it.

Sixthly, He argues in Page 10. from Johns Baptism, his work being to Baptize, he remained near Jordan, and afterwards at Enon near Salem, because there was much Water in that place. Ergo, He bapti­zed by dipping.

Answ. It hath been already proved from Mark 18. with Acts 1.3. and Chap. 2.17. which relates to Joel the second, That Johns Ba­ptism was not by dipping, but pouring out Water; and therefore this cannot be the reason why he chose that place, namely, Because there were many Waters to dip. Other Reasons must be therefore given, as, That because the work of baptising a whole Region was very great; and John not onely baptising himself, but very likely, having made Disciples which he taught more immediately, Luke 11.1, 2. John 4.1, 2. Matth. 11.2, 3. Luke 7.18. as Christ did his Disciples: He also might ordain and appoint them to the work, that so when the whole multitude of people came together, they might have each a share of the work, and conveniency of place accordingly, because there were many waters, when other parts of the Country were very scarce thereof; as not onely History, but Scripture mention; track Israels march from Egypt.

Surely, had this Author of the Doctrine of Baptisms lived in Spain, or in many parts of Zona-torida, where they sell Water as we do Beer, not having enough to drown a man in a Country; he would have been of a more sober judgment. Adding this also thereto, That when John baptized a whole Region, both men and women, rich and poor; either, he must send out O [...]ders to all the Country, [...]o bring suitable Gar­ments, which the poor, it is likely, could not do or else promiscu­ously he must dip them naked, or, in such G [...]ments as they wear; the unworthiness of which practice is already shewn: Therefore it is much to think, that a person who pre [...]ends to Preach the Gospel, as this man doth, should be so purbsinde, having his eyes shut against the truth. But that God deals so by men in a way of Justice, when they set up idols in their hearts, he answers them according to their idol [...], Ezek. 14.1, 3, 4, 5. a place by himself afterwards quoted, though falsly applied.

Page the eleventh and twelfth, contains his seventh, eighth, and ninth Arguments, which may be all put together, because all alike, and the confutation of one answers the rest; where he tells us, That Baptism ought to be by dipping, is proved from the nature of the Or­dinance; and from the Analogy, it hath with the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, many places he brings, but to every little pur­pose. And therefore I answer with Mr. Sidenham

1. That plunging cannot represent it, is most clear; for when Christ was buried, he was not plunged into the Earth, but laid in Josephs Sepulchre cut out of a Rock, Matth. 27.6. which was the manner of burials amongst the Jews; and if covering all over, though in a Rock, was sufficient, to cause such a resemblance by dipping, then had Christ been covered in a House or Coffin for three days; it must also have been so resembled.

2. Neither doth it answer to the mode of burying amongst Chri­stians in Europe, or elswhere: For the Earth, by which the person is covered, is applied to the subject, and cast upon him; so that the ap­plying of water to the subject in Baptism, as John did, in those places before quoted, [I indeed baptize you with water, &c.] doth more lively represent Christs burial, then dipping can. To what purpose there­fore is it for a man to heap up a multitude of Scriptures, as this Author hear doth, to make all sure, when he is wholly mistaken in the thing, and manner thereof▪ and not one of those Texts proves, that ever Christ was so buried?

Seventhly. Page 13. he comes to his tenth Argument to prove Baptism by dipping, namely, because it holds forth a conformity to Christ in his sufferings. So saith Christ, I have a Baptism, meaning his death, and can ye be baptized with the Baptism wherewith I am baptized; meaning his afflictions. And this is set forth by dipping into water, because when the Saints in the Scripture express their afflictions, they set them forth by being in the depths, Psal. 130. Out of the depths have I cried And Isa. 43.2. When thou passest through the waters, they shall not overflow thee: Therefore Believers are to be dipt all over into the water; and as he is raised up again by the hand of the Minister, it holds forth, that so such souls, shall be saved from all their affl [...]ctio s by Christ. Psal. 24.17. Many are the afflictions of the righteous▪ but God delivereth them out of all: And that this doth signifie our Salvation doth further appear, 1 Pet. 3 [...]1 Alike figure whereunto Baptism even s [...]ves us: A [...]d Mark 6 16. He that believes, and [...]s baptized, or dipt, shall be saved.

Answ. What strange Hieroglyphicks doth this Author make in the Water, by dipping? What stretcht inferences to make the Scripture answer his fancy? let's try the places. If Christ calls his afflictions a Baptism, doth it therefore follow, That all Believers should represent it by plunging? We know that many Christians never meet with such afflictions; and such a practice to be so plunged, would be a greater affliction then ever befel them; and the place implies this, to be in deep waters, is an affliction; or, would this new Doctor have Believers do themselves a mischief, to represent Christs afflictions: Which of necessity, thousands must do by this practice of dipping. It is no hard matter to give several instances hereof.

Secondly, What should such do to represent those afflictions of Christ, that have not water enough in a Country, except they should make deep Ponds or Vessels of purpose. Did ever the Martyrs in Queen Maries days, or the Primitive persecutions, take that course, and yet no doubt but they were as much baptized into Christs death and af­flictions, as ever this Author could be, though with his practice he should give his body to be burnt, to justifie the same. Therefore, let the judicious but impartially judge what strange doctrines this Labor­er, for dowsing, brings. What though David cried to the Lord out of the depths; yet his head stil kept above water: unless he will affirms, that the promise in the place, by himself quoted Isai. 43.2. was not made good unto him, [When thou passest through the water, it shall not over­flow thee.] And though afflictions shall never quite overflow a childe of God, yet by this doctrine the body must be dipt all over: A strange resemblance!

The like we may say to that of 1 Pet. 3.21. by which he would prove, That Baptism is a figure of Salvation, though yet, it cannot be by dipping under water, because the Apostle calls it a like figure to the Ark: But the Ark was never under water, but always floating, and so the persons that were in the Ark; therefore if Baptism be a like figure, then it needs no going under water for a signification: For had the Ark been dowst under water, the signification had been lost, or at least not so clear. By this therefore, we may take the hint of an other Argument, to prove dipping under water, not to be the Scri­pture way of baptising. Thus we may see how fully and apparently even his own Scriptures, makes against both his Book and practice.

As to that other place, Matth. 16.16. it is quite besides the business; for it doth not prove Baptism to be a figure of Salvation: onely he that believes and is baptized, i. e. obeys the Gospel, shall be saved. Thus [Page 15] then his second Essentiall of dipping hath been examined with all his ten arguments: upon which this Author of the doctrine of Baptismes doth build the whole stress and fabrick of dipping-grown persons with soe much heat and confidence, and such slighting contempt of his opposers, and upon the whole result it appears but as a bubble quickly broken, Ergo dipping is no Essentiall.

CHAP. IV. His third head of Essentialls concerning the name into which persons are Baptized.

VVEE are come now to examine and look into this third Essentiall (by him so call'd) of dipping into the name of the Father &c. as 'tis by him opened page 14. 15. 16. and 24. in which hee tels us a person cannot be rightly Baptized into the name, except he be able to give a distinct Accompt of the Trinitie of persons in their severall operations. Let us therefore review those primitive and 'Apostolicall examples.

Answ: The Baptism of Iohn, none will denie, but his Baptism and Ministerie was from God, and so a Gospell-Baptizm: did the persons he Baptized give this Account? the contrarie is most evident, and that they claimed a right to that ordinance as being Abrahams seed to whom the covenant was made: therefore when the Pharisees came to be Baptized, who lived not as Abrahams Children, hee turns them back with a reproof, think not to say within your selves you have Abra­ham to your Father: for you are a generation of Vipers. Had not the rest been receaved upon that consideration as Abrahams seed; the reproof had not been suitable: but no mention is made of their distinct know­ledg in the mystery of the Trinitie.

Secondly had this been an essentiall, then was Iohns Baptizm quite null, and the Apostles also before Christs death: for the third person was not so eminently known nor sent, because Christ was not then glorified, yea Iohns disciples never heard whether there were any holy Ghost, therefore how could they beleeve in him (and so confess, him) so distinctly and eminently? Rom. 10.14.

This further appears by considering the commission it selfe, and the practice of the disciples thereupon: the words of the Commission are, goe teach all nations &c. teaching them to observe whatever I command [Page 16] you. In which something is to be taught before, somthing after Baptism, now that which is to be taught before is so much as capacifies them to be disciples, for so our opposits give the Rendition of the words, goe disciple all nations. As a Child then may be a disciple when he first be­gins to learne his A. B. C. so may a Christian bee a disciple of Christ without such a high pitch of Knowledg into the mystery of the Trinitie. For without all peradventure, the Apostles themselves were ignorant thereof though Baptized, when Christ first called them, and were after­wards taught further by degrees: for the Scripture tells us they were disciples before they knew how to pray Luke. 11.1.2.

Fourthly, That this is no Essentiall, further appears, if we view the practice of the Apostles after Christs ascension; as for instance, that place Acts 2. where so many thousands were Baptized together, can any reasonable man think that they all gave such a distinct Accompt of their faith into the persons of the Trinitie, and that in one day. The like also in the Eunuch Acts the 8. what Accompts did he give, but onely I beleeve that Iesus Christ is the sonn of God, and surely had there been more needfull, when he asked that question, what hinders? Philip would not have Baptized him before he had given a fuller ac­compt into all the persons of the Trinitie, For to what purpose had it been, when his Baptism had been null for want thereof; the like instance also is that of Simon Magus Acts, 8. then Simon himselfe beleeved also and was Baptized, and yet afterwards hee appeared to be soe Igno­rant of the holy Ghost, that he would have bought the gifts thereof with money, yea were this to be decided by the Anabaptists themselves there would not be one in twentie rightly Baptized, supposing (though not granted) their practice to be true, For how [...]ew amongst them are able to give such an account of the Trinitie of persons, when as also many of them, to my knowledg, and that not of the meanest, denie the personalitie of the holy Ghost at all? we may therefore see what new doctrines are intruded upon the consciences of weake Christians, by men that doe not understand what an Essentiall is, yet I would not be so understood as that I should deny the forme of words, to all within the Covenant, when the ordinance is administred, or that I plead against a preposition or confession of faith, from such as are converted and not Baptized, which yet may be, as hath been here proved, though there may be much ignorance of so high a misterie; thus also having examined this head, we find that the name into which B [...]leevers with their seed are Baptized is, not so to be applyed, as that a person ought not to be baptized, unless he can so distinctly answer to this [Page 17] Doctors new Catechisme, Ergo such a kind of knowledg, is no Essen­tiall.

CHAP. V. Relates to the subject fit for Baptism, in which the whole Scriptures give in their votes to beleevers and their Infants.

IN Page the 17 hee comes to his last head of Essentialls, namely the subjects to whom the ordinance is to be administred, laid down in these termes, Disciples, penitent persons: the Texts he brings are Mark. 6.16. goe preach the Gospell &c. he that beleeves and is bap­tized shall be saved, compared with Matth. 28.10. Goe teach all nations Baptizing.

Answ: [...]o cleare these places we are to consider, that before the death of Christ the Gospell, i. e. Abrahams Covenant was shut up to the Jewish nation onely; And therefore the wall of separation, being broken down by the death of Christ he inlarges that commission to all nations which before was confined to the Jewes, According to that old prophesie of Noah Gen. 9.27 God shall inlarge Iapheth; and he shall dwell in the tent of Shem. So that look what priviledges the Jewes had before, and in what sence they were disciples, and Canaanites made sub­ject to them; In the same large extent the same priviledges of covenant-discipleship, was by this commission publisht to the world. i. e. to all nations Goe teach all nations, i. e. open Abrahams covenant to all na­tions, i. e. Let all nations upon embracing the Gospell and submitting to the conditions of Abrahams covenant, (for there can be no other Gospell taught,) have the same benefit of being disciples that the Jews had before, that is, both they and their seed; for so tis cleare the Jews and their Children were disciples, Esa 8.16. seale the law a­mongst my disciples. And Acts 15. they were those upon whose necks the [...]alse teachers would lay the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses, and are called in verse [...]0. Disciples. Another cleare text for this is Math. 10 last verse, whosoever shall give to one of these little ones a cup of cold water, onely in the name of a disciple, shall not loose his re­ward where we have three sor s of persons named, a Prophet: a righteous man, and a little Child, and the least of these called a disciple by Christ himself▪ that, by little ones is meant Children, and not beleevers Adult, is plain, because that otherwise it had been Tautologie, the word [Page 18] righteous man including all such Adult-believers. [See this place also to prove children disciples, Matth. 21.15. with Luk. 19.37, 39.] For the whole verse runs in diminitives, both as to the favors shewn, and the person to whom: For as a less favor could not well be extended for Christs sake, then the giving a cup of water, so it could not be extended to a less subject, then to an Infant-disciple. The same word is used, Matth. 18.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 The result comes to this, That if Chil­dren were disciples amongst the Jewish Nation, to whom the Gospel or Covenant was first preached; and this new Commission was given by way of enlargement of that Covenant to all Nations, baptizing, &c. 'Tis then evident, that children of Believers are now also disci­ples, therefore fit subjects for Baptism; and the putting of any other sence upon the place, as our opposites do (in all their Books lately published) is but a resting and abusing the holy Scriptures. And

Secondly, All those other Texts by this Author brought for bapti­sing of Believers in Page 17, 18, 19. are those, which in a right sense we deny not, provided, (as hath been already said) They are convert­ed from Judaism, or Heathenism; or such amongst our selves that have for several years past, neglected their Baptism. An example whereof, we may take from the practice of our Brethren of New England, in baptising many Heathens, lately converted, which this Author might have seen, had he staid there a little longer, and been as Patient in nature, as he is by name.

The next proofs he brings to prove Adult-believers, and not Chil­dren, to be the onely subjects of Baptism, is all those Families, Page [...]oo mentioned in the New Testament, where this opposit undertakes to prove they were all converted Disciples, such as upon hearing the Word, did actually believe hitherto notwithstanding any thing he hath said. As in page 18. That God commands his Ministers to dip B [...]lievers onely: It hath been proved, and that by the testimony of two Ap stles, That dipping is not the Scripture-way of bap ising; and that Adult believers are not the onely subjects of Baptism, is in part cleared: And though he is pleased to say, The Apostles did b [...]p [...]ize onely such, it shall appear, That what he affirms therein, is against the very scope and minde of God, through the Scriptures, in these follow­ing examples.

1. The first Family Text he quotes▪ is that of Lydea, Acts 16.14, 15. And a certain woman named Lydea, a seller of Purple, of he City of Thiatira, which worshipped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened that she attended, &c. And when she was baptized and her hous­hold, [Page 19] she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and she constrained us. Which Family Mr. Patient saith, were all Believers, Verse 40. which Paul and Sylas went to visit.

Answ. The consideration of the words preceding the Text, and the several circumstances, will give a clear light to finde out the truth, by him (and many Scribes of a late edition of that party) obscured and darkned.

First, The persons that were met together, were onely women.

Secondly, Of all those Women met, we finde onely Lydea con­verted.

Thirdly, Upon her conversion, we finde her houshold baptized, and that at the same time: By which it is apparent, that she took with her, her family to the place of worship; for thus the words run, And when she was baptized, and her houshold, she besought us, saying, If you have judged me faithful to the Lord, come with me, &c. Both she and her houshold, were baptized before they went home; by which also, we may very lawfully gather,

1. That there were no men at the meeting.

2. That therefore those Brethren afterwards mentioned, could not be then at that time converted, because, had there been men, and they wrought upon, the Holy Ghost would not have overslipt them, to take notice onely of the Female: Therefore it is evident, That those Brethren spoken of, Verse 40. were either some of the Family after­wards converted, or some other of the City, then met at her house, which were after Lydea's conversion, wrought upon, because we finde Paul and Sylas were committed to prison; and it is likely, it was upon that converting work, which the Gospel made amongst them, accord­i [...]g to the voice that called them, come over and help us. Or 3. they might be believing Brethren from other parts, that came to buy Pur­ple, because we finde the Spirit of God taking such exact notice of her profession, Vers. 14. But that those Brethren, were converted at that time, when she and her houshold were baptized, is against the express Letter of the Text, as any observant Reader may see. This Text therefore makes against Mr. Patient; for if Lydea and her hous­hold were baptized, when we finde onely Lydea converted: And if by house, is meant Children, as I shall afterwards prove it is, then it is [...]greeable to the very minde of God, to say, That her believing gave her Children aright to Baptism, because we do not finde any that be­lieved, but her, and yet we finde all her houshold baptized. Thus [Page 20] then this place breaks forth with much clear light, dispelling those foggs of error that scribbling pens have cast upon it.

Secondly, The next place hee brings is the Jaylor and his house, Acts 16. who rejoyced in God with all his house, [hee beleeving] For so the words are truly rendred, by which it doth not appear the whole house beleeved, but the whole house rejoyced, and yet, both he and his whole house were Baptized. Secondly 'tis observable, the exhortation given the Jaylor runs in the very strains of Abrahams covenant, Gen. 17. walke before me, And I will bee thy God and the God or thy seed; so here, beleeve, and thou shalt be saved and thy house, so Acts 2. when they were prickt in heart, as this Jaylor was, Repent and be Baptized, the promise is to you and your Children: so here verse 33. hee was Baptized, he and all that were of him. A fuller expression could not well be used, to set out his Children by, who may properly be said to bee of their Parents, and none but they. Therefore, if the Jaylor and all that were of him were Baptized, when onely the Jaylor beleeved, though all rejoyc'd, then he and his Children were Baptized; unless any man can be so unreasonable as to say, that those that were of him were not Children; which to affirme, will but rather discover weakeness then Eclipse the truth.

Thirdly, A third example which holds forth a clearer light to the preceding, is that of Zacheus, Luke 9 who was a Gentile-Publican, yet upon Christs calling him, hee useth this argument, to day I must abide at thy house, and in verse 9. this day is salvation come to this house, For as much as hee also is a Son of Abraham: In which word [also] the very covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is confirmed to him and his house though a Gentile, that had no rela­tion to Abrahams seed by birth, yet, thou also though a Gentile, art the son of Abraham; and therefore salvation is come to thy house. Note­worthy are the collections of faithfull Sydenham, from this place, whose little peece hath made their water-workes totter, and remains not onely unanswered, but unanswereable, though the spattering of a scratching pen hath given a late attempt to little purpose. His collecti­ons are these, first, that assoon as Zacheus beleeved, Christ applyed Abrahams promise to his house; And it there had not been something more in it, he would have said onely, salvation is come to thee: For the spirit of God doth not put a syllable more in the Scriptures then is usefull and necessarie.

Secondly Hee opens Abrahams covenant not onely to him, but his house, and argues the priviledg from his being a son of Abraham, [Page 21] though a Gentile, shewing that Abrahams covenant hath as large an extent amongst the Gentiles, as it had amongst the Jews to a beleever and his seed; otherwise it had been enough to have said salvation is come to thee: but to mention his house with himselfe, and to bring them into the blessing, and give this as a reason, because thou also art a son of Abraham, is as much as to say, that the priviledges of Abrahams covenant are the same to thee a Gentile and thy house, as they were to Isaac, for as much as thou also art a son of Abraham, as well as hee. Now for Christ to speak in this dialect, and to tell them of their houshold and his favour to them, and that in the beginning of the Gospells planting, and yet at the same time to exclude their infants from all outward signes of the promise, which they ever had in darkest dayes of Grace, is a strange policie unsuitable to the simplicitie of the Gospell.

These are such plain examples, that I marvell what kind of con­science men pretend to have, when they shut out the sun that shines in these scriptures, and cry out they are full of darkness.

Fourthly, The next place and example brought by this Author, is the house of Stephanus, whom Paul Baptized; A Triumphant place so thought, to prove that there was no Children in those houses mentioned 1. Cor. 11.6. chap 16.15. the words run thus; I beseech you brethren you know the houshold of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia: that they have addicted themselves to the ministerie of the Saints; That yee submit your selves to such, and to every one that laboureth with us: where saith Master Patient, wee see they were all ministers, and men that laboured with the Apostles, therefore not Babes or Children.

Answ: The Apostle doth not say they were all Ministers, or such as laboured in the word and doctrine, as he did himselfe; But they are so said to Minister, because they addicted themselves to the ministring to the Saints, in a way of Hospitalitie, for so the word is taken for releeving the Poor and so the same chap. refers to 1 Cor. 16. namely a free, liberall and charitable collection for the poor Saints: verse 1.2.3. and 2 Cor 8.4. chap. 9.1. now as touching the Ministring to the Saints, 'tis superfluous for me to write &c. In which places the same word is used, as here in this example of Stephanus and his house, who addicted themselves to the Ministerie of the Saints. by which it appeares, that as the Apostle had boasted of others in the former chap. so in this also hee commends the freeness and Hospi­talitie of Stephanus; because in such actions there is much heart-sinceritie to be seen, in entertaining poor Christians, This being so, [Page 22] Then tis no hard matter to know, who is meant by the house of Stephanus which Paul Baptized. For though the servants 'tis likely might be gracious, and full of love to poor Christians, yet by the word house is property meant, Parents and Children, and 'tis very, unlikely, the servants of the house should be so free and hospitable of their Masters goods. And as for the Children, they were taken in by their Parents Actions and so the whole house is commended, For the hospitalitie of Stephanus and his yoakfellow, as 'tis usuall in such causes, to say, such a house is noble and free, when 'tis meant onely of the heads and chief of the family, and these were the persons that Paul presseth the Church to honour and esteem; and to submit to such; And not to such onely, but to every one also, that helpeth with us, and laboureth. But 'tis a stretcht inference to say, that because his house addicted themselves to the ministrie of the saints, therefore they were all preachers, and such as laboured in the Gospell, and the Church was to submit themselves to all the houshold i. e. servants, and all as ministers, therefore no Children. The like also the Apostle prest them in the following verse to submit to Fortunatus and Achicus, who came with a seasonable and re­freshing releef and supply to their wants; therefore acknowledg ye them that are such, verse 18. i. e. such who minister releef to Christians in necessitie. So Matth. 8.15. 'tis said that Peters Wives Mother ministred to Christ. Master Patient, surely will not be so far besides himselfe, to think that she preacht to Christ, as a minister; from what then hath been also said to this instance, 'tis abundantly clear to any sober spirit who is willing to search after truth, and not take things barely upon the count of Master Patients word. Our opposites have not so honestly quitted themselves in al their writings in interpreting this text, to lay a snare, or decoy, to intrap, or intice people into the lake of error, by saying that here was none but Adult-beleevers in this house, when as the tenor of those Scriptures hitherto which related to housholds, hath still run to the children upon the parents beleeving.

Quest. But how shall I know, whether, when the Scripture speaks of house, there were any Children? for the word is not exprest; they might be housholds and yet no Children.

Answ. 'Tis the common way in finding out the mind of God in Scriptures to compare them, that so what is, darke in one, may be cleard by the other; And since the spirit of God at the first tender of the Gospell, did delight to speak to Jew and Gentile, in the Old [Page 23] Testament Dialect, as to say of Lydea, She and her House, the Jaylor and his House, Cornelius and his House, Stephanus and his House, Zacheus and his house; so Crispus believed in God with all his house, the house of Aristobulus, the house of Narcissus; it is as if he had said, If you would know what I mean by this word house, then look back to my First will and Testament; for what it was then, it is now. Therefore when upon review, we shall finde in the Old Testament, there were Children mentioned, and chiefly included; It will be then an undoubted truth to say, and maintain, That in all these houses mentioned to be baptized, there were Children, which properly gave the denomination, and they all baptized whilest little ones, upon the Belief or Covenant-right of their Parents. See Gen. 12.3. In thee shall all the families of the Earth be blessed: Who are so properly the Family as Children? Chap. 30.30. And when shall I provide for my own house also? Who was that house that Jacob was bound to look after, and provide for, but his Wife and Children. And Chap. 45.18, 19. Then said Pharaoh, Say unto thy Brethren, take your Father, and your Houshold, and come unto me. And Verse 19 it is explained to be heir little ones, Wives, and Fathers. So Num. 3.15. 2 Sam. 23.5. Josh. 24.15. So the Apostle, He that provides not for his own house, i. e. His Children, is worse then an Infidel, and hath denied the Faith, 1 Tim. 5.8. What denying the Faith can this be, for such as profess Christ, if it be not the Faith of that Covenant of Grace, into which, Believers and Professing-Christians with their Seed, are admitted? The neglect of a Heathen-Parent, in not providing for his Children, cannot be called a denying the Faith, but the denying the Law of Nature. But the neglect of Christians in not providing for their Children, is a denying the Faith, because visibly within the Covenant. Exod. 1.1. Prov. 31.11. 1 Sam. 20.15. 2 Sam 9.3, 9. 1 King. 17.1 [...], 13, 21, 22, 23. Psal. 127.1, 3. Prov. 12.7. Hos. 1.4. 1 Tim 3 4, 5. & 5.4, 8. 2 Tim. 1.16. A full Text also is, That where the Prophet speaks of Israels conversion and gathering under the Faith of Christ, yet to be fulfilled. Jer. 1.1. At that time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the Families of Israel, and they shall be my people: A Text so remarkable that it is enough to convince any man, that, look what God was to Israel, and the Families of Israel, in blessing them, as their God; i. e. aged in Covenant with them, and their [...]eed, so he will be the same God again to Israel, and their Families in Gospel-days: Which [...]ime is near at hand, and they, and their Seed, whilst Babes, shal be his people; so that either our opposits must oppose [Page 24] that doctrine of the Jews conversion, when both they and their Chil­dren shall be brought into the Faith of Christ, or else of necessity they must acknowledge the truth by us maintained.

Now then to sum up all, the premisses considered, and that upon the advantage the Spirit of God puts into our hands, in explaining what is meant by the word house, himself, who is a better Expositor, then Mr. Patient, or any else; We see the whole Catalogue, or Cloud of Family-Witnesses and Examples, in Scripture, do give in their Light and Testimony to Abrahams Infant-seed. And that when the Scri­pture speaks of Housholds baptized, it is meant Parents and Children; and when a Master of a Family was converted, and became the son of Abraham, as Zacheus, though a Gentile, his Seed, or House also, were taken visibly into Covenant, Luke 10 3, 6. So that by this time, we see the vanity, and self-confidence of this Author, to speak such bitter words of Gall and Wormwood, as he doth in page 23. against a world of people; who, as he saith, from Custom, and Tradition, run headlong after this Idol of mans invention. By which it is evi­dent, That whosoever embraceth not this new doctrine of dipping, which hath already been proved, not Apostolical; he is no otherwise look'd upon, or esteemed, then, yea called an Idolater. And thus not onely the Truths of God, and Priviledges given to all Gods people, suffer; but also the Powers and Authorities of these Nations come to be undervalued, slighted, and contemned, for practising or counte­nancing such Idolatries. Thus the dark-side of the Cloud, by this, ap­pears onely to such spirits, when the Israel of God, i e Abrahams Seed, have light within their dwellings. Ye therefore who have up­right hearts to God, and his ways, that have been hitherto led in these untrodden paths, and so have lost the way, enquire after the footsteps of the flock, and have more pity to your own bowels: Cut not off their entail to Grace, by losing your visible right and title to the Covenant, in which the invisible part thereof is conveyed. What though they are born in sin and iniquity, yet the Promise reaches them whilst yong, as it reached Isaac when a Childe. If you are not wanting in your duties, your children have a Gospel-right; the Seed of the Jews had it, yea, they shall have it again to the same Covenant. Take heed least your Children cry our against you at the last day, and say, their cruel Parents took away their Bread, and gave away their birth-right for nought. Let me therefore say with the Pro­phet, It hath and shall be for a lamentation, to see Christians kick against their own mercies. And let me leave this with you Mr. Patient, [Page 25] Ro. 2.22. thou that abhorrest an Idoll, doe not commit sacriledg, by stealing away a Church ordinance from those to whom God hath given it: Thus far his four Essentialls are weighed, over which we may write that superscription Daniel. 8.15. Mene Mene tekel vpharsin thou art weighed in the ballance and found too light.

CHAP. VI. Page 23. 24. Is a preludium to the subsequent chapter touching the Covenant.

WEE are now come to view that passion of Weakness that lies in those two Pages, and first, of his distinction given of Idola­trie, which though I grant to be good; yet he still mistakes in application: for hee comes again to tell us, that in the room of this precious Ordinance of God, the dipping of beleevers, which Christ hath confirmed by his blood, is set up an Idoll of mans invention, namely the sprinkling of Carnall poor infants; and doubtless if there be an Idoll in the world, now set up amongst men, this must needs be one in his sence, because he hath learnt this to be an Idoll, either the worshipping a false God, or the true God in a false manner, &c.

Answ. Let any reader Judg whether this man of the waterie element doth not speak with as high a piece of confidence, as if he had a spirit of infallibilitie to judg our practice by, hee tells us that dipping of beleevers, was an ordinance confirmed, by the blood of Christ, therefore sprinkling of Children must needs be an Idoll his Allegati­tions have been examined in all the parts thereof, and: we still find notwithstanding any thing he hath said to the contrarie) that Childrens Baptism remains an Ordinance, That dipping is not the way of the Gospel; and therefore I must tell him, that dipping was never confirm'd by Christs blood; Ergo, He speaks untruths in the name of the Lord: neither is it an Idoll of the first or second magnitude; no Image of Baptism, set up in the room thereof by mans invention, which are terms by him used, to bespatter the truth. But the contrary is proved, The Administrators Right, a person qualified and ordeined; the manner, by sprinkling or pouring out water Right, the form of words Right, and the subject Right: And therefore an Ordi­nance that shal stand (mauger al the malice of men) as a pretious Ordi­nance [Page 26] of Iesus Christ, so long as the Sun & Moon endures. And there­fore instead of your appealing to men, since there hath been enough said, If you and I had never written; let us appeal to God; and let all those that own their childrens right in the Covenant say, Amen.

In Page 25 he concludes again, that Infant Baptism is corrupt in the four Essentialls aforementioned,

Answ: First then by his own words, tis not anihillated, but onely Corrupted, and that a person though corruptly Baptiz'd ought not to be Baptiz'd, that being already prooved. But,

Secondly, He reckons without his host, and therefore must come to a new accompt: They are not Essentialls, nor any of them, as laid down by him, but whimsies of his own brain; therefore.

The next thing we are to follow him in is the business of the Cove­nants, with its distinctions and extent; from which he undertakes to prove, that Infants are not subjects of Baptism. Though we have hitherto built upon a good Foundation; yet if hee shakes down his main pillar, it will be time to forsake the house. But before wee can come to his Arguments, we must passe by many falsitis and prolo­cutions, and goe through many impertinencies, which must be born withall amongst the Patrons of Error. The first thing he deals with is, A (pretended) false consequence, which he saith, wee draw from scripture, to maintain Infant-Baptism: It runs thus, The Covenant of Grace is made with beleevers, and their seed: Therefore the seale of the Covenant belongs to them. To disprove which he tells us, 'tis against the Law of the new Testament.

Answ. The new Testament is Christs last will to his Church; in which hee shews forth more love then he did in his first Testament, which was made to the same Church; and the Covenant of Grace, in the spirituall part thereof, is the same in both: If therefore in the old Testament, which was his first Legacie, hee took Children into his kingdom, and yet now, his bowels should be shut against them who are not then called into libertie, but a greater bondage then before. But grace in the Covenant being unchangeable, therefore Children still remain within Christs kingdom, except our opposits can shew us how, when, and where they were out-law'd.

Secondly, His insisting upon the Command, Matth. 28. Go teach and Baptize, doth not at al cross this consequence, as hath been already proved; therefore no consequence of ours is forc'd to oppose the new Testament.

Thirdly, But such without which his practice is not Gospell, [Page 27] because it shuts up the tender bowels of our Lord Jesus in a narrower compass then ever the Law did, and the fancies and burthens, Master Patient would put upon our shouldiers, in that which they call the Ordinance, would be heavier then ever the Loyns of the Law were; As to that Instance he brings of Peter in Page 26. to prove con­sequencies against commands unlawfull, because he would have dis­swaded Christ from suffering, in these words, Far be it from thee Lord:

Answ. Instead of handling the word like a Minister, he stretcheth the strings of Scripture, till they crack: what kind of consequence could this be, or from what place of Scripture, or against what command, was this a consequence to say, Far be it from thee Lord? Surely the most any English Grammarian can make from thence is; That it was a dissuasive, but no consequence. However, by this we may Judg how feeble this mans Judgment is, when he thinks God hath Cho­sen him as one of those, that shall confound the wise of the world, that doth not yet understand what a true, or right consequence is.

Master Patient afterwards tells us, that all such consequencies and books and arguments as are brought against commands (to prove Infant Baptism, which is cleerly implied) he may say of them, as Christ to Peter, Get the behind mee Satan, thou art an offence to me. Page 6.27.

Answ. Alas poor man, if the Physicks of truth offend his stomack, which should cure him; 'tis a sad signe hee is near past recovery. How ever, take this extract from his own Instance, that so far as any man shall disswade others from truth, and cause them to apostatize from the ways of Christ, hee Acts the Divels part, Ergo This I say not; Get thee behind me Satan but this I say, that book by him publisht, in which he so bitterly reviles the good old wav of God: for the ends aforesaid. The state would doe well to have all such books, though in Folio, put into an Index Expurgatorius, amongst the whole Rabble of Erroneous and Hereticall peeces, that have been printed in these Licentions book-days: and so condemn them to the fire, as they have done others not fit to be suffered. And by this meanes, all Protestant Churches through the world, will know, what Religion wee are of.

In Page the 27 he pretends to come nearer the consequence, and grounds thereof, but doth not close till Page [...]8. And then hee tells us of the danger of the practice of Infant-Baptism, that if it be maintained in all it's dimensions upon the Ground of the Cove­nant it will shake the very foundation of the Gospell.

Answ. All these are but great swelling words of vanitie, fit for [Page 28] nothing but to delude the simple, of which we have been slong since foretold, by the Apostles of Christ: but to the busines of the Cove­nant at last hee comes; where at length we shall find with what grosse ignorance, hee gropes about, to find a new way, but is mista­ken.

CHAP. VII. The two Covenants answered.

PAge 28. In handling this consequence, and to cut off the interest of Children, and right to the Covenant, hee reduceth the method into these four heads, as before the Controversie of Baptism was into four Essentialls.

First, To prove there are two Covenants held forth in Scripture: a Covenant of Works, and a Covenant of Grace.

Secondly, That the Covenant of Circumcision was not of Grace, but works. Thirdly, That none but beleevers ever had, or shall have a right to the Covenant of Grace.

Fourthly, To answer such objections and Scriptures as are usually alledged, to defend a Covenant of life in the flesh.

To prove the first of these, hee brings severall Scriptures: the main of which is, Jer 31.32.33 34. but to what purpose, it will afterwards appear: the words are these. Behold the days come, that I wil make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, & the house of Judah; Not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers, when I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the Land of Egypt; which my Covenant they brake, though I was to them a husband, saith the Lord. where saith Master Patient, we find an old Covenant, and a new Covenant: the old broken, therefore of works; the new was not like the old, therefore of Grace &c.

Answ. Before I shall come to answer the Scriptures by him quoted. I shall briefely premise, what a Covenant of Grace is; The Answer will be this, It's a gracious engagement betwixt God and his people upon Gospell terms, requiring duties from them, in promising mercy to them: what that mercy and duties be, and how far Conditio­nall, shall largely appear in its due place: this definition of the Cove­nant, importing a Condition is often denied by our opposites, and [Page 29] sometimes Granted, so that to bee as a stable foundation to build upon, I thought it most fit for this place. And according to this definition, I shall doe two things:

First, Give a brief Epitome or Analysis of Abrahams Covenant.

Secondly, The whole ensuing discourse, with all his Scriptures that he brings, will be from hence answered, and so his weapons brought against us, and many more added to them, shall be made use of, to prove Abrahams Covenant in every part thereof, to be a Covenant of pure Grace; which (I am sure) as tis the best fortification I can make to secure the truth, so the incursions that shall be made from hence, upon his confused and new doctrine, will give a rout thereto.

Abrahams Covenant had two parts, Gen. 17.2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14.

First, Gods part: this consisted in blessings, carried on in a way of promise, and that twofold.

• 1. Inward and Spirituall; I will be thy God, and thy Seeds God: to give grace and Glory.
• 2. Outward and Temporall, specially in three things.
  • 1. In multiplying his seed as the Stars.
  • 2. In making them blessings to families and Nations.
  • 3. In giving them the Land of Canaan for an ever­lasting possession.

Secondly, Mans part; and this respected duties to be done and that twofold.

• 1. Inward, walke before mee, and be thou perfect.
• 2. Outward, and this also in three things especially.
  • 1. In keeping to the seale or token which then was (circumcision, as now Baptism) therefore in every Generation.
  • 2. In keeping the Morall Law.
  • 3. All those Typical ceremonies relating to Worship.

By all which we shall hereafter see.

• 1. That here are not two Covenants spoken of.
• 2. That the Covenant of Grace is Conditional.

First it hath Gods part, and that consists of promises and blessings, Spiritual and Temporal. Secondly mans part consisting of duties, inward and outward, and all this but one Covenant. This Covenant was confirmed, First to Abraham as a publique Father: Secondly to his seed, i. e. all the heirs of promises to the worlds end, both Jews and Gentiles.

• [Page 30]1. By Promise.
• 2. By Oath.
• 3. By seale.

So that what was promised to Abraham, was promised to al his seed, and what was sworn and seald to Abraham, was sworn and seald to all his seed. According to this definition also we shall see a twofold admission into Covenant.

• 1. Into the outward priviledges of the Covenant.
• 2. Into the inward grace of the Covenant.

Hence also we shall have light to see, first, how hypocrits and wicked men did then, and do now, get within the Covenant; Secondly how such as are within the Covenant do break it, As first hee that contemned or slighted, or neglected the token or seale of the Covenant to his seed, hath broken the Covenant, which being outward they might keep.

Secondly, The breach of any part of the Morall Law, was a breach of the Covenant, and this also might have been externally kept by all, that were externally within the Covenant.

Thirdly, All those typicall Church rites might have been kept, and the neglect or breach of any one in the due order or manner required, was a breach of the Covenant: for neglect of the first, Gods wrath was so kindled against Moses that he would have kild him; for breach of the second and third Israel was also punisht with death: many instances thereof might be given. Hence also we shall be led to an answere how the [...]ovenant is call'd.

• 1. Old and so vanisht away.
• 2. New and so remaines.
• 3. An administration.

This being briefly premised, I now come to give in the Answer to the place by him quoted Jer. 31.32. which he brings to prove that there are two Covenants but grossely mistaken yet so far as we may goe without breach of faith to the truth of Christ, in acknow­ledging two Covenants, shall not deny him friendship, as namely,

First, That there hath been two Covenants made with man: the one of workes before the fall, in which man stood alone without a mediator, under which covenant al mankind by nature lies to this day, which is also materially the same with that righteous Law Morall, given to Israel from mount Sinah, though upon other tearmes.

Secondly, The other of Grace made since the fall, and tendred to Adam, in the promise of Christ, since which, the Law in any part of [Page 31] it, is not given as a covenant of workes, but as the Law of Christ put in the hands of a mediator, therefore.

Thirdly, It was never intended by God, either in giving circum­cision to Abraham, or the Law to Israel, that ever Abrahams seed should enjoy Canaan, by the law as a Covenant of works, but only (as hath been laid down in the Analysis) as mans part, of the covenant of grace.

Quest. But if that was not a covenant of works given to Israel, when God took them by the hand, in order to bring them into Canaan, what then can be the meaning of that place, where the holy Ghost speaks of, an old & new Covenant? & tells us the new Covenant which he will make after those days, shall not be according to the old, &c.

The clearing of this, with a Questian or two more, will take in all those scriptures brought to this, and therefore I further answer.

First, The Covenant there mentioned is call'd new, as the Law of love, Iohn 13.34.1 Iohn 2.8. is call'd a new Commandment or Law: which yet is not new in it self, but the same Command as was given to Israel of old Lev. 19.18 And as the new heavens and new earth are call'd new Re. 21.1. And as the new Creature is call'd new, which is not the annihilating the old, and creating new, but the putting of the old heavens and old earth, into a new frame of Govern­ment, and the old creature into a new state of grace, so the new Covenant is the same that brought Israel out of Egypt, and con­tained remission of sins, and eternall life in Christ by faith with all the blessings of this life, but so call'd, new,

Secondly, Because those typicall ceremonies and ordinances which were mans part of the Covenant of grace then, and related to his dutie in Gods worship, were by Christs coming abolisht, and new ordinances under the Gospell establisht in room thereof, for the pro­mising part of the Covenant of grace, from the beginning, hath ever been cloathed, with the preceptive Conditional part, to bind up man to his dutie, and walking close with God in his Ordinances of worship. And therefore when Christ was held forth in the first promise, immedi­atly sacrifices were instituted, a distinction made betwixt clean and unclean creatures, the Law of tithes and first fruits observed, blood forbidden: familie-duties required, all which a diligent reader of Scriptures, may easily observe, from Adam to Moses, before there was a publishing the Law from Sinay, and so to Christ, Track it from Christ again, to the worlds end, you have the first abolisht, a second instituted, and as then, so still; to bind man to his dutie in walking [Page 32] with God, but not as in a distinct Covenant of works, but as the terms of grace, to which man is bound by the Covenant: and thus those typicall ce emonies were as old clothes, and are called beggerly Rudiments or Rags, in which the promising part was clothed, and drest. The Apostle in Heb. 10. calls the exhibition of Christ in flesh, in offering up his blood by once dying, and such manner of insti­tutions as should be written by him, to be the new Covenant verse 15.16: and puts it in opposition to the Legall sacrifices verse 4. 5, there­fore verse 19, 20. the second is called the new and living way conse­crated, implying, that as there is now a way to heaven consecrated by the blood of Christ, and therefore new; so there was a way to heaven before Christ came, consecrated by the blood of Bulls and Goats, called old: by this then we see, in what respect the Covenant is called new and old, namely, as relating to a new or old Church-state; the first given as typicall by Moses to Israel, as Christs kingdom; the second as substantiall, by Christ to the same kingdom; but still in the same Covenant of grace: for a Church state is given in order to a soules enjoying, communion with God in his ordinances, which is impossible to be by a Covenant of works, since the fall; thus then, the bringing of Israel into a new Church-state, under the Gospell, is called a new Covenant, which God will make with the house of Israel in those daies: This gives us light, to answer also that other place Heb. 8.6, 7. by Master Patient quoted to prove two Covenants, because Christ is called the Mediator of a better Covenant establisht upon better promises: for if the first Testament had been faultless, there would have been no place sought for the second; but finding fault with them, hee saith, behold the day is come, when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and verse 13. In that he saith, a new Covenant, he hath made the first old: now that which waxeth old, is ready to vanish away. By which tearms old and new, first and second, better and worse, he would needs understand two Covenant [...]; one of works, the other of Grace.

Answ. In this 8 Chap. the Apostle comes to apply what he had treated of before in the former Chap. verse 1 now of the things which we have spoken this is the summe. [...]n the former Chapter the Apostle had been speaking of the Levitical Priesthood and Law, i. e. the Law of Ordinances, and therefore verse 18. he tells us, the Commande­ment going before, i. e. before Christ came, was disannull'd, because of the weakness, and unprofitableness of it, and gives the reason in verse 19. because the Law, i. e. the Law of ceremonies made nothing perfect [Page 33] in comparison, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh to God, by which he means the Gospel-Ordinances of wor­ship; called better, because opposed to the Ceremonies of the Law, which therefore are implyed to be wrote. And that by this better hope, is meant Gospel-Ordinances, is evident; because the Apostle useth it as an Argument to the Church of the Hebrews, to perswade them to hold fast their profession, which they were revol [...]ing from [...]elling them, If they should cast of the Ordinances of worship, they could not then draw nigh to God; because they would then cast off also the High-Priesthood of Christ; so ch. 3.6. Whose house are we if we held fast the rejoycing of the hope to the end. And ver. 14. We are made partakers of Christ if we hold fast the confidence to the end, He here calls that the confidence, which before he called the Hope and Confidence, and ch. 10.35. Cast not away therefore your Confidence, As if he had said, If you cast away the Ordinances, of worship, you stand no longer related to Christ as his house; nor have you any hope or ground of hope, to draw nigh to God. So ch. 7.19. the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by which we draw nigh to God: So that the Ordinances of drawing [...]igh to God under the Gospel, are called a better hope, as they stand opposed to [...]he Ordinances of worship under the Law: which albeit they did approach to God in them; yet they were kept thereby at a greater di [...]ance, ch. 9.6, 7, 8, 9. So —

Again, let us review this chapter further, because the cleering up of chap. 8. depends upon it. And these Scriptures being fully answered, we shall not have much to do with the rest; we have already seen, hat the O di [...]ances of the Gospel, are opposed to those of the Law And hat this is so, see v. 11. If perfection was by the Levitical Priest­hood (For under it the people received the Law) what need was there of another Priesthood to rise after the order of Melchizedek? What law [...]as this the people received, ver. 12. 'Tis such a law as was changed [...]p [...]n the change of the Priesthood, which cannot be meant of the Moral Law, for this is still the s [...]me and not changed; but the Law of the Altar, which in ver 16. is called a carnal commandment, which in ver. 18. is disanulled by reason of the weakness of it, and ver. 19 for the Law made nothing perfect, and the reason is given ch 9 9. Be­cause i [...] was a figure for the time present, in which were offered gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did it perfect: And ch. 10.1. The Law bring but a shadow of good things to come, can never with those Sacrifices which they continually offered, make the comers there to perfect; [Page 34] for then they would not have ceased: and in ver. 8. when he speaks of Christ coming to be offered, he draws this result from the premisses; he takes away the first that he may establish the second.

Now in this 8 chapter he draws towards a conclusion, and in the first verse: of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: he had before spoken of the Law of Ordinances, and weakness thereof; and therefore in this 7. v. of c. 8. he calls it the first Covenant, for if the first Covenant had been faultless. Why, wherein was it faulty? The Apostle had before told them, it was faulty because it was weak, and unprofitable: and had it not been so, that law of Ordinances would have made the worshippers perfect; And then no place would have been sought for the second Covenant. So then by the first Co­venant 'tis cleer is meant the Ordinances of the Ceremonial worship, and therefore finding fault with them, he speaks in the plural number [them] Ordinances not Covenants, ver. 8. (unless Mr Patient will make two Covenants of works then) he saith, behold the day is come when I will make a new Covenant, referring to Jer 31.3 [...]. with the house of Israel i. e. new l [...]was of worship. Not according to the Cove­nant I made with their Fathers, &c. And verse last, in that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old, &c. And therefore whereas Mr P. tells us that God gave Israel a Covenant of works to enjoy Canaan by; It is most absurd: as by their following particulars fur­ther ap [...]ears.

1. Had those typical Ordinances been a Covenant of Works gi­ven at Mount- Sinai to Israel, then it had not been put in the hand, of a Mediator. For where God gives a people a Mediator, is supposed, he intends them Grace thereby. When Adam was put into a Covenant of Works, he was left to stand or fall by himself without help; since that no Covenant of Works was ever made, Gal. 4. Moses is called the Mediator of the first Testament. Now a Will or a Testament is an act of Grace purely.

2. Had it been a Covenant of Works by which they were to pos­sess Canaan, there had not been one man that ever had entred into that rest. For it was impossible for them to fulfil it, because the power of doing, so as to answer a Covenant of works, was lost in the fall.

3. What favour had this been to Abraham, Isaac, and so to all the seed of Promise, to have such a flourishing promise, to possess such a fruitful Land by a Covenant of Works, when many of the Na­tions of the world did possess a more fruitful Country, and were ne­ver [Page 35] put to such labour and toyle, such difficulties and dangers that Israel were put to?

4. 'Tis against the Nature of a Covenant of Grace which God made with Abraham, first to put him into a Covenant of Grace for spirituals, and then twenty four yeers after should put him into a Co­venant of Works for Temporals. So that either believers must fall from Grace, or else stand under two Covenants at one time.

5. Had it been a Covenant of Works made with Abraham, Isaac, and so along, as this Author affirms, then how came the bond-wo­mans son a type of that Covenant, to be exempted from that Cove­nant of Works, and Isaac which wes Sarahs son, a type of the Cove­nant of Grace, and a child of Promise, to be put under that Covenant? It could not be for any outward distinction, in outward enjoyments, for I shmael had more of the glory of the world then Isaac, Gen. 17.21.

6. Had the mercy intended Israel, related onely to externals in gi­ving them a fruitful Country, in blessing their corn, wine, and oyle, the fruit of their bodies, their basket, and store, as Mr. Patient affi [...]ms, and this to be enjoyed by a Covenant of Works; then as a worthy Divine well observes, in somewhat the like case, how could Esau have been charged for a prophane person, for selling his birth-right? For there had been no prophane [...]ess in that, because prophaneness supposeth a contempt or neglect of something spiritual, which is ther­fore to be enjoyed upon a spiritual account, and not by works.

7 What the Prophet speaks, Jer. 31.22. and the Apostle, Heb. 8. 9. of Gods taking Israel by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, is by the Prophet, Hos. 11.4. interpreted, compared with Mat. 2.15 to be an act of a tender Father who owned Israel as a son; for as a fa­ther in tender love and respect to his young child, takes h [...]m by the hand to teach him to go: so did God deal with Israel when a child The like be did to Ephraim ver. 3. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking him by the hand: so when he destroyed Sodom, Gen. 19.16. Whilst L [...]t [...]gered as being unwilling to leave Sodom the Text saith, he laid h [...]ld upon his hand and brought him forth. And the reason is given, be­cause the Lord was merciful to them. So that what God did to his people in this kind (is most cleer) was from a pure Covenant of Grace, and Mercie, not by a Covenant of Works.

8. What God did to Israel in giving them rest in Canaan, was as Canaan was a Type of Heaven, Isa 65.9. and of the Churches state under the New-Testament, Jer. 3.18. Psal. 105.6. For so the promise of Abraham, in giving them Canaan is by the Prophet David inter­preted [Page 36] to be, to a thousand generations, which therefore must needs extend to the end of the world. For so 'tis called a Covenant for ever. And had his seed injoyed Canaan from Abrahams days, yet from thence to Christ was but forty two generations, Mat. 1. So that if Canaan was to be possest as a type of heaven, then it was not to be possest by a Covenant of works, but by faith, so Abraham possest it, Heb. 11.8, 9, 10. By Faith he sojourned in the Land of promise as in a strange Country, dwelling in Tabernacles with Isaac, and Jacob; heirs with him of the same Promise. For he looked for a City which had foun­dations, whose builder and maker was God. And ver. 15, 16. he sought a better Country, a Country whereof that was but a type. Now what promise wer [...] Isaac and Jacob heirs of? Why that of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17.8. To thee will I give the Land of Canaan. And this the Apostle tell [...] us was possest by Faith as a type of heaven; therefore not by a Covenant of Works.

9 It further appears by comparing, Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God, with Heb. 11.16. Wh [...]refore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City, Where the Apostle thus argues▪ that had the gr [...]at pro [...]se to [...]braham, been onely of an earthly Ca­naan; which this Author affirms, was to be enjoyed by a Covenant of Works; God would have been ashamed to be called his God; tis evident therefore, that for men to affirm such Doctrines as this, is to put an affront upon God himself.

10. It still further appears, that Abrahams seed injoyed Canaan by a Covenant of Grace; because what [...]oses and Ioshua did, who were their c [...]nductors, was done by faith, and ti [...] also applyed to all Israel, Heb 11.27, 28, [...]9, By faith, he forsook Egypt, by faith he kept the passeover, by faith they past through the red Sea So when Joshua led them over Jo dan it was an act of faith; yea the very conquest of the enemy there, was an act of Faith, ver. 30. therefore, for him to affirm t [...]a [...] fi st Covenant be [...]ore largely opened, to be those typical ceremonies; and so mans p [...]rt of the Covenant of Grace to be [...] Co­venant of Works, by which they were to live happ [...]ly in Canaan, is such not [...]rious stuffe that he might blush to name it.

11 [...] S [...]ch [...] doctrine directly opposeth these Scriptures, Deut. 9.4.5, 6 7, 8 speak not thou in thy heart, saying, for my righteousness the Lo d hath brought me in to possess this Land, and ver. 5. not for thy righteous [...]ess, dost thou possess this Land, And ver. 6. not for thy righteousness for thou art a stiff-necked pe [...]ple, and ver. 7, f [...]rget not how thou provokedst the Lord to wrath in the wilderness, and from the day [Page 37] that ye came out of Egypt even to this day, until ye came to this place, ye have been rebellious against the Lord, and ver. 27. he refers back to Abrahams Covenant, and makes use of it as an argument to prevail with God in Prayer; because he had promised to give them Canaan by grace, and not by their works, so also ch. [...]0.11, 12, 13, 16. Exod. 2.24. ch. 3.6.8. and ch. 6.8. Numb. 14.23.

12. That rest the Apostle speaks of Heb. 4.1. is meant of a like rest to that of Canaan, which Israel was cut short off for want of faith, Heb. 3.18. to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? this promise of rest is by the Apostle called a p [...]eaching [...]he Gospel, Heb. 4.2. For unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them; implying cleerly, that what was spoken in that promise of giving Israel rest in Canaan was a preaching the Gospel to them. So that as the spiritual part of the Covenant, which con­veys justification by Faith, is by Paul called a Gospel preaching, Gal. 3.8. [...]o the temporal part of the same Covenant, Gen. 17.8. which this [...]uthor would fain make a Covenant of works, thereby to main­tain his errors, the same Apostle tells us it was a Gospel preach [...]ng also. By what therefore hath been said hitherto, tis a shining truth, that A­brahams Covenant in all parts thereof, relating to spirituals, and tem­porals, was a full and compleat Covenant of Grace, to which cir­cumcision was annexed, as a seal, not as a distinct Covenant of works, in order to the possessing of Canaan; because as hath been proved, by these twelve considerations, as there hath been no Covenant of works, given since the fall, so Israel injoyed Canaan by a Covenant of Grace; it follows therefore that Circumcision, and all those legal Ordinances, called the first Covenant, was no Covenant of works, but that part of the Covenant of Grace that related to mans duty; therefore Gen. 17.14. tis called Gods Covenant, and the neglect of mans duty in that Covenant was a breach thereof.

Q. But if that place Jer. 31.32. with Heb. [...].6, 7. be to be understood of a Covenant of Grace, and not of works; then how may it be said that Israel brake that Covenant? Can a Covenant of Grace be broken?

The Answer to this, upon what is laid down in the Analysis of A­brahams Covenant, is plain, for there is no Covenant of Grace but hath Conditions, which bind man to his duty: it was so under the Law: faith and repentance was the condition of the Covenant then, as tis now: and because faith without works is dead, being alone, Jam. 2.17. therefore God hath given O [...]dinances, and the Laws Moral to his people to keep faith alive, and man may break his part of the [Page 38] Covenant; so it was with Israel, Rom. 4. when the Question was put, What advantage then hath the Jew? Much e [...]y way, because to them, as to all Israel, was committed the Oracles, and the Covenant, &c.

Here was the Covenant of Grace externally administred to all: but yet there was but a remnant saved, and the greatest part of Israel were Covenant-breakers; and the like we have now, and is, and must be acknowledged by all our dissenting friends of the dipt Soci­eties, an external, and internal administration of the Covenant: For their confidence is not so high as to say, that all they dip are really within the Covenant, for we see many of them turn Apostates from every thing that is good, and prove carnal wretches; as did Simon Magus, Judas, Hymeneus, Philetus, Ananias, and Saphira, who were all within the Covenant visibly. If they say they baptize not upon the account of the Covenant at all, but upon the profession of Faith; I answer, either they baptize as visible believers, or real: if vi­sible, then as visibly within the Covenant; if as real, then really with­in the Covenant: so that still the Covenant lies at bottom, and there is as much falling from Grace, and breach of the Covenant upon their own principles, as is pleaded for. The like answer also is to be given to that other clause, of Gods being a husband to them, for the whole Nation of Israel was ingaged to God as a spouse, Jer. 3.14. and so under the Law of marriage; and therefore when they were divorced, the whole Nation was cast off; yet one of a City and two of a fami­ly were taken to Zion, I such as were spiritually within the Covenant, they had still communion with God v 14. so now, the whole Church is visibly under a Covenant of Marriage to Christ, believers and their seed, and are therefore the children of the kingdom, but yet we know the greatest part of a Church may be hypocrites, and so the children of the kingdom may be cast out: so that it is most clear, a Coven [...]nt of G [...]ace in this sense may be broken in the visib e p [...]rt thereof, by the v [...]sible mem [...]ers of it.

P. The n [...]xt I find his piece driving at, is to prove the Covenant of Grace not to be made upon conditions, but absolute: to prove it, he takes up many pages, though to little purpose; for what he in one place denyes, in another place he affirms; as in pag. 35. where he confesseth Faith and Repentance the condition of the Covenant.

Answ. If it be the condition of the covenant, then the covenant is not made without conditions. For indeed to speak of a covenant absolute without conditions, is to speak of that, which cannot be; for if it hath no conditions, it is no covenant, but only a tender of grace. [Page 39] And here lyes much of Mr. Patients great mistake, to take the tender of Grace for the covenant; and thus he falls into the Antinomian Doctrine: and therefore as faith and repentance is the condition, so the covenant is not concluded, betwixt God and the soul, till those qualifications are wrought, therefore the veins of free-grace are full of riches, because as God tenders, so he gives secretly the qualificati­ons that lay hold upon the tender, so he did to our first Parents.

2. But besides, if the covenant hath no conditions, why then doth not Mr. Patient baptize all that come, but they must give such a strict account of their faith as before he speaks of? or why are any cast out that prove rotten? will they make conditions themselves, when God hath made none? For the very ground of administring all Or­dinances, is from the covenant as it is conditional: and if it be not conditional, then is it made with a drunkard, as a drunkard; and with a whoremaster, as a whoremaster; with a blasphemer and Sab­bath breaker as such: and then to no purpose is that of Paul 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness, Christ and Belial together? that place Jer. 32.40. had such conditions as God requires. For his fear was wrought in their hearts, that they should not depart from him: the like also Ezek. 16.59. Thus saith the Lord, I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant [...] and because he after­ward speaks of my covenant & thy covenant, therfore M P. concludes, here were two covenants; the one broken which was mans, the other kept which was Gods. But in this also there was but one covenant, which had two parts, Gods part and mans, which was their manner of covenanting with God to make an oath to walk in his ways: and when they had broken this oath; they had broken the covenant, second their part of the covenant: see that place also, Neh. 10.29. They entred into a curse to walk in the laws of God, that were given by Moses the servant of the Lord; The Law given was the terms God bound them to in a way of Grace and Mercy, and their oath or curse, declared their owning thereof; so that when the oath was bro­ken, the covenant was broken; therefore the deduction that Mr. Patient makes from these Texts, that there are two covenants, is un­sound and rotten, and savours of too ignorant a spirit in the cove­nant of Grace. The like also Ezek. 36.25, 26, 27. I will sprinkle clean water upon you I will take away the heart of stone, and give you a heart of flesh, &c. And ver. 37. I will yet for all this be enquired of by the house of Israel; is not here a condition? whereas therefore Mr. [Page 40] Patient tells us if Gods people sin. He binds himself to pardon their sins, and to remember their sins no more; and therefore it is impossible for a soul once in this covenant to miscarry.

Answ. Such an application as this, is fitter for a Synagogue of Libertines then a Church of Christ, God never pardons the sin of a people, but he makes them holy. And before he pa d [...]ns their sin he will make them smart, and cry out under the stroke of his hand; how did David roar under the wrath of the Almighty? the whole book of Psalms shews us; so Heman, and Ephraim, Manasses, yea all the examples in Gods word, and the experiences of Gods people, they all speak out the truth, Heb. 7.2. that Christ is first a King of righteous­ness, before a King of Peace.

Therefore let such as fear the Lord remember the covenant of grace hath conditions, such as God will whip his people into; and if the Rod will not do, his shepherds crook shall be laid on with strong blows▪ by this way had David comfort, Psal. 23. And therefore tells us, Psal. 89.37. If Gods people sin, and transgress his Law, he will vi­sit their transgressions with a rod, and their iniquities with stripes; and though everlasting love is their portion, yet that is the way he takes to breed them up, to bring them to covenant conditions: And though the Elect of God shall never finally fall away; yet they may and do break and fall from the visible part of the covenant too often, though they are brought in again, and others fall off finally, as did those primitive Apostates already mentioned. So that place must be under­stood, Joh. 15.2, 4 5, 6. which distinction Mr Patient must admit of, and can never evade it.

All the rest of those scriptures by him brought to prove the absoluteness, or sureness of the covenant, or two covenan [...]s, do bear the same interpretation; take those two for instance, Isaiah [...]5.3. hea [...] ­ken to me incline your ear, hear and your soul shall live: and I will make an everlasting covenant, &c. So Heb. c. 17, 18. wherein G [...]d willing to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel confirmed the same by oath to Abraham; that by two immutable things in which it was impossible foy God to lye: we might have strong consola­tion: And though Mr Patient from thes [...] places concludes, the cove­nant-mercy of David to be sure, and so i [...]mutable; yet there must be an inclining the ear, and hearkening to the voice of God: even of such as are really within the covenant; and to such onely the cove­nant is sure. But now there were many of the Church of the He­brews that we have ground to judge were but visibly in covenant, and [Page 41] so, onely pretended heirs of promise, and such were they that wer falling from Ordinances that forsook the assemblies; sold their birth­right, as those also already mentioned: So that we still see the di­stinction holds, some are really, some onely visibly, seemingly with­in the covenant.

P. Pa. 24 He afterwards brings many places to prove, that the con­dition of the covenant (which before he denyed) is faith and re­pentance, and they are wrought in the soul by God.

Answ. That the condition of the covenant is so wrought, is by us confest, but yet we may here see how whiffling erroneous spirits are: sometimes he affirms the covenant to be absolute, sometimes that it is conditional, that so he might have a starting hole to flye out at: and let me remind him here; that if he keeps to this principle, that faith and repentance is the condition of the covenant; he must according to the Scriptures, admit of a visible being in the covenant, as well as of an invisible, in order to the communion of Saints in the world; for there are many pretenders to those conditions and qual fications, which yet by vertue of their profession cannot be denyed the seals of the covenant, because they visibly submit to the terms thereof, as is before proved.

P. The next thing he gr [...]sly errs in, is page 37, where in his explain­ing that Text, Gen. 3.17. of the seed of the woman, he tells us it is meant of Christ: That God would infuse or put into the womans seed, his created gifts of holiness and purity.

Answ. We may see what old Springs of error this book of h [...]s bubbles up withal. For by this he makes Christ only a comple [...]t and perfect man, as Adam before the fall, with infused qualifications, and by this made an unspotted Sacrifice; by which, the divine nature of Christ is taken away, that he was not God as well as man: and the Hypostatical union (as Divines call it) is by this d [...]stroyed, con­trary to the whole current of Gods word; and directly opposing Joh. 1.1, 2, 3, 10, 14. And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us ver. 18. So Heb. 1.2, 3. 1 Joh. 4.14, 15. ch. 5.1.7, 10, 1. mult [...]tudes o Texts might be added. Arius thy error struggles to live, wh [...]n th [...]n [...]rt dead.

2. When God saith, I will put enmity betwixt thy seed and her seed we are not to understand it meerly of Christ, but of the Infant-Ch [...]rch seed. For so Eve by faith understood the promise, Gen. 4.5. when S [...]th was born, God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew. Which Infant-seed of the Church is as truely in covenant, [Page 42] was, and shall be to the worlds end, as Adult believers, and Satans malice is as much against them, as the other, in all ages, as appears by Cains bloody Murther, with Exod. 1.10, 16. Mat. 2.16. Rev. [...]2.2.13.17. Therefore Mr Patient in his often endeavours to cast out this seed of the Church by confining the Church, either to Christ personal­ly, or Adult believers, which so often he cals the spiritual seed, doth but strive to do that now, which if he will but read those places cited, He may know who it was that studyed the same practice in former ages.

P. The 28 page, tells us that the new covenant was never entailed upon any fleshly line or generation as the covenant of circumcision was, but was still confirmed of God in Christ, and to such onely in Christ as you finde in the promises to Abraham, Gen. 12.3. In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed In which there is no respect of persons in their blessings to life, but all Nations in Christ, as well one as another are blest, and all out of Christ are accurst.

Answ. It hath been befo e proved that the new covenant or cove­nant of grace, hath a twofold part or branch, the one invisible, the other visible, and both are the covenant. The one relates to the grace of the covenant, the other to mans duty in the use of Ordinances. And this second part, hath from the beginning run upon intail to be­lievers and their seed; even from the days of Adam to Christ, and so since; yea the promise which relates to the spiritual seed, runs for the most part upon intail also, though I do not say that all the seed of believers are so children of the promise. For as the intail vi­sibly took in all the seed of Abraham, Ishmael as well as Isaac, so Esau as well as Jacob, Cain, as well as Abel, Ham and Japhet as well as Shem, yet the seed by promise comes in by way of intayl, to the children of promise. As the covenant was entayled from Adam to Seth, Enos, Kenan, so to Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, and up to Abra­ham; and then to Isaac, Jacob, and his twelve sons, but so in Judah it continued to Christ▪ see Luke 3. to the end, compared with Mat. 1. to 17. where you shall finde a spiritual entail by promise, and were it not so, what incouragement could it be to believers to be Stoickt in family duties, had they not a promise to rest upon, as touching fa­mily blessings? Which place in Luke 3. is so cleer that Mr Patient to evade the strength and dint of Scripture, makes this whole line to run in a covenant of works: the contrary whereto is already proved that no such covenant is made with man since the fall; there­fore see these Texts which prove an intail, Deut. 4 37. Because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, So ch. 10.5. the Lord [Page 43] had a delight in thy Fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, compared with Rom 11.28. as touching the Election they are beloved for their fathers sake D [...]ut. 30.19. Therefore [...]huse life that both thou and thy seed may live.: Hence it is that we finde the Parents saith drawn forth to believe their seeds interest in the covenant. Thus did Eve in the place before mentioned, be­lieve the covenant-state of S [...]th, as soon as born. And therefore she calls him another seed instead of Abel. The like also we find of La­mech, Gen 5.28, 29. who concludes that though God would destroy and curse the earth; yet upon the birth of Noah, he should be a comfort to the Church: Thus was David drawn forth to believe. That because of that Everlasting Covenant God had made with him, he should in time have his house to flourish, though yet God made it not to grow, Psal. 89.29, 34, 35 compared with 2 Sam. 23.5. The like ground of believing is to re [...]ch to these days, and to the worlds end concer­ning the seed of believers right to the covenant, as Psal 102.28. the children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee; How long was this seed to continue? See ver 26, 27: So long as heaven and earth should remain. Hence it is that God hath promised, to be the God of all the families of Israel, Jer. 31.1. & Isa. 65.23. That they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off spring with them. Which bl [...]ssedness relates to more then externals, as by that 102 Psal. appears. For the heaven and earth was to be folded up as a garment and to wax old; but the seed and off-spring of his children should remain, and have greater blessings.

That place Gen. 1 [...].3. Mr Patient doth acknowledge to be Gospel, but in such low and general terms, that in [...]ff [...]ct he denyes it; For saith he, all Nations that are in Christ are blessed. When yet, he will not acknowledge that ever any Nation were so blest, no not the Jews hemselves; but onely a remnant. And the reason of hi [...] mistake [...]s, because he considers not that there is a v [...]sible being in Christ▪ [...]s in that pl [...]ce, Joh. 15 41. Abide in we and I in you; he that abideth not in me is cut off as a branch: So that he confines the meaning of [...]e promise, in thee and in thy seed, to Christ onely; contrary to t [...]e due some of the w [...]rds F r by thy seed is also meant believers, and so Ch [...]st myst [...]dly in head & members is to be understood, Gen 13.5. look towards heaven and tell the stars if thou art able, so shall thy seed be: Mr Patient I hope w ll not make so many Christs, and ch. 17.7. I will establish my covenant betwixt me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations; so if Abraham had a seed in every generation which were to be a blessing thereto: So Gen. 22.17. In blessing I will bless [Page 44] thee, and will multiply thy seed, and thy seed shall possess the gates of his enemies, meaning the conquest of Canaan which could not be in Christ personal, because the Land of Canaan was conquered many hundred yeers before he came, and since tis destroyd. So in thy seed all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed, ver 8. i e. in the multiply­ing of Abrahams seed as the stars, they should at last come to be a blessing to all Nations; by all which places it is cleer that the word seed which he confines to Christ, is meant of all believers to the worlds end: and indeed to deny this sense of the place, is to deny that Abra­ham had any Gospel preacht to him, as any judicious reader may easily observe; for that which the Apostle Rom. 3.18. speaks of Abrahams faith to justification, is referred to Gen. 15.5. So shall thy seed be, that is, as the stars of heaven for multitude, which Abraham believing, it was imputed to him for righteousness; This Exposition therefore being granted, the other will appear but lame and maimed.

3 The covenant saith Mr Patient, is not intailed as circumcision was.

Answ. Though there hath been enough said to satisfie men of rea­son, yet I shall here, as in many other places, be forced to repeat what before hath been spoken: If therefore Circumcision be not a covenant of works, then it must be the visible part of the covenant of Grace, and then it must run upon entail, as Mr Patient here grants; Therefore let the Reader observe it hath been already proved, The covenant had two parts; one for spirituals, the other for temporals, in giving Israel rest in Canaan, and all the good things thereof: the first part is proved to be Gospel from Gal. 3.8. and that the second also is Gospel, see Heb. 3.18. compared with ch. 4.1, 2 to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not, speak­ing of the rest in Canaan, which Israel was cut short of in the wil­derness. And ch. 4 1. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us, We also fall sh [...]rt, For unto us is the Gospel preached as well as to them. From whence it is cleer that Israel never had rest in Canaan by works, but by grace; and therefore it follows, If Israel did not injoy Ca­naan by a covenant of works, and yet they did injoy it by the co­ven [...]nt of Circumcision, then Circ [...]mcision was not of works, but of grace: so that we see our opposites must be forced to acknow­ledge the visible part of the covenant of Grace to run upon intail to believers and their seed. Thus we have done with this first head, and have answered all his material Scriptures; which indeed doth al­so answer the next following, or any t [...]ing material in his book, and though I have undermined his founda [...]ion so, as that the whole [Page 45] structure is fallen; yet because I would separate the stones, from the other rubbish, I shall therefore come to his next general head.

CHAP. VIII An answer to the second general head touching the Covenant.

PAg. 42. The next general head by him laid down to prove, is, That Circumcision is no covenant of grace, but of works, called a covenant in the flesh, Gen. 17.13. but before he comes to his Ar­guments, he opens the meaning of the word everlasting, which is to be understood of the ever of the Law, especially when it compre­hends with it their seed in their generations, and this he lays down as a maxim; to prove which, he brings Lev. 16. Num. 25.13. Exod. 40.15. ch. 30.20, 21. all which places speak of the Levitical Priesthood, ei­ther of the line in which it should run, or the way by which they were instated into their office, by anointing, or the manner by which they approacht constantly into the Tabernacle, or of the manner of their atonement for the people, all which should remain as an everlasting statute in their generations.

A. That by everlasting we are to understand the ever of the Law onely, is no sound maxim: for though it be so to be understood in the places quoted, because it related to the Priesthood, and Tabernacle worship; yet if that covenant in Gen. 17. Which Circumcision sealed then, upon which God promised the Land of Canaan as a type of heaven, remains still as an everlasting covenant, then his maxim is broken: see therefore that parallel Text, Psal. 105.6 to Gen. 17. O ye seed of [...]braham his servant, he is the Lord our God, he hath remembred his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which covenant he made with Abraham and his oath with Isaac, and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, To thee will I give the Land of Canaan, &c.

From which it appear, that the word everlasting is to be understood to a thousand generations, i. e. to the worlds end; because the giving Israel Canaan, was a type of heaven, and from Abrahams days to Christ was but forty two Generations. Therefore this difference is to be observed; that when he speaks of statutes everlasting to be ob­served [Page 46] in their generations. 'Tis meant of those Statute Laws, that God gave to Israel for worship; and so as Mr Patient observes it is to be understood for the ever of the Law. But when the Holy Ghost speaks of a covenant, everlasting, as in Gen. 1 [...].15. 'Tis such a cove­nant that is to continue▪ so long as the heavens and earth shall conti­nue, so Paul calls it, Heb. 13.20. The blood of the everlasting cove­nant. And this in Gal. 3.17. was that covenant that Christ confirm­ed to Abraham and his seed 430 yeers before the Law, and called e­verlasting, in that place of Genesis befo e quoted, which everlasting covenant [...]o [...]k in an everlasting seed and is called a Gospel-preaching to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. and by John, Rev. 14.6. is also explained to be an eve [...]lasting Gospel: from hence also it is that Paul in Heb. 6. when [...]e speaks of Gods blessing Abraham and multiplying his seed, which he c lls [...]he h [...]rs of promise, calls it his immutable Counsel, as rela­ting to both the covenant, and the seed of the covenant. Now if there be an everlastingness in the covenant which takes in such a seed as it did to Abraham, then must it continue longer then the Law, or else there must be a mutability. So again, if the persons row cove­nant ng were changed, i. e. If God were not the same to believers and their seed now, as [...]e was t [...]en, or if believers should now cove­nant onely for themselves, and leave out their seed; then there is a mutation of the covenant: therefore David in Psal. 102.26, 27, 28. before quoted, speaking of the infant seed of the Church, tells us, that though the heavens and earth should wax old and perish as a gar­ment, (which words are qu [...]ted by Paul, Heb. [...].1. to a Gospel- [...]h rch) yet that Church s [...]ed should continue, so also Psal. 103.17 18. from everlasting to everlasting, and that by vertue of t at everlasting covenant: therefore what feeble maxin s this new Doctor teacheth, and how ill he compares Texts we may here see:

Pag 4 [...]. The next thing he opens is these words, I will be thy God, and thy seeds God, and that two ways; the o [...]e b a covenant of Grace, the other by a cov [...]nant of Works; the first absolute, the se­cond conditional, and so God gave himself to be Abrahams God by a conditional c [...]v [...]nant of Works.

A. That this is strange Divinity, that God should be a peoples God by a Covenant of Works since the fall, I doubt not but it will appear to sound Ch istians, from what hath been already said: I shall therefore pass it, to come to his confused Arguments, some of which I have contracted into form, to take the better prospect thereof.

P. H [...]s first Argument runs thus. That covenant that runs upon [Page 47] conditions, is a covenant of Works: but so doth Circumcision, therefore.

A. To which I answer, The first proposition is denyed and d [...]s­proved, and it is by him confest that faith and repentance is a conditi­on of the covenant. So that by this he affirms pro and con and may as well say plainly, that the covenant of grace is a covenant of works, because it hath conditions: therefore his foundation is too weak, and rotten for such a building.

P. In pag. 45. he would prove the land of Canaan to be given to Abraham and his seed by a covenant of works, and so would be their God, and then his Argument runs thus. If God g [...]ve the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed upon the condition of Circumcisi­on, and keeping the Law; then he gave the land of Canaan by a covenant of works: but God gave the land to Abraham upon condition he would circumcise his seed; Therefore.

A. This hath been already cleared, that circumcision and keep [...]ng of the law was mans part of the covenant of Grace, in which the Church was to walk with God, being bound up to visible duties then, as it is now: and that Canaan was not g ven Israel by works, my an­swer to the preceding head makes clear, to which I refer the Read [...]r, yea it is directly against these Scriptures before quoted, Deut. 9.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ch. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16. Exod. 3.24. Heb, 3.18. ch. 4.1, 2. ch 11. 8, 9, 10. yea so to affirm is to put an affront upon God himself, and to make him ashamed of that title of being Abrahams God, Heb. 11.16. See also the twelve Scripture-considerations before men­tioned.

P. In pag 45, 46. he brings several Scriptures to prove that Circumcision bound to the keeping of the Law. But not one of all those places by him quoted, speaks that they were bound to keep it as a co­venant of works, but as the Law of Christ, and so Israels Gospel, in which Justification was conveyed; and therefore when we read of the Primitive revoltings from Gospel-Ordinances, to Circumcision and the works of the law, as the Church at Rome, and Galatia did, it was upon the like mistake of this Author, who thought the law had been given them as a Covenant of works, which was not so intended, and by this means they came to rest in the law, and are condemned for it by the Apostle, Rom. 2.13, 17. Gal. 5.1, 2.

2. Consider, that Baptism now, binds as much to keep the law Moral and Gospel-Ordinances as Circumcision then, did bind Israel to keep the same moral law, with the legal Ordinances; and he m [...]ght [Page 48] with as much evidence of truth argue, That because Baptism binds to keep the law, therefore the Churches of Christ now are under a covenant of works.

P. page 47 he winds up thus: Abraham, as if God should say, I will be thy God, and thy seeds God, to protect, defend, deliver and bless thee; with the blessings of Canaan, in the fruit of the womb in thy basket and store, and with all outward blessings, upon condi­tion that thou wilt be circumcised, and keep the law as a covenant of works.

A. A poor Argument, was it not? to prevail with Abraham when he might have replyed, Lord there are many that do possess a far greater portion in the world, yea thou hast said that my son Ishmael shall have twelve Princes rise from him, and that he shall be a great man in the earth, yet none of them are bound up to such strict obli­gations. And when thou gavest a covenant of works to Adam, he should have had heaven, and eternal happiness and glory. And shall I be content with an earthly portion upon such hard terms? And upon this account it is, the Author to the Hebrews doth so ar­gue. That God would have been ashamed to be called Abrahams God, which yet Mr Patient is not ashamed to tell the world in print that he was Abrahams God by a covenant of Works: — Horrid stuffe: —

The like answer is to be given to that place, Jer. 11.2, 3, 4, 5. cursed be the man that obeys not the words of this covenant which I commnnd­ed your Fathers, When I brought them from Egypt, saying, Obey my voice, so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God, that I may confirm the oath which I sware to your Fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey; the Land was given by grace, and the covenant he speaks of was a covenant of grace, not of works; but as faith leads to works, so the covenant leads man to h [...]s duty, in keeping the com­mands of God; it was so then, and so it is now, and in this sense, that place is true, Psal. 6. he rewardeth every man according to his works, not for his works. And we are at this day Gods people, and be our God upon the same terms of works, as then, See 2 Cor. 6.17, 18, come out from amongst them, and be ye separate, and touch not the un­clean thing, and then I will be your Father, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, so that God becomes ours upon conditions still, and yet by no covenant of works.

P. Page 48. The last thing with which he concludes this first Ar­gument (if such it be) is this. Abraham had a covenant of Grace [Page 49] made with him, twenty four yeers before that covenant of works, and his happiness with all his spiritual seed was in that absolute covenant.

A. Had M. Patients memory been good, he would not so have con­tradicted himself, For first, this covenant of works he hath made to begin from Adam, and so descended to Abraham. For he hath long before proved that the Law which was given from Sinai was in force before the days of Noah, how then is that like to hold with this, that the covenant of works was not given to Abraham? tis twenty four yeers after that of Grace.

2 If he make Circumcision the covenant of works, that he means: then it implyes that Abraham had two covenants of works; one by descent, and the other made afterwards.

3 Where he tells us, the happiness of his spiritual seed lies in the absolute covenant; I answer, what spiritual seed had Abraham if it was not Isaac? And yet Isaac was the line in which the covenant of Circumcision was to run, and not Ishmael, Gen 17.21. So that look what happiness the promise gave him of Gods being his God, was conveyed in that covenant: and either Mr Patient must say, it was no happiness to him, to have God to be his God; or else if it was a hap­piness: then he must acknowledge it in that covenant. Thus we see how sadly he is be error'd: certainly had this Doctrine been brought in the Apostles days, he would have lookt upon it as another Gospel, [...]nd it is a sad curse that he gives to the preachers thereof.

P. A second Argument, though very improperly so called, to prove circumcision a covenant of works, is, because it was a national covenant in the flesh.

A. The prudent Reader may easily observe what a poor shift this is to maintain Circumcision a covenant of works; as if a covenant of Grace could not be national: and though what hath been said to prove Circumcision a covenant of pure Grace, be sufficient; yet I shall briefly add: If the promise made with Abraham, was a Go­spel promise, in wh ch were contained national blessings, in thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; If the Jews shall be re in­graffed as they were cut off; If by the stone cut out of the mountains, that shall fill the world be to be understood the Church and kingdom of Christ; If the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the seas; If there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth, wherein shall dwell righteousness; If the kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to another Nation:

If the Church now coming out of the wilderness, holds parallel with the Church in the wilderness, under the Law; If the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of the Lord Christ, if that Commission, Mat. 28. in order hereunto, be to teach all Nations, &c. If that Nation and kingdom that will not serve Christ shall be cut off, Isa 60.12. Then are the blessings of a covenant of Grace na­tional blessings; and what God intended in Abrahams covenant was national: I need say no more.

P. In pag. 49, 50, 51, 52. he runs into a large field of discourse, and over-runs the old Scriptures again (as it is usual with him) to prove, that though the Jews had the covenant of Circumcision given them by entail, yet as to matter of Justification they were as far off, as Pagans, and heathens: and what Justification Abraham had, was while he was uncircumcised, and yet withal granting, That the Jews had the advantage of other Nations, by having those Eminent ten­ders of the Gospel held out amongst them. And notwithstanding that covenant in the flesh: yet they were all sinners, and therefore there is but one way of Justification, which is by faith in his blood; therefore Circumcision must needs be a covenant of works, for if it had been a covenant of Grace, it would have administred Justifica­tion with it; This is the full sense as neer as I can collect, out of such stragling discourses.

Though the Scriptures he brings in these pages to prove what he as­serts were before omitted, yet I shall here take them in, as most fit in this place, because the running over things so often, would otherwise make the Answer so bulkish, and therefore,

A. Though he saith, Justification by faith was not given by Cir­cumcision, i. e. by the act done, as neither is it now given by Baptism, yet Justification was given in that Covenant of Grace which Cir­cumcision sealed, and so the Elect did obtain it, Rom. 4.11. He recei­ved the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of Faith, that he might be the Father of all that believe, though they be not Circumcised. So that Circumcision was the covenants seal, and not the seal of his faith, out of which the Gentile Nations were excluded, till that Jew­ish Church was cast off, so that the Jews were neerer then Pagans and Heathens, notwithstanding any thing he affirms, because the one was under the call of the Gospel and the tenders of Grace, when the other was a far off, Aliens and strangers, Eph. 2.11, 12, 13. But when the Gospel came amongst them also, then they were made nigh by the blood [Page 51] of Christ. The Heathens in New- England, will any sober under­standing Christian say, they are as neer to a state of Justification as those that are born and bred up, and dwell under the sound of the Gospel? yea Mr. P. himself doth contradict what he in this affirms, in acknowledging that the Jews were priviledged before o­ther Nations, in having such precious tenders of the Gospel, p. 49. so that we see he doth not stick fast to his own judgement in any thing. But wherein these precious priviledges should lye, or how the G [...]spel should be tendred, if they were not visible under the covenant of Grace, and so neerer then Heathens, I cannot see, nor, I am sure, he himself: for had not Justification run in the Jewish Ordinances, more freely then it did to the Gentiles, that had them not, they had instead of being priviledged, been more in bondage and slavery then any Nation in the world.

2. There is not any one place, or Text or syllable in the 2, 3. or 4 to Rom. or in 12, 15, 17, 18, 22. of Gen. or 3, 4, 5. Gal. that saith, Justification by faith was not given in the covenant of Circumcision, or that Justifi­cation by faith is opposed to Circumcision, or that because Abraham was Justified, before circumcised; therefore Circumcision is a covenant of Works. But this the Texts say, that justification is to be had in the covenant of Circumcision, which were it a covenant of works, would not there be found, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3, 30. But

3. And because he tells us in pag. 55. That there is no Text in all the Scripture more cleer to prove the covenant of Circumcision to be a covenant of works then this 4. Rom. setting Faith and Circumcisi­on in opposition, shewing that Abrahams spiritual seed, had their justification in another covenant, and not in circumcision; I have therefore taken it into this place, because one answer will serve both.

To cleer this place therefore from this cloud of error cast upon it, I shall stay some time, to search into it. The words are these; What shall we say then, that Abraham our Father as appertaining to the flesh hath found? For if Abraham was justified by works, He hath where­of to glory, but not before God; but Abraham believed God, &c. And how was it then reckoned? when he was in Circumcision, or in uncircum­cision? not in Circumcision, &c.

A. By comparing this with the preceding chapter, as also with ch. 5, 6, 7, 8. we finde the Roman Church that had imbraced the Ordinances of the Gospel, were then falling back into the works of the Law, and those legal Ordinances, in them to gain justification. And [Page 52] therefore they would be listening after those false Teachers that preacht up Circumcision after the manner of Moses, which was the prevailing error in that Church, and is at this day, it being so fallen that they maintain good works, do justifie. Now the Apostle to bring them off from this error, bids them look upon Abraham, whom they acknowledged to be the father of the faithful; and see how the case stood with him, how he was justifyed; secretly implying that if he that was the Father of all believers was not justifyed by works, then it would be unreasonable in his children to think that they were; and therefore it was their duty to follow him: by which we see Abra­ham is held forth as a publick person in the Gospel, to which Gospel-Churches are to have recourse, to rectifie errors in doctrines of Faith; and if upon search they found that Abraham was justifyed in urcir­cumcision, then they should not think that Circumcision was of ab­solute necessity to justification; and therefore tells them it was their mistake, the Law was never intended by God to justifie any, but ch. 3.9. both Jew and Gentile are all under sin, and ver. 20. therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh can be justifyed, for all have sinned, and are therefore justifyed freely by his Grace without the deeds of the Law, ver. 28. upon which the Romans make this Objection, Rom. 4.1. What benefit or advantage then hath Abraham found, to whom the covenant was made? The meaning is because Abraham had not his justification by circumcision; therefore they could not see any Go­spel-benefit that came by that Ordinance at all; so much is implyed in the words: the like also ch. 3. what profit then is there of Circumci­sion? and it is the same objection in effect that M. P. makes, onely a little changed, For thus his runs: If Abraham was not justified in the covenant of Circumcision, then is Circumcision a covenant of works: both which the Apostle answers, that though Abraham and his seed were not justifyed by the Law, as a law or covenant of works; yet there was a considerable advantage the Jews had by circumcision, and chiefly, because unto them were c [...]mmitted the oracles of God, and ch. 9.4. who are Israelites, i. e a peculiar Nation inclosed by God him­self from all the Nations of the world, to them appertains the adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the Promises, whose are the Fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came; As if he had said, all this heap and bundle of benefits came in to the Jews and that Nation, which no Nation under heaven had besides, and yet for all this there were ma­ny that did not believe, ch. 3.3. For what though some did not believe? [Page 53] shall their unbelief make the Faith of God without effect? God forbid; as if he had said, The end for which God did so much priviledge them above others was, that all his might believe; but yet some did not; implying that some did, i. e. many of them were justifyed. T [...]erefore ch. 4. 9. he draws t [...]wards a result, cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision onely, or upon the uncircumcision also? how was it then reckoned? i. e. If Abraham was justifyed in uncircumcisi­on, then the righteousness of Faith comes not upon the Circumci­sion onely: and ver. 12. To them who are not of the Circumcision onely: and ver. 16. Not to that seed onely which is of the Law And then the Apostle concludes, ver. 23. that it was not written for Abrahams sake alone that righteousness was imputed to him, but for us also, i. e. Rom. and all other Gentiles, if they believe, to whom Abraham is as well a Father, as to the Jews.

So that this triumphant place gives not the least continuance to his opinion; either that Circumcision was a covenant of works, or that it stands in direct opposition to saith, or that God gave a cove­nant of works to Abraham, to seal a covenant of Grace, as he con­sequentially affirms, p. 53. Therefore such an interpretation as he hath given of this place is most unsound.

The like answer is to be given to that place, Ph [...]l 3.2, 3, 4. which he brings in pag. 55. as an Appendix to this second Argument; the Phi­lippians were also revolting to seek after Justification by the works of the Law, the teachers of which Doctrine the Apostle calls dogs, and evil-workers. And if any had cause to boast of the law of Works, he had more; yet to him it was but dung and dogs meat, all his pri­viledges of being a Jew, a Pharisee, Circumcised; one that concerning the Law was blameless. All this saith Paul, I can boast of, but what is this as to matter of justification, which is by faith alone in Christ? The like plain answer also is and may he given to that other place, Gal. 3.3. which Church also were back sliding into the same error, and therefore he calls them fools, and tells them they were bewitched ch. 5.1. And if they would be seeking Justification by works, they should find they were mistaken. For as many as sought to be justifyed by the works of the Law, were under the curse. And that no man by the works of the Law was ever justifyed, is evident, because the just shall live by Faith, ver. 10, 11. And therefore he sends them also to Abra­hams covenant, For to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And ver. 18. he shews them the ill-consequence that would follow, if they thought to be justifyed by works, For then the inheritance must [Page 54] be by works, that is the inheritance of Abrahams promises, both for the Land of Canaan, and all other spiritual blessings. If it were by the Law then it is no more of promises, But God gave them to Abraham by promise, And not by a covenant of works, remember that Mr P. upon this again comes with the old Objection, Wherefore then serveth the Law, If a man may not be justifyed and saved by the works of the Law? to what end and purpose then was it given? The answer is, it was added because of transgression, that is, to make sin look like sin; and thereby to ingage Gods people then, to walk close in the duties thereof, and in ver. 21. The Apostle directly confutes Mr. Patients Doctrine. Is the Law then against the Promises, or in opposition to the Promises? God forbid. By all which it appears that the Law was no covenant of Works, nor is Circumcision or any part of the Law op­posed to Faith, as he would make us beheve; but this was the great mistake of many in Primitive Churches by false teachers means. And so of all Israel, as it is also of Mr P. that the Law was given to the Church of the Jews as a covenant of works, which God never inten­ded to any such end or purpose.

CHAP. IX. The next thing we come to is the several Arguments he brings in p. 53. to prove Circumcision onely a seal to Abraham, answered.

I. FIrst, because the righteousness of Faith which it sealed, Abra­ham had it, before the seal was given, but his posterity could not be said to believe at eight days old: Therefore it was a seal to him, and not to them.

A. The seal was not annext to Abrahams Faith, as Abrahams, but to Gods covenant made with Abraham; therefore it is called the seal of the righteousness of Faith. So that what it sealed to Abraham was, as he was an heir of the same Promises with Isaac and Jacob, Heb. 11.9. therefore what it sealed to him as an heir, it sealed to Isaac and Jacob, and so to all believers as co-heirs of the same inheritance, Heb. 6.17.

2. If it was a seal of Abrahams Faith onely, then it must be either as it was a weak faith, or strong faith.

1 It could not be the first, because Abrahams faith is by the Apo­stle said not to be weak, Rom. 4.19, 20.

[Page 55]2. If it had been given as a badge of honor to Abrahams Faith (as I have seen it affirmed in a piece or C. B.) as a strong faith: then it should have been given to Adam and Noah, who had as strong faiths as Abraham; and less Gospel-light then Abraham had to work it.

3. There was no necessity to have Abrahams justification sealed, more then Adams, Seths, Noahs, or any of his predecessors, especially if it be considered what M. P. himself grants, that he was justifyed twenty four years before this seal was given, therefore

4. Had it not been a seal to Isaac, as well as to Abraham, and so not onely a seal of Abrahams faith, it might have been given upon the birth of Ishmael, and Abraham need not have staid for a son of promise, for it would have sealed as much then to Abraham, as it did after, if it was not the covenant-seal.

5. Had it not been a seal to Isaac, and so a part of the covenant, then Isaacs not being circumcised had been no breach of the cove­nant; directly against that place, Gen. 17.10. For a seal the Apostle calls it, and a sign God calls it. So that had it onely been a seal of Abrahams Faith, the covenant had not come sealed to Isaac; be­cause the seal reacht onely the Faith of Abraham, and when he dyed, the seal was broken off. Therefore

6. It is a cleer truth, that as the blessings of the covenant were made to Abraham by Promise, and to his seed, so Gods main drift being to make those covenant-blessings sure to all the heirs of Pro­mise, Heb. 6.17: he therefore deals as a man that would be belie­ved. First he promise [...], secondly, he swears to confirm that Promise, Thirdly, he seals what he hath promised. So the seal becomes the co­venant-seal, as the oath is the Covenants oath: and what God pro­mised to Abraham, he promised to his seed; and what he confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed to his seed; and what God there­fore sealed to Abraham, he sealed also to his seed. All which was to shew the immutability of his Counsel to the heirs of Promise, not on­ly to such as were heirs under the Law, but to the worlds end, as the Apostle tells us before, in the place quoted.

II. His next reason or Argument why it sealed onely to Abraham is, because it is said, he received it, that he might be the Father of all that believe. Which could not be said of Isaac, because he was but a child.

A. Though Abraham was made the Father of the faithful, by having that seal given him; yet he could not have been such a father without such a son, because they are relatives, not onely in the natu­ral [Page 56] relation, but in the promise, for though Ishmael was born thirteen yeers before Isaac was promised; yet had God given him circumci­sion then, Abraham had not been the Father of the faithful, because Ishmael was not a faithful child. So that, that which was required to make Abraham a father of a faithful son, was required in Isaac to make him such a son of a faithful Father: Therefore that seal that was given to Abraham as a father, was given to Isaac as a son.

III. His third Argument to prove it a seal onely to Abraham is Here is the spirit of God affirming the sealing use of Circumcision to Abraham onely, upon a reason special to him; therefore where the Scripture hath not a mouth to speak, we must not have an ear to hear.

A. The spirit of God speaks no such thing, but the spirit of M. P. for where is it said, it was a seal to him onely? no such Text is to be sound in all the Scriptures, for as is before said, what it sealed to him as a father, it sealed to Isaac as a son of that Father, for the covenant related to posterity. I may therefore say of him as the Prophet said of the false Prophets, who said the Lord saith it, as here M P. doth, when indeed the Lord hath not spoken: therefore the Scripture hath a mouth to speak, if he had an understanding heart to know when and what it speaks: let such therefore who have ears to hear, hear what the spirit speaks to the Churches.

IV. P. A fourth ground or reason he gives that Circumcision seal­ed onely to Abraham, is drawn from Rom. 4.13. The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to him and his seed through the Law, i. e. saith M. P. through the covenant of Circumcision, But through the righteousness of Faith. For if they that be of the Law be heirs, then Faith is made void.

A. 1. He here again supposes that which is denyed, and the con­trary proved, i. e. That Circumcision was not a covenant of works.

2. When it is said the promise of his being the heir of the world was not made to Abraham through the Law, The Apostle means, that it was not to be confined and shut up to the generations of the Law onely, and so it was not to his seed through the Law onely, but through the righteousness of Faith; that is, his Patrimony came up­on such high tearms as would reach to a thousand generations, Psal. [...]05. even to the Gentiles under the Gospel to the worlds end: and that this is his meaning is clear, by the following words, For if they which are of the Law be heirs (i. e. They and they onely, but heirs they were, Faith is made void. That is, the faith which Abraham had, by which he did believe the multiplying of his seed in all Nati­ons [Page 57] upon the grounds of the Promise, that faith is quite frustrated, because it went no further then the generations of the Law; And therefore it is of faith that it might be by Grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, and then he fully explains what he said before, Not sure to that seed onely, which were of the Law, where the word onely doth suppose it was sure to the legal seed, therefore it cannot be meant of a covenant of works, for so the promise was ne­ver sure to any from the Creation to this day, or ever shall be.

3. If the place were to be understood in his sense, namely of a co­venant of works, Then it confutes in direct terms w [...]at he hath so much pleaded for in his book. As that Canaan should be given by a covenant of works. For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, (in which that land was included) was not to him and his seed through the Law, i e. saith Mr P not by the covenant of Circumcision, but through the righteousness of faith. And if the Apostle saith, not by that covenant, then why doth Mr P. so often affirm elsewhere it was?

Thus we see, there is nothing in all he hath said, that proves Ci [...] ­cumcision either a covenant of works or seal to Abraham onely, but enough to prove it a seal to all the heirs of promise, even whilst they are infants: All ye therefore that belong to the covenant of Grace, fear not to give your infant-seed that Ordinance which now is the seal of the covenant.

P. The last Scripture he here brings to prove Circumcision a covenant of works is Gal. 4. latter end, where the Apostle compa es the two covenants to Sarah and Hagar, the covenant of Circumcision is held forth to be the bondwoman, ch. 5.1.2, 3. ch 6.13. wh [...]ch place doth prove, the covenant made in the fleshly line of Abraham is a covenant of Works. And that which the Gospel is set in opposition to, For the covenant of Grace is, I will put my Law in their hearts but the covenant of Circumcision is not in the heart, but in the flesh.

A. The diligent Reader may easily observe the palpable contradi­ctions that are here to be found. Hagar types out the covenant of works. Sarah types out the covenant of grace, and the fl [...]shly cove­nant of Circumcision (as he calls it) which is typed out by Hagar, is made in the fleshly line of Abraham which must be Ishmael. And then he contradicts what he hath been all this while maintaining, i e. that the fleshly line is Isaac and Jacob, in which the covenant of Cir­cumcision was to run: and so also he opposeth the Apostle Gal. 4 23 [Page 58] But he that was born of the bondwoman, was born after the flesh: but he of the free-woman was by Promise; so that what Paul calls the chil­dren by promise, he calls the children of the flesh. Thus men leaving truth making wise, God leaves them to publish their own folly.

That place Gal. 1.2, 3. is already answered, they were such that were falling back from Grace to be justified by works through their gross mistake, thinking as Mr P. doth, that the Law had been given for a covenant of works.

Lastly, Though God hath promised to write the new covenant in the heart, yet the seals of that covenant are written in the flesh: so it was then. For God writ the new covenant in the heart, under the Law, and yet circumcision was no covenant of works. But a figure of what God did within, Deut. 30.6. Rom. 2.28, 29. by which places we may see Circumcision had the same promises attending it then to believers and their seed, as baptism hath now. And it may with as much evidence of truth, be said, that baptism is a covenant of Works, be­cause it is administred upon the flesh; as Circumcision was then. Therefore all his Arguments and Scriptures he hath brought hitherto to prove Circumcision a covenant of works, have been ill drawn, and worse applyed.

CHAP. X. Wherein his 3, 4, 5, and 6, Arguments are answered to prove Circum­cision a covenant of Works.

III. P: pag. 58. WE are now come to his third Argument, and that is, because there is no promise of eternal life in it, but only a temporal blessing in the Land of Canaan, as pro­tection and provision, and the like, to prove this he quotes Heb. 8.6: Jer. 11.2, 3. Deut. 7.12, 13, & 30, 13.

A. 1. That Circumcision, had no promise of eternal life attending it is false, for eternal life was promised in Gods telling Abraham, he would be his God; it is such a blank, that a believer may write what happiness he will in it: God could not say more, nor a believer desire more.

2. It had the promise of the heart-Circumcision in order to pre­pare a soul for heaven, as the places above cited prove. Therefore it had the promise also of eternal life.

[Page 59]3. If it had not had the promise of eternal happiness, but onely an earthly Canaan, and protection therein, then in vain doth S. Paul say, God was not ashamed to be called Abrahams God, Heb. 11.16. And in vain also did he with Isaac and Jacob walk as Pilgrims in that land, expecting a better Country, i. e. a heavenly, Heb. 11.8, 14, 16.

4. As to those Texts he mentions, there is not one of them proves that God only promised Abrahams seed prosperity in Canaan, though that also was included, upon their obedience to Gods covenant, which was of Grace, not works, as hath been before largely proved We see therefore how well he hath distinguisht the Covenants.

P. IV. His next Argument to prove Circumcision a covenant of works is, becaus a man by laying out a little mony might have bought a heathen into this covenant, and have interessed him into all the pri­viledges thereof.

A. The covenant had two parts, one external, relating to mans du­ty in forms of worship; The other spiritual, relating to communion with God in those forms, as hath been often mentioned; into the first of these, all the persons born in Abrahams house, or [...]ought with mony were to be admitted, and the reason is, because all Abrahams family so qualifyed were the visible Church, and such a taking into his family was a taking into the Church: which also w [...]s a type of the purchase that Christ should pay by his blood. For the Gentiles, we e to be brought into Church-communion, of which that was the first fruits, both to them and [...]heir seed; for doing whereof, Gods command did bear him out. And this was to be a standing rule to Israel when they came to be a kingdom, because the foundation of the kingdom was laid in Abrahams family, Therefore,

2. When he saith, that all so bought, were purchac'd into all the priviledges of the covenant, it is a gross untruth: for justification, and salvation were the choice priviledges of that covenant wh [...]ch they could not be bought into, and in that sense Peters answer to Simon Magus, Thy mony perish with thee, had been properly applyed though yet in the other consideration, what he did was an Ordinance of God.

V. P. His next Argument is, because men out of this covenant might be saved, and such as were in it might be damned.

A. Here is still the same distinction to be noted as before, for those that went to hell were never interessed in the spiritual part of the covenant, but onely into the external forms of worship; the l [...]ke [Page 60] instance we have in the Apostles days, Judas, Simon Magus, with the rest of those hypocrites, and Apostates, were all interessed in the ex­ternal part of the covenant, and yet went to hell: this likewise was the condition of the foolish virgins, who because they had lamps lighted, thought themselves well enough, and there rested: in this sense also are the words of Christ to be understood. [The children of the kingdom shall be cast out.] I would a little re­turn this Argument to M: P. How many dipt Apostates have fallen quite away from all grace and goodness of late yeers, both from them and us? Surely it cannot be denyed, but they were visibly once in the covenant; therefore all those Scriptures and examples by him brought in, pag. 62, 63, 64. are by this distinction answered, and the false varnish by him put upon them is hereby washt off, that so they may be seen in their glory and splendor.

2. It also appears that it was the same covenant of Grace that justi­fyed Lot, Job, and all Jobs friends that were godly, though dwelling in another Country, that justifyed Abraham and his seed: for though they had not the seal of the covenant, because Abraham was the per­son pitcht upon, to whom it should be first administred; yet they were worshippers of God in a solemn way of sacrificing: the like we may charitably think now, that many in the world who have not the same means of Gospel-Ordinances, may yet have sincere hearts to God, and be as a scattered seed of some gracious predecessors; and yet not be within the visible pale of the covenant.

This also duely considered, is a full answer to the rest of those in­stances, of Davids sons, and Abrahams sons, with the whole lump of Israel, of all which many were damned, because onely in the visible part of the covenant. We may therefore see hitherto what feeble Arguments Mr. Patient brings to prove Circumcision a covenant of works.

VI. P. His sixth Argument for the ends abovesaid is, because this covenant of Circumcision may be broken, Gen. 17.14.

A. Still the former distinction kept makes the answer easie and plain; for such who broke the covenant, broke but the external part thereof; the other part could not be broken, and in this sense also the covenant in Gospel days is broken, and as God unchurcht Israel for breach of covenant, so he doth still, when a Church or people do apostatize from his Ordinances: The Apostle tells us so, Heb. 3.6 Whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence and rejoycing of the hope firm to the end, his meaning is, we are his house if we keep to [Page 61] the Ordinances of worship: implying, That if a people once cast off the Ordinances, they have broken the covenant, and stand related to Christ no longer as his house. I am sure that the extent of this Ex­plication will reach Mr Patient, who hath broken the covenant of God, by casting out of his seed. And upon this very hinge it was, That all those examples of Gods judgements upon Israel are given, when they revolted from God, and brake this covenant, then God plagues them and cuts them off; and when they renewed their cove­nant, fasted, humbled their souls and repented, God shewed Mercy; all which agrees to that remarkable place, which proves the covenant of Grace conditional, Gen. 18.19. For I know A­braham will command his children and his houshould after him, and they shall keep the Way of the Lord, to do Justice and judgement. That the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him; cleerly implying, that if Abrahams seed did not walk close in their duties, they should fall short of their expectations, as we af­terwards finde Israel did.

Therefore whereas M. P. saith it is impossible the covenant of Grace should be broken, it is false. For the external part may be broken, which is part of the covenant: but the inward part of it can never be broken.

P. Pag. 67. He comes to answer this distinction of the covenant as an Objection, but so poorly, that it seems he would gladly favour his own opinion; persons saith he, may profess outwardly, to be in Christ, and so in the covenant of Grace by profession: but because it was but a profession onely, and not in truth; therefore they profess to be in that wherein they never were.

A. We are now speaking of persons being in the covenant as the Scripture holds them forth, to be within it; And as men may in the judgement of Charity believe persons to be in it, in order to Communion of Saints in the world. If therefore the Scri­ptures tell us there is a twofold being in it, then persons are in the covenant that are within the visible part of, as hath been sufficiently proved, and as his own practice doth acknowledge: so that in his answer to the Objection, he rather works like a ferry [...]man, then a preacher; he seems to look towards an an­swer, but rows the other way: therefore whereas he saith, we have an infallible rule to judge Abraham and his seed to be within the co­venant of Circumcision, because God saith it, and the Objection before is groundless.

A. It hath bean already cleared, that Circumcision was part of the covenant of Grace; and therefore by this he confesseth that persons are visible within it, because the infallible rule of the word of God saith it; and so was the seed he speaks of infallible (as he calls it) within the Covenant: The like now, all that by pro­fession, are admitted into Gospel-Churches. We have the same rule to judge by. That they are as really within the covenant as the seed of Abraham was then; By which we may see the Obje­ction stands in force, notwithstanding those puffs of wind, he hath given at it.

2. Neither doth his bringing in that great Catalogue of Israels sins at all help him; For though it is not denyed but the most part of them were wicked and prophane, yet as a separated people God had chosen out, from the rest of the world, to be a Church, to whom he committed his Oracles, in that sense they were a people in cove­nant, and so stood till they were divorc't, and cast off from being a people. For which see Rom. 9. at large. And the reason why they were so wicked and profane, may be gathered from that place be­fore mentioned, Gen. 18.19. because they kept not up family du­ties, grew carnal and loose in their Judgements; and therefore looseness in practice and conversation followed; a needful Item to all Gods people in these days.

The like answer is to be given to Joh. 8 40, 44. by all which then it appears, that not one Argument he hath hitherto brought, proves Circumcision to be a covenant of works: we are now arrived at his last Argument, and that drawn from the many inconveniencies that will follow, if it be maintained a covenant of Grace: therefore so to understand Scriptures, as to cross any fundamentals, cannot be agree­able to the mind of God.

CHAP. XI. Contains a vindication of the First, Second, and Third Funda­mentall.

P. pag. 71. IF the covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and his seed, and those also that were born in his house, or bought with mony amongst the families of Israel, were a covenant of Grace, then it interessed all persons by nature or practice, into the choice priviledges of Adoption, sonship, justification, the inward work of sanctification; all which i [...] asserted by those who hold In­fant-baptism. And then this fundamental in Religion is denyed, That all mankinde by nature are children of wrath, and that all men are not charged under sin, both Jews and Gentiles, and that none is righteous, no not one. But saith Mr P. be it known to you, it was a truth through Israel in their Generations, and then he brings in ma­ny Scriptures to prove that men by nature are children of wrath, &c.

A. 1. And be it known to you again, That this fundamental truth is such that we all vail to, and therefore, it is not so much as toucht, much less rooted up by our Doctrine or practice, in main­taining Circumcision a Covenant of Grace, which I now come to make appear, and still by the former distinction; Therefore I shall de­sire the Reader to give me his hand, that we may not break company till the storm is over.

• 1 There is a twofold Adoption, and therefore
• 2 A twofold sonship,
• 3 A twofold Sanctification,
• 4 A twofold Justification.

These and all these, outward, and inward: so that, by vertue of the extent of the covenant made with Abraham, persons are born into those outward priviledges, though not into the spiritual part thereof: and thus were Israel adopted, Rom. 9.4. For it is one of the first priviledges that St. Paul reckons Israel had, to whom pertain­ed the Adoption and the glory, &c.

By which we see that the Adoption appertained to all Israel, that is, God made choice of them, to make them his peculiar sons and people, by taking them into the visible pale of the covenant of grace, [Page 64] when all the Nations of the earth besides were past by. So that no people, or Nation in the world could say God was their father, but the Jews; which is the benefit of Adoption in either respect. But inward Adoption runs more spiritually, therefore called the spirit of Adoption, Rom. 8.

Thus also, all Israel were the sons of God, for which the Scripture is so cleer. That such who deny it do but discover much ignorance. See therefore these Texts, Hos. 4.1. ch. 11.1. Joh. 8.41. Ezek. 20.21. And thus they are called the first-born, Exod. 4.22, 23. And they had all the service of sons to do to God in the wilderness. The like also of sanctification, when persons are by Gods appointment separated and set a part to a holy use, of which, divers instances might be given, before and since Christ; so also Justification, outward before men, as well as inward, or how else should there be any communion of Saints on earth? Thus Hagars son, though by nature born under a covenant of works, was a Church member. And he could call Abraham fa­ther, as Isaac could, though not under such a spiritual consideration, for still the in-works of Adoption, Sonship Justification, and Sancti­fication, have run by prom [...]se, in a close hidden and spiritual way, wo [...]king upon and changing the heart: And though Isaac, Jacob, and the rest of the line, were all born in sin, as well as Ishmael, and Esau, yet the Promise takes time to work, and brings in the Elect of God, some later, some sooner; yea, let us bring down this again to a parallel, and compare it to the practice of M. P. Sure I am, he cannot say, that all, he, and others with him plunged upon their profession of faith, are the real Adopted sons of God, or real [...]y ho­ly, or really justifyed or sanctifyed, that is spiritually; But this they may say, they are visibly such, and some may be such also spiritually; but who they be, is unknown to man, and yet all were alike by nature born in sin, and children of wrath.

2. And thus all those Scriptures, Ephes. 2.2. by nature children of wrath, Rom. 3.9. none righteous, no not one, are answered. This was also the equal condition of Paul, David, and the rest born and con­ceived in sin; and yet, as Abrahams seed, they were interessed in the covenant then, as believers and their seed are now. We may then see how his heap of chaff cast upon the truth, begins already to be blown away:

II. P. The second fundamental which he proclaims to the world, that our practice overturns is, stability in a covenant of eternal life; for if all Israel were born in the covenant of Grace then all should [Page 65] be saved, but there were but a remnant of Israel saved, all the rest damned. Isa. 10.22, 23. Rom. 9.22. And if so born, they must needs fall away from Grace.

A. As stability in Grace is a glorious truth, so neither doth this touch it. For it onely makes the outward part of the covenant in­stable. That is a falling away from their visible being in the cove­nant, for as hath been said, a man may be in the covenant, yet not in the Grace of the covenant. Thus Israel and all those Gospel hypo­crites mentioned, fell away, but the election still remained: so the branches that were in Christ, Joh. 15. that bare not fruit, were cut off and withered: and thus all those Texts that speak of a falling away are to be understood. The like now; though many Apostates fall from the ways of God, yet the covenant remains stable, and the same for ever.

III. P. The third foundation he pretends to be shaken, is the ne­cessity of conversion, and regeneration which is a Doctrine eminent­ly confirmed by Christ in the Gospel, for which he brings several Texts of Scripture: but to hold a covenant of life to run upon the carnal seed of believers opposeth this: for then when Christ said, Ex­cept a man be born again, [...]e cannot enter into the kingdom of God, Israel might answer, that's not true, we have an interest in the covenant of Grace already, and except ye believe that I am he, ye shall dye in your sins. they might say again, that's not true, for we know another way [...]o heaven then by believing, and 1 Joh. 5. He that hath not the Son hath not life. This error replyes, there be thousands interessed in life, without having Christ, by carnal generation. Thus far he, with much more of the like stuffe, with which he fills three pages together.

A. Neither doth it at all intrench upon this Doctrine, as falsly suggested: therefore to cleer this we are to consider, first the ground of this mistake of his from whence it riseth, as any man may easily see; namely, that the Doctrine of Conversion, Repentance, and Regene­ration, is to be preacht onely to such as are without the Church, and Kingdom of Christ: for his argument runs as taking it for granted, that such as are the subjects of the kingdom, are such in reality, when as by the former distinctions, it is most apparent, that some are such visibly onely, and some really.

2. Therefore consider, the Doctrines mentioned are part of that Gospel, which is the kingdoms Gospel, as Christ calls it, and hath been ever preacht to the subjects of the kingdom, so it was to Israel of old; and though believers and their seed were taken into the cove­nant [Page 66] (already proved to be of grace) yet this Doctrine of the new birth was preacht to them; which is abundantly cleer from Christs words to Nicodemus, Joh. 3. a place by himself quoted: Art thou a Do­ctor in Israel, and knowest not what the doctrine of the new birth means? implying, That he shewed himself very ignorant, when he knew not that which was preacht amongst Israel: adding this also, That the Or­dinance of Circumcision so frequently used, was but a Type of the Circumcision upon the heart, yea the whole tenor of the old-Testa­ment runs in such terms that cleerly shew their blessedness lies in re­penting and turning to God in pardon of sin, in setting their delight in the Laws of the Lord, trusting in God, and setting their hope in God, the book of Psalms is full of it. So also in those primitive Churches planted by the Apostles themselves, who in admission of members, had a better insight to the truth of grace upon the heart, then any since, and yet this Doctrine they preacht to the Church, 2 Cor. 5.17. Rom. 2.29. ch 6.11.8.10. Gal. 5.19. Eph. 4.23. therefore such as think the Doctrines of Repentance, New-birth, &c. should be preacht to the world onely, may hence see their mistakes, amongst which number Mr P. is one, I shall still draw down the parallel to his practice, which I judge to be a good way to convin [...]e our dissenting friends of their error: can he think, that all that runs in the same ra e with him, I mean into the water, that they have no need of preaching Repentance or the new-birth amongst them? surely if that be his judg­ment, he discovers more ignorance and weakness then ever Nicode­mus did. Therefore

3. Let us glean up his Scriptures, The reproof that John gave the Pharisees, was not for pleading a title to Abrahams covenant as his seed, for it is evident he bapt [...]zed upon that accompt: for had not the Pharisees claimed the Ordinances as Abrahams seed, because the rest did so, the reproof given them had been little better then non-sense, but he checks them for their wickedness, in not walking as became Abrahams children. So also Joh. 8.32. The like also Luke 16. a place M. P. much delights to name, thinking it makes for his opinion because Dives in hell owned Abraham as a Father, and Abraham owned him as a son, but yet for all that saith Mr. Patient, he was damned.

A. There is none denyes, but Abraham had more children damned then saved, yet nevertheless such as were saved, were Abrahams chil­dren and saved by Abrahams covenant. And it is impossible that M. P. himself should ever be saved out of that covenant, though at pre­sent [Page 67] he so much slights it: The reproof therefore that was given to Dives, was not because he called Abraham Father, as one of his sons, but because he lived as an Epicure and a glutton, as the whole para­ble makes evident. And methinks Abrahams Charity should be a sufficient reproof to Mr. P. for his want thereof: whereas therefore he tels us we have found out a newer way to heaven, then by the Do­ctrine of regeneration, it is but a taunt, wherein he discovers by what spirit he writes and speaks; Let therefore such ingenious spirits to whom he makes his appeal, judge righteous judgement.

CHAP. XII. Wherein the fourth and fifth Fundamentals are maintained.

IV. P. pag. 79. THe next Fundamental he tells us we destroy by maintaining Circumcision a covenant of Grace, Is the Doctrine of the new covenant, the nature of it, and the manner of Gods making of it with the soul, in which he writes his Laws in the heart, and pardons their sins, infuseth Faith, binds himself over to be their God without any condition in the creature, And thus and no otherwise, doth God make a new covenant with the soul, whereas this dream would make us believe that a whole Nation may be in the new covenant, and yet have no work of Grace wrought upon the heart.

A. That the new covenant hath conditions, hath been already proved. God neither pardons, saves, nor justifies any man, with­out the condition of the covenant, which ever was, is, and will be. Faith and Repentance, which two are of a large extent, and brings in a close walking with God in his Word and Ordinances, and leads to a holy life, without which none shall ever see the face of God. Look back to Abrahams covenant, was it not made with him as a be­liever, Rom. 4.3? what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, Had not Abraham been a be­liever, righteousness had not been imputed to him; and that this is a condition, the Apostle makes it cleer, ver. 23, 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him: But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe. So that faith is cleerly held forth as the condition both to Jew and Gentile, Isa. 56.6. He that keepeth the Sabboth from polluting it, and taketh hold on my covenant, [Page 68] Him will I make joyful in my house of prayer. For my house shall be cal­led the house of prayer of all Nations: what covenant is this, that a man must lay hold of but that of free-grace, which relates to his house of prayer in all Nations? For his Gospel-house, with whom that cove­nant is made, is as well called the house of prayer as the Temple: so that look how far the house of prayer goes to that people and Nati­on, both the Sabboth and Covenant goes also; so as they must keep the one, and take hold of the other.

Obj. But saith the opponent, though Faith be the hand, yet it is God that gives the hand, so that still the Covenant is without condi­tions?

Ans. This is still to argue pro and con. For if Faith be the hand and condition of the covenant, then it is on the creatures side, that it is so, and not on Gods. And the covenant is not made with any creature till they have a hand to receive it. And though it be given by free-grace, yet when it is given, it is the creatures hand; as the hand and eye of my body, it is free-grace that gives them, but when they are given, they are my hands and my eys. And thus the Apo­stle argues, it is of faith that it may be by grace; and hereby grace doth abound, that God should give the Gospel, and Covenant upon conditions; and when these conditions are wrought by his Grace, yet he should look upon them, as ours; yea Mr Patient hath before ac­knowledged, That faith is the condition of the covenant, and there­fore whereas he here tells us God infuseth faith, and binds himself o­ver to the soul without conditions, it is a meer contradiction; because that faith so infused, is that condition which takes hold on the cove­nant: and by this new covenant, were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Nathan, and all the people of God under the old-Testament, justifyed and saved; into the visible part of which cove­nant, all their seed was taken, yea the whole Nation of Israel. And that they shall be so taken in again, see Rom. 11. at large compared with Jer. 31.1. therefore for him to call it a dream, is not onely a dis­covery of his shallowness, but also an affront put upon those holy worthies before mentioned, by which he doth manifest it to the world, affirming that the Covenant of Grace hath no conditi­ons, that he is a high Antinomian, as well as an Anabaptist.

V. P. pag. 80. His next Fundamental is the doctrine of Justifi­cation by Faith; which this opinion of Circumcision to be a cove­nant of Grace destroys, in that it holds forth another way to obtain Justification by, then faith, which is by carnal birth of believing pa­rents. [Page 69] For if a soul be admitted into a covenant of life thereby; I hope you are not ignorant, that justification by faith is the great privi­ledge of the new covenant, and really the portion of all that are in that covenant.

A. He here affirms two direct untruths: But whats that, when there is nothing else to be found in his whole book?

1 He tells us we hold another way of justification then faith, by carnal birth, &c. which we abhor.

2 Another gross untruth is, That Justification to life is the real portion, of all within the covenant of Grace.

Therefore let the former distinction be still minded; and then it is apparent, that we affirm no more, but that believers seed have right to the external part of the covenant of grace, which Circumci­sion was a part of, as hath been proved: as for the spiritual part of the covenant, namely, that justification by faith, which he speaks of; it hath ever been conveyed in a secret way of the spirits working upon the heart: from which it is evident, that persons may be visibly with­in the covenant, and yet have no real work of Grace in their souls, so as to be justifyed, as those examples beforementioned do abun­dantly prove, for then Judas had been really justifyed. Take in also the parallel; then al the members of their dipt societies, would be real­ly justifyed; had we nothing else to plead, but the sensible experience of these times; it would be enough to shew the falsity of such an as­sertion: for how many not onely of them, but of others also have fal­len away to diabolical delusions? Thus far therefore we see those foundations, by him pretended to be shaken, remain, notwith­standing his high swelling language, untoucht, and unmoveable: — again

CHAP. XIII. The sixth and seventh Fundamentals maintained.

P. pag. 80, 81, 83. THis opinion destroys the doctrine and founda­tion of Gospel-Churches. The matter there­of, which is Saints by calling, spiritual worshippers, Ioh. 4.23. lively stones, 1 Pet. 2.5. persons redeemed from a vain conversation, 1 Pet. 1.18. brought out of darkness into his marvellous light, 1 Pet. 2.9. Now this opinion brings in a whole Nation to be a Church, all born of their body, their seeds seed in their generations. This is a setting up the partition wall again, betwixt the natural branches, and those that are wild by nature.

2 The manner of gathering is destroyed, and the Lords baptism neglected, and a counterfeit baptism set up in the room thereof.

A. Though this head would require a larger answer, yet I shall contract as briefly as I can, therefore

1 As to the matter of a Gospel Church, it is believers and their seed, which I thus prove: the Church of Christ is his kingdom in the world, to which the tenders of Gospel-Grace and mercy belongs, it is therefore called the Gospel of the kingdom, Mat. 13.19. before toucht upon.

It was so before the coming of Christ, and it is so since. If Grace therefore once took in children to be subjects of this kingdom, who then casts them out? not Grace, for that is unchangeable, and ther­by they were taken in; Tis the Argument of Paul, If God justifies, who shall condemn, Rom. 8.31, 34. If God be for them, who shall be against them? If grace makes them holy, by separating them to a holy use, who shall make them unclean, and cut them off? And that the same bowels of Grace and tender affection remains in Christ to little babes is cleer, under the Gospel, for of such is the kingdom; he doth not say of such was the kingdom. For that indeed would have been quickly made use of as a plea against us. But of such is the kingdom, As if he had said, My Kingdome is made up of the same materials, as the Kingdomes of the World are, not onely of men and women, but of children also, of such is the kingdome, would it not be ridiculous to say, there may be a kingdom without children? and that this is a metaphorical allusion, to the kingdoms of the world [Page 71] is cleer, not onely from the words or phrase there us'd, but also from other Texts, The kingdoms of the world, shall become the kingdoms of Christ. And Abrahams covenant tells us how it should be, namely, by multiplying of Abrahams seed in all Nations, so as that power at last shall naturally divolve into their hands, as it is worthily observed by an eminent Minister of these times, Mr Carter upon Abrahams covenant.

2. Consider, the foundation of this kingdom was laid in Abraham and his seed. For though God had his worship before, in families, from the beginning upon the first promise of Christ, yet it came not to a kingdom-worship till the promise was inlarged of multiplying the seed as the stars of heaven. And so Isaac was taken in as a subject with his Father, though but an Infant-subject; and that covenant which took in them, was the kingdoms covenant; and the seal of the covenant, was the seal of the kingdom, which reaches as well Infant-subjects, as their Parents. If then the foundation of the kingdom were parents and children, then the building upon that foundation must be also parents and children, because it is not a new but a conti­nued kingdom, Mat. 21.43. This being duly weighed, it will also reach to that other relation, the Church stands in to Christ, of being his house. And so takes in the place quoted, 1. Pet. 2.5. And ye as living stones are built up a spiritual house, &c. Look what materials therefore were laid into the foundation of Gods spiritual house, of the same is it carryed up, till the top-stone be laid; with shoutings, Grace, Grace; And that Gods house, under the Law, was a spiritu­al huuse, and their worshippers, spiritual worshippers, is c [...]eer; be­cause Israel were a sepa ated people, from all Nations; and were al­so to be separated amongst themselves from all moral and typical un­cleanness; either in persons or things, in order to a spiritual injoy­ment of God in his worship, they being then as we now, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God, holy and acceptable, Se 2 Cor. 6.16, 18. c [...]m­pared with Lev. 26.22: Isa 52.11. Ezek. 37.27. ch. 44.7. And, the having children in that spiritual house, did not at all diminish from the worship, to make it the less spiritual, Isa. 56.7. the allusion of the spiritual house under the Gospel, is drawn from the nature of Gods spiritual house under the Law, My house shall be called the house of prayer of all Nations, It was not so called, from the walls and stones of the Temple, though that also in a sense might be so called, but from Israels meeting there, who was the prayi [...]g people that God had then in the world, and the children were also carryed up to be [Page 72] presented before the Lord, Exod. 13.2 Levit. 12.2, 6. Luke 2.22, 23, 24, 27. Therefore, what ranks or degrees of people there were in the house of prayer then; the same was also the house of prayer un­der the Gospel in all Nations to consist of: namely, of men, women, and children: therefore the Apostle calls the Church the houshold of faith: in which are taken in believers seed: this doth also answer that place, Joh. 4. spiritual worshippers, for such they were under the Law; and yet their children also were included. The word is there used in opposition to this or that place, which they lookt upon them­selves bound up to, though Christ was come; as also in opposition to their manner of worship; which was then more carnal, Heb. 9.10. Truth was also opposed to the Idol worship of the Samaritans; but nothing at all can be gathered to take away the right of children: or that imports children not to be fit matter for a Church, kingdom, or house of God; especially considering it was the same covenant of Grace then that took them in, as it is now; and if it be an immutable covenant to believers and their seed, as no sound Christian can deny, then are believers seed still in the covenant. And thus also children may be truely called Saints, and sanctifyed persons; holy, because set apart to a holy use in the service of God.

3 Whereas therefore he saith, this opinion brings in a whole Na­tion of believers, it is his mistake; for till God brings them in, the o­pinion and practice doth not; for it is but the incorporating of the families of believers, into Congregational Societies and Churches, unless there be so many families as fill a Nation, and then I think without offence, they may be called a Nation of believers; and for ought I can see, not improperly a National-Church; neither are we hound by Israels practice of Circumcising, to their succeeding gene­rations, who had a command for it, (though I believe they were much corrupted in that Ordinance, as appears from that place, Ezek. 44.7.) therefore to baptize our children to succeed [...]ng generations, i [...] the Parents wicked, because the visible unbelief of Parents cuts off their seed, and their visible believing ingraffs them in. And thus we finde John repulst visible unbelievers that came to be baptized upon the account of Abrahams covenant: so that it appears that M. P. is a [...] ignorant of the ground of our practice, as he is of the truth of his own.

4 Neither is it the setting up again of the partition wall betwixt the natural branches, and those that are wild by nature. For the par­tition wall was the legal-Ordinances, Eph. 2.14, 15, given to the Jew­ [...]sh [Page 73] Nation onely: and shu [...]ting out all Nations besides: so much is implyed by Paul, Rom. 9.4. To them appertained the giving of the Law and the Oracles, that is, to them and none else, so Rom. 11.12. Mat. 28.19. which Commission was inlarged upon Christs taking a­way that partition wall, and copyed out according to the tenor of A­brahams covenant, Gen. 12. In thee shall all Nations of the earth be blessed.

Therefore go teach all Nations.

Therefore also by natural branches, we are to understand the Jew­ish believing Parents and seed. These were the branches of the cove­nant, cut off for unbelief, His blood be upon us and our children, Mat. 27.25. and Rom. 11.15, 20. because of unbelief they were broken off: What, they? The first place tells us, Parents and Children; and ver. 17. ( and if some of the branches were broken off implying that as Parent and seed were branches, so some of those branches were not broken off, but still remained in Abrahams covenant, Therefore

2 By wild branches, or branches wild by nature, we are to under­stand the Gentiles, Parents and seed, called wild by nature; because Israel that were Gods Vineyard, Orchard, Garden, and so inclosed, were dress'd and prun'd by Christ in his Ministry, who was the vine­dresser thereof, when as the Gentiles grew wild as a Tree in a wilder­ness, and so were without God in the world, thus the natural branches were cut off, That the branches wild by nature might be graffed in. The Sun at noon day hath not so cleer a light, as this Scripture hath to prove the covenant right and interest of believers and their seed. In what therefore he affirms in pag. 81. that taking in of children is a setting up the partition wall betwixt the natural branches, and b [...]an­ches wild by nature, he shews himself more blind then that poor man that saw men as trees walking. For by natural branches he un­derstands onely adult professors: and by branches wild by nature, little infants; when as the word of God tells us, that we are to un­derstand by branches, Parents and Children. By all which, it is appa­rent that he understands not what the partition wa l is, or what the natural branches or branches wild by nature signifies. Thus far we have examined the t uth of his Church-matter. The next thing is the form, Therefore

P. The holding of this opinion that believers seed have a right to the covenant, makes people live in a neglect of the Lords baptism, contenting themselves with a counterfeit baptism instead thereof [Page 74] and thus the Church comes to be constituted of good and bad pro­miscuously; and then he calls for our rule to justifie it.

A. The Reader may here observe, to what height of spirit this man is sweld, that he durst charge all the Churches of Christ through the world, with a counterfeit baptism, as if the onely light of this truth did shine in Rivers. It hath been already proved in answer to his Essentials, that the Lords Baptism was not by dipping.

Therefore believe him not, yea the Lord Christ will be a swift wit­ness against him, that he abhors such a practice, for the reason be­fore laid down. And whereas be saith that it makes the Church a promis [...]uou [...] body consisting of good and bad: I answer.

1. So doth Christ himself, Mat. 13.47. where he likens the king­dom of heaven, i. e. the Church, to a net let down into the sea, which gathered of all kinds, both good and bad; yet I hope he will not be so bold, to say a charge of imputation upon Christ himself.

2 It hath been also proved, that such a mixture as is made by ta­king in believers and their seed, is no more then what the word of God bars out, upon the account of Abrahams covenant: and to call it a mixture is to call that common which is clean.

3 Neither do I believe, but if their own Societies were sifted, there would be found more chaff then wheat, and that their Congregati­ons would not appear more strict then ours; I speak not this by way of boasting, for I doubt, we have not so much cause on either hand.

But let him that glorieth, glory in the Lord.

P. p. 82. He tells us of going in an untrodden path, because we baptize children, and receive them into the Church as members, and yet deny them the Sacrament. And then asks us when we will give it them? or why they have a right to one priviledge, and not to ano­ther?

A. Though a child may not be fit to sit at the fathers Table, yet he may be fit to suck at the mothers breasts. And if you will know when they shall come to the Lords Table, the Apostle tells you, when they can examine themselves, 1 Cor: 11.28.

Look back to Israel, though their seed did receive the seal of the covenant, and were admitted then in Christs kingdom, yet they were not presently fit for the passover, which was also a spiritual feast, and a prefiguration of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor 5.7, 8. as the Israel of God then, in which children were included; was a prefiguration of Gods Israel now; therefore though baptism, and the Lords Supper are both priviledges of the covenant, as Circumcision and the Passover [Page 75] were then; yet the infant-seed of the kingdom may be fit for the one, though not fit for the other; as the infant-subjects of the king­doms of the world: they are subjects, but not fit for all the privi­ledges of a kingdom, which consideration doth answer his cavils; though much more might have been added upon another account. As to that Scripture Act. 2.41, 42. That all that were baptized continued in breaking bread. I answer, They were such there spoken of, that were capable of hearing the word, and which gladly received it; that were converted from Judaism. The like to which is practised upon the con­version of any unbaptised persons at this day: and this makes there­fore for us, for though their children were admitted in upon the ac­count of Abrahams covenant, The promise is to you and your children; yet we do not finde they were admitted to the Supper: because the same promise belonging to them and their seed under the Law, yet the seed were not capacifyed for the Passover. By all which, there­fore it appears our path lies plain and open, that we may see which way the footsteps of the flock have gone before us; whereas if the blind lead the blind, they both tumble into a ditch or River. And thus both the matter and form of a true Gospel-Church is maintain­ed by our doctrine and practice.

VII. The last head of Fundamentals, which he saith our doctrine and practice destroys, is

P. That persons may have a right to a covenant of life, without an in-being in Christ by faith, and is it not therefore a sad thing, that persons that profess themselves Ministers, and to have knowledge in the Gospel, should be so blinded as to mislead people in so weighty a point as this is, and that they should endeavor to leaven thousands of people with such a sad error as opposeth it self against the substance of the Gospel, &c.

A. It hath been the main policy of Satan in all times of Reforma­tion, to endeavor the subversion of the Ministery of Christ, and by all means to make them fall as stars from heaven, because he then knows how to carry on his kingdom, works of darkness. And if Israel can­not be overcome when they are united to one God, in one way, in one Commonwealth; he will then divide them, because then he knows his work will thrive in the hands of Jeroboams Priests.

We may here see what a heighth the false Prophets of this Com­monwealth are come to, that they can without check smite the Pro­phets of God upon the face, with reviling words, dragon-like, casting a flood of waters out of their mouths, that so their may not escape; we [Page 76] may doubt such words are but preludiums to a remaining Tragedy. I speak the more in this, because I have also seen a piece called the Kings of the East, which may be rather called the devils pleading for a Pulpit; in which, when he speaks to the Ministers for licence to make use of them, he tells us if they will not give leave, they shall be prayed down and pulled down. But I hope they rage the more, be­cause they have but a short time.

But to come to the answer:

What he hath here said, is of the same nature with what he hath spoken before, and so hath been already answered. Before he charged our baptism to be a counterfeit baptism, and here again our Ministers are blinde, and misleade thousands to oppose the substance of the Go­spel. What taunting bold language is this, and how unfit for a man of his thred-bare knowledge and profession? I hope the reader will excuse me, because it is to speak a word for those choice leaders of Christs flock; who are as sheep dumb before the shearers of our times.

2. The former distinction of the covenant must be still minded, and then it is apparent, that the charge put in against our Ministery is false. I have been one of their followers above this 12 yeers, I bless God, I never heard such a doctrine delivered: That propagation gave an in-being in the spiritual part of the covenant of Grace, which is that M. P, intends by the covenant of life. Therefore what the Prophet said to Ahab, is not mis-applyed to him; It is he, and such like as he, That are the troublers of Israel, That leavens the Nations with errors. That run before they are sent: for he whom God hath sent, speaks the things of God; he speaks not the things of God, because he understands them not, as hath been made appear hitherto, he understands not the cove­nant of Grace from works; what the new covenant is, the extent thereof, how to baptize, or whom to baptize. And therefore with the false Prophets, he teaches to revolt from God and his ways.

The Reader may by this time see, what wood, hay, and stubble he hath built, that not one Argument hitherto, either to prove our pra­ctice to overthrow the forenamed Fundamenta [...]s, or Circumcision a covenant of Works, hath been made good. Therefore it is evident That they remain unmoveable and untoucht, notwithstanding those horrible outcryes, wherewith he chargeth our doctrine and practice withal, pag. 83.

CHAP. XIV. The Third general head answered.

P. THe third head propounded to be proved by him, was, that none but believers had or shall have a right to the covenant of Grace; to prove which, he tells us that so soon as the seed of the wo­man was promised to our first Parents, after the fall, the Lord immediately made an outward covenant of Works, which was typi­cal and intayled upon the flesh, out of which Christ was to come; which was more dark till Abrahams days: then till Moses more cleer: and then from Moses it brake forth cleerly; and so continued till Christ, in whom it ceas'd and ended.

A. That those typical Ceremonies by him called a covenant of works, was part of the covenant of Grace, hath been fully pro­ved; Therefore lets keep the old distinction, and hold fast the form of sound words, to cast off which is of as dangerous a consequence, as to strip the Barke from the Tree, and then let the other grow if it can. Besides, note what must necessarily follow:

• I. God made a covenant of works with Adam, which he broke.
• II. God made a covenant of Grace after he fell:
• III. God made again another covenant of Works: so that here is implyed, either

1 That the covenant of G [...]ace was incompleat, and had not a Ta­ble sufficiently furnisht, to accommodate all parts of man. And there­fore he must be left to a covenant of works for temporals, so to help out what the other wants, or

2 That mans happiness in a state of Grace, was so imperfect and unstable, that he fell back into a covenant of works, or

3 That God after he had made a covenant of Grace with man, upon better consideration, took that away, and re-stated him in a co­venant of works, or

4 That a believer, as before observed, may be in two covenants at once, or

5 That God had rather all men should be damned, then saved, And

6 That upon Christs coming, the conditions of the covenant of Grace, (by him called of works) being abolisht as such a covenant. [Page 78] Therefore, now man either stands loose or free from all Ordinances and Sabboths, or else the observing the Sabboths or keeping to them must be a new covenant of works. Thus it is apparent what a rock of er­ror, and heresie, we should at last split upon, by imbracing such fan­tastical notions as this patron of plunging, would dowse us into; Therefore let the Reader observe that Heb. 11. and he shall finde the typical worship was then made acceptable to God by believing, as our Ordinances are now; which had it been a covenent of works, it would have stood directly opposed to faith; therefore it was of faith, that it might be by grace. But when he speaks of a covenant of works, then, If it be of works, it is no more of Grace, otherwise Grace is no more Grace: And take also a brief touch of the parallel of that ad­ministration, which was the old covenant, and so of works.

Then, as before, the Gospel-administration must be a new covenant of works. And so what M. P. doth (though onely a pretender to Gospel-rule) in wading into mill-pools and Rivers must be, as indeed it is, a branch of such a covenant of Works. Therefore not of Grace:

P. pag. 87, 88. The reason why God made choice of Abrahams family, and not Lots, or any of the rest of the godly families in the world, it was not because Abraham was any more a believer or his Family; for then Lot and his family, and the rest had been taken in­to the covenant of Circumcision, because they did believe as well as Abraham. For this is a sure rule, If God gives a promise or command to a person as a believer; then whosoever believes, that command and promise belongs to them: and for this he brings the example of Jo­shua, I will not leave thee, which the Apostle applyes to the Church Heb. 13.5. now the covenant made with Abraham, was therefore to shew the world that Christ must come out of his flesh, &c.

A. Though I grant that Abraham was not pitcht upon as a be­liever barely; yet had he not been a believer, he could not have been the father of the faithful.

2 If that had been all, to point out to the world from whence they might expect the Messias; then Cir [...]umcision might as well have been given to Seth, Enos, or Shem, &c. and so have distinguisht the whole race; yea God must afterwards have given some distinct sign to Judah; because all Jacobs twelve sons were circumcised. So that the world would be at as great a loss, to know in which of al these twelve the line was to run. Therefore if we do but look into the grounds of the Promises, we shall finde, there were many other main [Page 79] and choice ends; as namely, By the multiplying of believers, as the stars of heaven; who also are called the seed; they might thereby be­come blessings to families and Nations. For as Jesus Christ was the great blessing, so every believer was also to be a little blessing; Accor­ding to the promise, I will bless thee, and thou shalt be a blessing: and by this means God makes use of believers to be as his leaven, to lea­ven the whole lump: so that in this way Christs kingdom shall at last spread through the earth.

2 To make Abraham a publike Father, to the believing Gentiles and their seed since the coming of Christ, as he was to the Jews and their seed before Christ came.

3 To seal the possession of Canaan to him and the heirs of Pro­mise as a type of heaven, and to give them possession of that Land in a way of conquest, Gen. 22.17. Luke 1.73.

4 To shew the immutability of his counsel and purpose to the Gentiles, Heirs with him of the same promises, that so, we in Gospel days, might have ground of consolation in all straits and extremi­ties, that the heirs under the Gospel might meet with, because they also have a wilderness to go through Rev. 12.6: and Canaanites to sub­due and conquer Gen. 9.27. And a like rest with that of Canaan to possess Heb. 4.1. Therefore Abraham is held out as a publike Father to look at, thereby to see and behold Gods variety of dealings with him, and with his seed after him, either in war, or peace; prosperity, or adversity, hereby to strengthen Faith in the like case: that so as David saith, one deep may call out to another at the noise of Gods water­spouts, when the billows overflow.

These, and all these, and more then these were the ends for which God made choice of Abraham to give the Promises unto, with the oath, and seal; all which do substantially continue to this day, be­ing by Christ handed over to the Gentiles, with the old seal taken off, which as Lord of all, he had power to do, and a new seal added in the room thereof, to the same covenant, which amounts to no more then the taking off a seal of red wax from a covenant, and putting a seal of white wax in the place thereof; yet the covenant still re­mains.

II. To that which he saith, that if a command or promise be gi­ven to a believer, as a believer, it then (as a sure rule) belongs to e­very one that is a believer.

A. That's no true rule, therefore not a sure rule; because a pro­mise that suits to one mans condition as a believer, doth not therefore [Page 80] suit with every believers condition: neither doth the end of God, in giving one believer a Promise, reach to the same end in all believers, unless so circumstantiated; as for instance;

God gave Abraham Circumcision as a believer. And his end was to make Abraham a publike Father: yet this did not therefore reach to all believers. For he did not intend to make any more publike fa­the s then one; the like we may say of that instance he gives of Jo­shua: The command and Promise given to him, was as a Captain General and believer; and so it could not reach to all believers upon those terms, for though he was commanded to be of a good cou­rage, &c. and fight, and he should not be forsaken, yet that com­mand doth not reach to all believers; because we see many believers have fallen in the wars, and their enemies have been the conquerors; yea such a command would then reach to women, because they are believers: And the reason why that promise was applyed to the be­lieving Hebrews, is because one promise hath several aspects. And so suits to several conditions, it being as a sprig of the whole bundle that suits all conditions. So, the several cures that Christ wrought upon persons as believers, and some in a way of promise, doth not there­fo e instate all believers in such a promise, that they shall so be cured; when the holy Ghost tells us the prayer of faith shall save the sick doth this give al believers an interest into the direct intent of that promise? there is therefore much Christian prudence to be observed in chusing, and applying promises, to pick out such as are suitable to a believers condition.

The Reader may therefore see, how sadly confident and ignorant this man is; who yet, is lookt upon, as the Nicodemus of that party.

P. pag. 86. For many pages he goes on to shew that the whole line by promise, mentioned in Luke 3. it was onely an external electi­on into a covenant of works, and Cain, Ham, Ishmael, Esau, were therefore outwardly rejected from that covenant.

A. It hath been already proved that all the line by promise are more then externally elected; yea so to affirm is strongly to suppose, that some of that elect line might be damned, because thousands so elected are never saved, and some of those so rejected might go to heaven though tis expresly against the scriptures: the naming of which methinks should be a sufficient confutation.

As to the six sons of Keturah, which he speaks of in page 90, which were Abrahams seed, and sent away into the east Country:

The answer is plain, that so long as they were in Abrahams family and Circumcised, they were all Church-members and visibly in the covenant, as their brother Ishmael was; but being turnd out of the family, they lost the Church priviledges, as not being heirs of pro­mise; as for their being gracious, we have no ground to think they were, but the contrary. And had Ishmael, Esau, and Keturahs sons, been kept within the covenant, there had then been no partition wall betwixt Jew, and Gentile. For the whole Nation of Israel came onely from the line of Isaac:

P. pag. 91, 92. He tells us that all the Nations of the earth were to be blest alike in him: i. e. saith Mr Patient in the spiritual cove­nant. And Circumcision was but a chusing of one Nation into a Church covenant for matter of worship.

A. He cleerly confounds Abrahams covenant and blessings, for if all Nations were equally alike blest, as to the spiritual part of the co­venant; To what end then should God pitch upon any people or Nation to walk in his Ordinances, when the spiritual part of the co­venant was not to be conveyed in them, or if it was, yet upon such terms, that other Nations without such Ordinances, did injoy as much? and then to what purpose should Israel be at such pains, cost, and charges in their Offerings, or spend time to hear, read, pray, or keep the Sabboths, if all these were but as shel s without a kernel? yea had it not been a burthensom yoak? and might not Gods people have said, why shall we spend so much time, and take so much pains, and be at such costs to worship God, when other Nations that do none of all this, yet they injoy as much of the spiritual covenant, and so of Justification and salvation, yea as much of the world as we?

I appeal to the Consciences of all our dissenting friends, whether this be not to preach up revolt, Apostasies, and backslidings, from the ways of God, and to make the hearts and spirits of Gods people to disrelish them as an unsavory dish? yea such a doctrine as this tells the world, that where God g [...]ves Ordinances, they prove a curse and not a b [...]essing, whereas that holy Apostle tells us, Eph. 2.12: That at [...]hat time we were without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth of Is­rael, strangers from the covenants of Promise, having no hope, without God in the world; And so David Psal. 147.19, 20. he hath given his word to Jacob, his Statutes to Israel; he hath not dealt so with any Na­tion — Therefore when God tells Abraham, that in him all Nati­ons of the earth should be blest; he intends a time and order for this [Page 82] blessing to work, and not in all at once, nor in all parts at once. And so the Apostle after argues, To you first God hath sent his son, to bless you: and if the Jews first, then the Gentiles afterwards; yea when it came to the Gentiles, there was a divine order in conveighing this blessing, falling like the showrs of heaven, sometimes in one Country, sometimes in another. First it spreads about Jerusalem, then it Coasts up in A­frica, by means of the Eunuch: then the light grows dark, and out it breaks in Europe, Spain, Italy, Greece; afterwards again, when Po­pery had overspread the earth, then it breaks out in France, Germa­ny, Bohemia Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, England, Scotland, and Ireland: all which tells us that Gods Ark of worship is Ambulatory, not fixt to any place, by reason of the wickedness of a people, as Christ tells the Jews, Mat. 21.43. The kingdom of God shall be ta­ken from you, and given to another Nation that shall bring forth the fruits thereof; the Lord grant we finde it not true in these Nations by sad experience, for there are sad symptomes; and chiefly when re­proach and contempt is cast upon the Ministers of Christ without check or controle: thus then we may see what desperate errors are like to come in at this watergate, if it be not kept shut; and all for want of a right understanding of the covenant made with Abraham. I shall not meddle with his typical election; because it runs upon the same foot with the former already answered: that place by him quoted, 2 Cor. 3. of the ministring of the spirit, meets also with the like quarter, by his false interpretations of the rest; for I must pro­fess I have not seen throughout his whole book, any one Text brought but hath been either falsly opened, or falsly applyed.

In pag. 91. He tells us, that Jacob in the womb was no more the seed of a believer then Esau; which shall be easily granted, if his ingenuity will but grant also that Jacob was more the seed of Promise then Esau; which is a sufficient answer.

P. Pag. 92.93. He again harps upon the old string thus: Circum­cision was not given to Abraham and his seed, considered as a believer, but to shew us that the Messias was to come from Abraham, not from Lot; from Isaac, not Ishmael; from Jacob, not Esau; therefore here you may nakedly see how grosly they mistake, that think the cove­nant was made with Abraham and his seed, considered as a believer, and believers seed; therefore if a national covenant was made with Abraham and his seed upon this reason, before, then you cannot con­clude that Abrahams covenant belongs to any Gentile; because when Christ was come, and the ground upon which the covenant was gi­ven [Page 83] ceasing, the covenant also ceaseth: so that now to defend a co­venant in the flesh, is a doctrine virtually to deny that Christ is come: and hence therefore we may conclude that there was no covenant of grace made with any but such as did and do believe: that objection therefore, that spiritual priviledges under the Gospel, are not less then they were under the Law, is hereby answered.

A. I have here taken in the matter of these pages without mang­ling as neer as I could, because this eclipse will make truth break ou [...] more glorious, and instead of seeing the naked truth, we may see ra­ther his nakedness, and so his shame. Therefore

1 If the covenant had not been made with Abraham as a believer, then it had not been made with him at all, as already proved, and so the Apostle tells us he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, &c. implying that if Abra­ham had not enjoyed that righteousness, he could not have enjoyed the seal of it.

2: Had it been given him barely to proclaim Christ to the world, as to come from him, and so nothing else to be expected from that covenant then as before, there must have been another mark found out to shew, in which of Jacobs twelve sons the line was to run. For notwithstanding Circumcision, M. P. would be to seek, had it not been for Mat. 1. and Luke 3. — therefore

3 We have it laid down before that Abrahams covenant in the blessings thereof had many other choice branches: which reaches in­to Gospel-days since the exhibition of Christ, to the worlds end. For which cause Abraham is called the Father of believers under the Go­spel, which could not be that we should be Abrahams children, If the blessing of Abrahams covenant reacht onely to Christ, as pointing at him; for so we must have been Christs children, not A­brahams.

4 Then the Apostle knew not what he said, Gal. 3.14. when he tels the Church, That Abrahams blessing is come upon the Gentiles through Christ. For if it were onely meant of Christ, then it would lose the title of Abrahams blessing. But though Christ be come, yet the bles­sing is Abrahams blessing still: yea Christ is come, that he may con­veigh the blessing from the Jews to us, as heirs with them, and not distinct from them: and what blessing it should be, called Abra­hams, which Christ should hand over to us, if not the blessings of the covenant in all the veins thereof, is not to be understood. There­fore

[Page 84]5 As the promise, oath, and seal, were joyned together to make the blessings of Abraham sure, so were they all conveyed to us intirely, to shew the immutability of his counsel, and purpose to us▪ as it did to the Jews, Heb. 6.18. that so the heirs of Abrahams promise under the Gospel, might have strong consolation. And upon this account it was the Apostle in Rom. 4. bids them cast an eye back upon Abraham their father, to see how he was justifyed, which had it not been so, they would have been sent to Christ as a pattern, not to Abraham; He should have been called their father, not Abraham: so, when he tells the Galatians, ch. 4.28. (in order to rectifie their judgements in the like mistake of Just [...]fication) now ye brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. It had been to no purpose, unless Isaacs promise had remained, for they could not be children of that which was not. From all which we see into what mistakes he is got, and how sadly bewildered with his own notions, & upon what sl ght pro­mises, he draws so high conclusions to make his ware vendible. For notwithstanding any thing he hath spoken, as Abrahams blessings and covenant do not cease, though Christ be come; so neither do we deny by this opinion of ours, that Christ is come, or do we expect an­other Christ to come, as he suggests. It therefore appears, the cove­nant of grace is of such extent, that it takes in thousands into the vi­sible part thereof, that shall never be saved; so that still the objecti­on which he saith is answered, remains in full force and vertue, that the priviledges are not straitned more then they were under the Law: therefore as children were then in covenant, and received the seal, so are they still in covenant, and the Gospel seal is their due, and cannot be denyed them.

P. Pag 94. The new covenant was confirmed of God in Christ onely, Gal. 3.17. therefore it cannot belong unto any souls out of Christ, 1 Cor 11.25. This cup is the new Testament in my blood: If the New Testament be in Christs blood, then what hath any carnal unbelieving wretch to do with this Testament, that hath not faith in his blood?

A. These Texts makes full against him. For that place, Gal. 3.17. tells us that Abrahams covenant which was 430 yeers before the Law, was confirmed in Christs blood. Therefore the Law coming after, could not make the Promises of God of none effect: If then Abrahams cove­nant in which children were included, were confirmed in that blood; this new covenant being the same with Abrahams, as himself confes­seth, and confirmed by the same blood, Infants are still within the [Page 85] same covenant. For the covenant is in Christ, Yea and Amen to all the persons included in the covenant. As there is a double being in the covenant; internal, and external: so a double being in Christ, Joh. 15.3, 4 which being well distinguisht, will cleer all such doubts. Some of the seed are onely in Christ externally, as Ishmael, Esau, and o­thers; Internally also, as Isaac, Jacob, and so in the covenant, whether Adult or Infants: the like to be said to 1 Cor. 11.25. That cup is the New Testament, or a seal of the New-Testament to all that are within that Testament. As Christs blood typically sealed the first Testament to Abraham and his seed, so Christs blood seals the New-Testament to believers and their seed; of which that cup is the Sacramental remembrance: the like also to Mat. 3 17. my son in whom I am well pleased, i. e. as God was well pleased with Abraham & his seed by promise, that were in the covenant co firmed by Christs blood; so is he now well pleased with believers, and their seed by promise in the same covenant confirmed by Christs blood. The same answer is to be given to all the rest of those places by him quoted, with which he fills many pages, to prove that none can be in the co­venant of Grace except he be first in Christ.

P. In pag. 95. He condoles the sadness of these times. That when the means of grace, and knowledge of the Gospel, is so plentifully held forth; yet we must be forc'd to bestow such pains to prove that men cannot be in a state of salvation, and acceptation before God in a covenant of Grace, without union with Christ by Faith.

A. Alas poor man, he would fain be pittyed for the pains he takes, but who is it that puts him to it, but his own erring spirit which makes him afraid of his own shadow? Is there any of us that affirms so wickedly, that acceptation is to be had in God, without union with Christ? If not; he deals the more deceitfully to suggest such things, as if our Ministry did it. Therefore

2 Whereas he saith the means of Grace hath been pl [...]ntifully held forth: It seems it is not by his opposites the publike Ministers. For how can such hold forth the means of Grace, that shall affirm such an acceptation is to be had without such an union? which he affirms to be the principles of those that plead for infant-baptism: but bles­sed be God, If you have no better warrant to justifie your irregular and unnatural practice withal, and condemn ours, then such ca­lumnies; the experience of these days speaks aloud, who it is, that have held forth the means of Grace, and glorious light of the Go­spel. [Page 86] It is evident enough from the budding and fructility of Aarons rod, of whom it may be said, they preach with Authority and not as the Scribes, for their rods are dry and barren; because they preach not conversion, but subversion.

I shall touch upon a Scripture or two more, leaving the rest for the Reader to answer in his own thoughts. For indeed not one of them proves any thing he asserts; Joh. 14.6. Mat. 7.14. He that hath Christ hath life, he that hath not Christ hath not life; we say the same: but he that hath not Christ spiritually, may have a visible right to the covenant of Grace, as those hypocrites had, so often menti­oned. So in their own.

P. So he quotes Joh. 16. that Christ calls the unbelievers in the na­tional Church of the Jews, the world; I have chosen you out of the world; and their being circumcised, freed them not from being justly so called.

A. The answer is, The words are directed to the Disciples, as a people that acknowledged Christ exhibited, and so were Gospel wor­shippers. And the unbelievers amongst the Anabaptists may as well be called the world, if the comparison relates to one that truely be­lieves, as the Jews were called the world, when Christs words rela­ted to his real believing Disciples. For the denying of Christ to be the Messias, was that which distinguisht; because such a denyal led them to keep up a form of worship, that did directly oppose the Gospel.

P. Another Scripture Rom. 4.16. It is of faith, that it might be by grace: but if the covenant was made to the seed; it could not be of faith, and so not of grace.

A. Here is sad work made in his interpretations: was it not of Faith to Abraham that it might be by Grace, to him and his seed? for shame abuse not the Scripture so grosly: It was of Faith that it might be by grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed; and who this seed was, he tells us, little children, if we may draw it from Isaacs being a child, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And be­cause the Gentiles shall know that the word seed reaches them, there­fore he adds, not to that onely which is of the Law, &c. So that as it was to Abraham by faith, that it might be of Grace to his seed: So is it now of Faith to a believer that it might be of Grace to his seed.

So also he quotes Act. 15.4. He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

A. If God put no difference, how durst he do it then?

P. So Gal. 3.2, 4. we are all one in Christ Jesus.

A. How then can he answer it before God, to make us twain? For as Abraham and his seed through the Law, were in covenant, so are believers and their seed now: or else we are not all one in Christ, but two seeds.

P. As for that opposition he gives page 99.. That a temporal ele­ction into a temporal covenant, was a type of the spiritual election into a spiritual covenant:

A. It is a whimsey of his own brain, that can never be made good, and therefore it shews a giddy spirit after notions. —

P. Again, Heb. 11.6. without faith it is impossible to please God; therefore none can be in a covenant of Grace but such as believe. So Abel.

A. We please God by Faith now, as those worthies in that chap. mentioned did then; for therefore the Apostle brings in them for an example: so the answer is still the same. Look how Abraham our Father pleased God, in circumcising his seed as in the covenant, in which there was an act of Faith, and how the contrary in Moses neglecting the seal displeased God; so are believers to please God by sealing their seed, and the neglect hereof provokes the wrath of God, as it is evident from this example: by which we see that if we would please God as Abraham did, we must then walk in the steps of Abraham: and it is agreeable, and not opposite to faith, or grace, to seal our Infants.

Thus Christian Reader, thou maist see all the Scriptures by him­self quoted to maintain his opinions: they do like the stars of heaven in their courses fight against this Sisera.

P. The last place is Rev. 21.8. The fearful and unbelieving shall have their portion in the lake of fire.

A. Is not this well applyed to the thing in hand, or doth he with one blast of his Nostrils turn all children to hell? The Lord rebuke him; even the Lord.

CHAP. XV. The 2 Act. 3.1 Cor. 7.14. vindicated in answer to his last general head.

Pag. 101, 102. WE are now come to his last head, to examine the answer he gives to our Scripture Allegati­ons, and accordingly to reply. The first Scripture he quarrels with is Act. 2.39. The promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. —

P. To which he saith, the promise is just to so many as God shall cal; and by Promise, he opens the remission of sins, and gift of the holy Ghost, and then he makes this flourish; I pray take notice how evident the Text makes against this error, That the covenant of Grace should be made with the fleshly line of believers; and to con­firm the meaning of the word call in his sense, he brings Rom. 8.30. and Heb. 9.15. and 1 Pet. 2.9. All which speaks of an effectual Call.

Rep. We are here to consider to whom the words were spoken: 1. namely, to the Jews who were troubled in spirit about their conditi­on, such who had crucifyed Jesus Christ; that had wisht his blood to be upon them and their children, Mat. 27.23. The promise is to you and your children: this promise cannot be meant of the gifts of the holy Ghost, by tongues and miracles; for that would have been no solid cure to a wounded conscience, as theirs was. Judas had such gifts, but they could not m [...]ke his conscience whole, who was guilty of the same sin.

2 This Promise was to relate to them afar off, that is, the Gentil [...]s; it could not be therefore such Gifts, for they ceast in that age, and the Gentiles afar off never had them, though yet the Gentiles did repent and were baptized: therefore by this promise, called the promise, must be meant such a promise which they well knew, and were acquainted with; and therefore must be that of Abrahams covenant, made to him and his seed. So the Apostle, Gal. 3. To Abraham and his seed, were the promises made: ver. 16. not seeds as of many, but as of one, i. e. the Jewish seed, and Gentile seed, make but one seed i e. Christ mysti­cal, in his political body, 1 Cor. 12.27. So here again the promise is to you and your seed.

Quest. But what was there in Abrahams promise to cure a wounded [Page 89] Conscience? For such were the persons mentioned: therefore the salve must be suitable.

A. All good things were in it, that related to Grace or Glory. I will be thy God, what could be said more? what promise will cure a wounded Conscience, if this will not? Tis a salve most proper to the ground of their distemper, they had crucifyed God the son. And this promise tells them, he was theirs notwithstanding For the words I will be thy God, imply personal promises: so the father saith, I wi [...]l be thy God: and the Son, I will be thy God; and the Holy Ghost, I will be thy God; a promise sufficient enough to bear up a sinking world, suitable to Gal. 3.14. explained v. 8. before to be in order to their Justification, the thing these Jews wanted; so that Abrahams covenant conveyd in the bowels of it, justification by faith to sinners, & so most suitable to the distemper. The promise is to you and your children.

2 Consider wherefore these words are brought in, namely as a strong inducement to repent and be baptiz [...]d; and so it lyes in the [...]orm of a Motive for the Promise, &c. As if he had said, Let this incourage you to repent and be baptized, for the promise is to you and your children, i. e. you shall not onely injoy blessings, but your children also, if you embrace the G [...]spel: For the Apostle very well knew with whom he had to deal; and what Arguments would be most prevalent with the Jews, and had not this been the meaning of the Holy Ghost, the putting in the word children, had rather proved a rock of offence, and a stone of stumbling. For what could the Jews imagine upon a free tender of Grace to them and their children, but if they did repent and were baptized, the extent of Abra­hams promise should be the same as formerly it was to them and their seed? especially when it came in their own Scripture dialect? The pro­mise is to you and your children; And to them afar off, even as many as God shall call: — therefore. 3 To cleer this latter part from this [...]bsurd interpretation which M. P. gives, that the promise is restrained in the whole v. when he saith, Even so many as God shall call — I

A. With Mr. Sidenham: we have in this verse an exact distributi­on of the world into two parts Jews, and Gentiles; and to these two [...]rts the Apostle distributeth the promise. Onely he restrains it, [...]en he speaks of the Gentiles afar off (For so they are called Eph. [...].1 [...], 13.) in bringing in these words, Even so many as the Lord [...]ur God shall call; which words cannot be referred to the former [...]rt of the verse, for in that he applyes the promise to the Jews and [...]heir children in the present Tense, because they were then under the [Page 90] call of the Gospel, as if he had said, Repent and be baptized now whilst you have grace and mercy tendered; for the promise is to you and your children: but when he comes to speak of either the [...]en Tribes, as M. P. will have it, or the Gentiles, he turns the Tense in to the future; because they were yet afar off, and not called; the promise is to them also, as many as God shall call. So that if this clause should limit the whole verse, then to what purpose should the Holy Ghost bring in the word children? for that had been superfluous, because Jews and Gentiles comprehended the whole world. And then the words must have run thus: the promise is to you Jews, and to them afar off, as many as God shall call: or if the word children be kept in, as the Holy Ghost hath plac'd it; then thus: the promise is to you Jews, when God shall call you; and to your children, when God shall call them; and to as many as are afar off, when God shall call them; might not they have replyed, why what need all this Tau­tology? If the promise belongs to us upon our being called, and to the Gentiles upon their being called; you need not tell us it belongs to our children upon their being called: for we knew that before. But therefore the word children is kept in to shew the special privi­ledges God hath given them when the parent is converted. And then the sense runs cleer, Repent and be baptized, For the promise is to you and your children, and to them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, in a smooth Honorable stile becoming the Go­spel: thus we see, that rather then he will make his sense stoop to Gods word he will make the Holy Ghost stoop to his Non-sense.

From which therefore we may gather (notwithstanding his insi­nuating perswasions, that this Text makes against us) it is abundant­ly cleer that this promise here spoken of, is that of Abrahams cove­nant, which the Apostle Gal. 3. explains to be a Gospel-covenant, and was confirmed by Christ 430 yeers before the Law: so that still the result amounts to this, That if it be Abrahams covenant, it must con­vey the blessings of the covenant to all within the covenant, that is, to the spiritual seed, spiritual blessings; to the temporal seed, external priviledges onely: but still by one covenant.

IV. To come to the Scriptures before brought: his intent thereby was, to prove that the promise of remission of sins, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and so justification to life belongs to all those which God sh [...]ll call.

A. He errs, not observing the Scriptures, nor the distinctions there­of. Gods call is two fold; External, and internal: yet so as that the [Page 91] latter is conveyed in the former: and sure a man must needs grosly mistake, to affirm that all that are called are justifyed, and their sins remitted: for then Judas had been justifyed, and Simon the Sorce­rer saved (for they were both called, and both baptized) yea all that are called everywhere to repent, would then be justifyed; and all those Apostates that are in these days fallen from the truth, would be all saved, for they were all called; so the foolish virgins were called.

2. Let it be considered, that the promise of Abrahams covenant is here held forth. Now all that are visibly called to embrace the co­venant, are not effectually called; though nevertheless all that are ef­fectually called are within that covenant. The Church at Rome, Co­rinth, Galatia, Ephesus, the seven Churches of Asia, were all cal­led visibly within the covenant, but we know they were not all effe­ctually called; we may then still see how sadly M. P. mangles the Scriptures, when he brings proofes that relate to an effectual call, to prove that all that are called (without any distinction) shall be justi­fied and saved▪ so that if he can but finde out the word call in a Text; tis enough: no matter how it is applyed.

P. Pag. 130. This Text is cleer to prove that those Jews and prose­lytes that then heard him, and their children also, the ten Tribes, and Gentiles afar off, the promise did belong to so many of them, as G [...]d should call; Therefore except souls be given up to a spirit of delusion, will any dare to affirm that the promise of the spirit, and remission of sins, and eternal life do belong to any other? or will they be so ignorant to judge those promises did belong to the generation of the Jews, though they were called or not called, &c?

A. We never affirmed that remission of sins, or eternal life be­longed to any but such as are effectually called; therefore the spirit of delusion and ignorance, yea the spirit of impudence hath seized upon him, so to affirm. But this we say, that all that are visibly cal­led to embrace the tenders of the Gospel by a visible subjecting there­to, are within Abrahams covenant: for we cannot imagine that all the Apostles baptized were really called: for the Sorcerer before menti­oned doth sufficiently confute it; therefore still he mistakes the que­stion, which is thus, whether all that are called are really justifyed?

2 Neither can it be reasonably thought, that there were no hypo­crites amongst those three thousand mentioned, and that they were all so called as he speaks of; but the Apostles intention was to let them know, by what way they might get in to Abrahams covenant again, from which both they and their seed were cut off; Therefore [Page 92] Repent and be baptized, for the remission of sin; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and your children, &c. That is, remission of sins, and the gift of the Spirit comes still in the way of Abrahams Covenant, as it did before, Gal. 3.14. Therefore if you will get into the way of the Spirits working; you must repent and be baptized: he doth not say that all baptized do really repent; for upon the ground Mr. Patient goes, none should be admitted to baptism but such as really Repent, and are re­ally called, and really justifyed; when as yet he forgets his own ignorance, That he is not able to discern th [...]m. Thus we have sifted all his cavils brought against this Text, as not to counte­nance Infant-Baptism. And upon the whole we finde it to be a tender of Abrahams Covenant, in all the blessings of it, even to children of visible believers, either Jews or Gentiles; There­fore the seal of that Covenant is their due Right and Privi­ledge.

P. The next Text is, 1 Cor. 7.14. which he saith we abuse, to make it speak for Infant-holiness. Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. God takes persons into Covenant two ways, either by an external typical Covenant of Works, as he did Israel, and so a people may be said to be holy by separation, as the carnal Jew being separated from the world: and thus the vessels of the Temple were holy, and the Priest were holy.

2 Secondly, A new-Covenant holiness when God writes his Laws in the heart, and sanctifies their Nature; and there is no other kinde of holiness that relates to the new Covenant but this; Hy­pocrites may have this in appearance, but the Elect onely have it in truth; therefore it is impossible, that a believers carnal seed should be so holy by Birth. And no other sanctification the Scripture speaks of, belonging to the new Covenant. The other was abolisht by the death of Christ.

A. Whereas he knows no other holiness belonging to the New Covenant, but real holiness; it is rather an Argument of his ignorance, then any confirmation of the truth of what he saith, for that New-Covenant had such a holiness of separation belonging to it from Adam, to Christ. And it is the s [...]me that we have, onely the holy things are changed: yet so, as that whatever Ordinance God hath given his Church now is holy.

Israel as separated from the world, was a holy people, so is the Church of God now, Act. 10 13, 28. 2 Cor. 6.17. Therefore the A­postle writing to the Churches as separated people, calls them Saints or holy ones, at Rome, Corinth, Galatia, &c.

Not that they were all holy by an internal work of sanctif [...]cation, for the Romans had many that were fallen to Judaism, and Corinth had many profane persons amongst them; yet as they were a Chu [...]ch they all carry the denomination of holy ones: so that the Church stands upon the same terms of separation now, as then, from the world. Therefore the casting out of the incestuous person, was as one polluted and unclean, which is opposed to such a holiness as makes a person fit for Church-Communion: Thus also it was with Israel when there was either a Moral or Typical uncleanness, they were cast out as not fit for Communion: thus the bread and wine in t [...]e Lords Supper, and water in baptism, are holy by vertue of separation or in­stitution: thus the function of the Ministery is holy, or else every man might preach, baptize, and administer the Supper alike. And notwithstanding ceremonies are abolisht, yet a holiness of separati­on by vertue of divine institution remains still, or else the word of God were no more holy then another Book; Nor the Gospel-Sab­both more holy then another day: thus are the Infants of a belie­ver holy, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy: yea let me add, that it is impossible that any man can be found in the faith, and amongst the rest Mr Patient for one, either to Scripture Sabboths, or Gospel-Ordinances, except they grant a holiness of se­paration, both in persons and things. —

P. The words are grounded from Ezra 9. and Deut. 7. It be­ing an express Law for a Jew not to marry with a stranger: there­fore they were to put away their strange wives, because not law­fully marryed; and the children that were born of them were to be lookt upon as illegitimate. The Church upon this writing to the A­postle to be resolved whether such of them a [...] had unbelieving yoak-fellows, might dwell together, and whether it was not unclean or unlawful; To this he ans [...]ers, Let them dwell together, b [...]cause now there being no Law against it, the marriage was therefore justifyable, and the unbelieving wife is sanctifyed to the believing husband, that is set apart by the Law of marriage to him onely; else were your children bastards, but now they are lawfully born. —

A. There is no such thing mentioned in either place, that their children were Bastards. Then had Moses son by Zipporah the Egyp­tian been a Bastard; yea the contrary is evident, because the Scri­pture calls them wives. And is it not a wilde expression to call her whore, that Gods word calls a wife? And would it not be as strange, to think that so many Priests and Levites should be whoremasters, which yet must be, if such an interpretation were true, as Mr. Patient gives?

But therefore the ground of putting away their strange wives, was because Israel was a separated people, and so not to have any affinity with strangers. And though it was Israels sin, to many a stranger, yet it was not their sin to match with an Israelite, which had it been whoredom, the very light of nature would have condemned it, be­sides, this scruple did not lye betwixt Jew and Gentile. For this was a Gentile Church, a people converted from heathenism to profess Christ.

They had therfore no ground to think that the marriage they had before conversion was unlawful. And had the taking in of the be­liever into communion with the Church, made the unbeliever a whore or a whoremaster, and the children bastards, or had any such ground of scruple been given, it had been enough to have frighten­ed the heathens from being Christians. It cannot be therefore that any dis-satisfaction sh [...]uld rise in their spirits from those Texts by him quoted, considering also the nature of the phrase, the wife should be sanctifyed in the husband, and the husband in the wife; a strange word to be used amongst heathens, that every marryed couple were sanctifyed one to another: so likewise to put the word Holy in op­position to uncleanness of birth, is too high a tearm, and such a way of speaking as is not to be found in Scripture. Adding this likewise, that the holy Ghost would have spoken so, as not to be guilty of tau­tology, for then the words must have run thus: Else were your chil­dren bastards, and there it would have broken off; because the next words had been superfluous, but now they are holy: so that by this we see, what an unseemly unbecoming interpretation he gives, and what indignities he puts upon the spirit of God, whereas if we look upon the words in that other sense, wherein is implyed a federal holiness by Abrahams covenant, which ever hath taken in Parent and childe, it is a strong Argument inducing to imbrace the Gospel, and carries with it a full sail of comfort to godly parents, Else were your chil­dren unclean, but now they are holy. Thus also this place stands im­moveable, notwithstanding any thing he hath said or can say to the [Page 95] contrary. If therefore children are holy, by vertue of Abrahams co­venant, then you that are believers, get into the fold of Christ, that your children may receive the seal of the covenant, baptism, which is the mark of the flock.

CHAP. XVI. Rom. 11. vindicated from false glossings.

Pag. 110. THe next place he opens is Rom. 11.16, 17. but with what evidence of truth will be seen, when it hath undergone the Test: If the first fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; if the root be holy, so are the branches.

P. He grants that by root is meant Abraham, but yet in a double capacity; Abraham as considered in the covenant of works. And so working Abraham is the root of all the natural branches: and so le­gally holy, as Abraham was, who was the first-fruits, and the natu­ral lump, was all Israel so holy, till that covenant of works was abo­lisht by the death of Christ, and then this covenant being put an end to, it must needs be, that such branches who were onely natural must be broken off.

2 Abraham is to be understood a root, considered as believing A­braham, in a spiritual covenant, and so in this sense holy: and thus onely the spiritual branches are said to be holy; and by lump also, must be understood all the spiritual seed, in this spiritual covenant; these distinctions duly noted, will inlighten the soul to understand the place.

Rep. These are wild notional distinctions, and not to be found in Scripture: it hath been already proved; that Abraham as a believer had never two covenants made with him▪ nor is there the least word of two covenants in the chapter, any farther then that gross mistake of the Romans, who were looking after a justification by works; as thinking the Law had been given by God to make men righteous le­gally: these distinctions therefore of believing Abraham, and working Abraham, a spi itual root, a carnal root, Abraham in a covenant of works, Abraham in a covenant of Grace, a carnal and spiritual lump, instead of inlightening the soul to understand the place, rise like a dark smoak out of the pit of error, that the truth is not to be seen in them: therefore I may say of him, as it was said of Reuben; Thou [Page 96] art the first-born unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; the vanity of such stuff will appear by this that follows.

1 If Abraham in a covenant of works be the root from whence the natural branches are broken off; then the Gentiles that are in­graffed are put into a covenant of works; because the Apostle cleers it, that such who are ingraffed, are put into the same stock from which the other were taken ver. 17. and calls it a graffing in amongst them. So ver. 19. they were broken off, that we m [...]ght be in­graffed.

2 Then also when God shall re-ingraff the Jews, they must be put into Abraham considered in a covenant of works, and so the cove­nant of works must continue till this day; because there cannot be an ingr ffi [...]g where there is no stock, ver. 24.

3 If the covenant of works be made the root, or Abraham in that covenant, then the casting off the Jews from that covenant could ne­ver be called the reconciling of the world, because the world could not be reconciled by a covenant of works, and that the world was re­conciled by that covenant is cleer, ver. 11.

4 If the covenant of works now be c [...]ast, since Christs coming, as he implyes, the Gentiles could not be ingraffed into the spiritual part of the covenant, till that was taken away; which indeed he having confest in page 114. doth hereby contradict himself in what he hath before affirmed, pag. 91. with many other places, that Job and Jobs friends were all in the s [...]iritual covenant, which was made as well to all nations as the Jews, and they had as much benefit thereby as had the Jews.

5 If the ingraffing of the Gentiles, be to be understood onely of the spiritual lump as he saith, then also is that spiritual lump ing [...]affed into a covenant of works, from whence the natur [...]l bran [...]hes were cut off. For none of that spiritual lump of Israel were ever c [...] [...]ff, as himself confess th: thus we may (briefly) see what ex [...]crable stuff he introduceth by such wild notional d stinctions.

P. In pag. 15 he expl [...]ins, Isai. [...]5.23. They are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off spring with them, which sait [...] M. [...] me [...]nt one y of the righteous off-spring, i. e. such as are in the [...]piritual co­venant.

A. It is strange that a man should be so wilfully ignorant to g [...]ve a sense of Scripture so directly contrary to the Scope and Ana [...]ysis thereof. For by off-spring is to be understood In [...]ants, as wi l a [...] ­pear by viewing the scope of the place, which speaks of the conversi­on [Page 97] of Israel into that Gospel-state, that shall be called the new Hea­vens, and new Earth: when they shall be brought to re-inhabit their own land, under the Messias, and enjoy the fruit of their labours; And gives this as the reason why they should rejoyce with God, and God with them, Because they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them. As if he had said, though you and your off-spring have been discovenanted and cast off from being a people, scattered upon the face of the earth; yet as you and your off-spring were the seed of the blessed of the L. i. e. of Abr. to whom all bles­sings were given; so you and your off-spring shal be as much ingraf­fed in all the blessings of Abraham, as you were before, For they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them: which place doth fully parallel Rom. 11. when God shall ingraff the Jews a­gain as natural branches, into their own Olive-Tree.

P. p. 116. This Text Ro. 11. doth fully make against any fleshly cove­ [...]ant, or fleshly line of believers, because from ver. 20, to 24, the Gentiles come to be Abrahams spiritual seed, and so branches onely by faith in Christ, the fat Olive. And if the Gentiles are graffed in contrary to nature, then it cuts off all Gentile-seed who came in by nature. And though the Jews were cut off for unbelief, yet this o­pinion doth ingraff the carnal seed of the Gentiles into the midst of that unbelief.

A. That by natural branches is to be understood the Jews and their children; and by branches wild by nature, the Gentiles and their children; hath been already proved. See the answer to pag. 82. And that the cutting off and graffing in, related to Parents and children, hath been also cleered. To which I refer the Reader, onely adding, Jer. 31.1. Isai. 65.23. therefore to interpret by natural branches, on­ly adult believers, and by branches wild by natu e, the Infants of be­lievers, is to restrain and eclipse the intent of the Holy Ghost in the place cited, and supposeth strongly, that all such adult believers are really ingraffed into Christ: When as Christ himself tells us, there may be some branches in him cut off and withered, Joh. 15.2, 4, 5, 6. And that Infants are all damned, because all wild by nature

2 Where he tells us of ingraffing into the midst of their unbelief, is [...]lse; for we ingraffe into that stock, Abr. from which they were cut [...]ff for unbelief. And if what he asserts in this, were true; then those believing Jews and their children, which were not cut off, remain in the midst of their unbelief, that were cut off. And thus we may s [...]e a man in his nakedness, and yet without shame. I see I must pass [Page 98] over many of his absurdities, and reiterations; because they come so fast upon me. In pag. 118 he again runs retrograde.

P. If any hold believers and their seed within the covenant of grace, it is a denying of Christ to be come in the flesh; and therefore he must needs be a high Antichrist.

Rep. This hath been already answered, and his vain confidence so to affirm hath been manifested, that it is apparent if the Reader will but take pains to view the answer to his 93 page, it is no denying of Christ to be come in the flesh, to maintain Infants right to the Covenant of Grace; yea it is a strong Argument to prove Christ is come, because the blessing of Abraham is by Christ handed over to the Gentiles, Gal. 3.14. which could not have been, if Christ had not been exhibited in flesh; because the wall of partition could not have been broken down; therefore M. P. lies under self-condemnation, because to deny the blessing of Abrahams Covenant to be handed over to the Gen­tiles and their seed, is to deny Christ exhibited, as that place of Paul proved, Gal. 3.14. so that M. P. proves himself an Antichrist.

Let no man therefore dislike the truth for this Bears skin which this Author of dipping hath cast upon it. For it is the devils policy now Antichrist is falling, to cry down all Gospel-truths for Antichristian, that so they may fall also; but mauger all the malice of hell, the in­terest of Children in the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, shall stand and triumph, as a glorious truth of the Gospel, when An­tichrist and his children, all petty Antichrists shall tumble together.

P. Pag. 118. He quotes, 2 Cor. 5.16. Henceforth we know no man after the flesh: yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet hence­forth we know him so no more, which he explains thus: men were known and approved as priviledged persons in Gods Church, after the flesh; but henceforth we know no man, no not Christ himself as interessed in the covenant of Abraham, he being a Minister of a better covenant then that of Circumcision, grounded upon better promises, &c. therefore we know no man after the flesh, no not Christ himself.

A. As all other places of Scripture hitherto brought, have been a­bused by false explications, and applications, so is the intent and mean­ing of this Text much wrong'd, and clouded: I shall therefore briefly cleer it.

The Apostle is telling the Church of Corinth, that the Jew had no more benefit by the death of Christ then the Gentile; for both Jew and Gentile were all under sin, and were therefore all dead, If one dy­ed for all, then were all dead. It seems many of them thought, that be­cause [Page 99] Christ came from the Jews, therefore he did bear more love to them then the Gentiles; and so it was good being a Jew. To which Paul answers, True, if we that are Jews should judge after the flesh according to our natural affection to our own Nation, then we should say so too: but the love of Christ constrains us to judge otherwise, that is, he did not look upon the benefit of this or that Nation pecu­liarly; but this Christ had in his eye, Jew and Gentile were all dead: and upon this account did Christ die. For if one dyed for all, then were all dead: as if he had said, Christ did not intend this Jew should be more priviledged then that Gentile, though himself were a Jew: there­fore henceforth know we no man after the flesh, That is, we do not now look upon the Jew, to have any more priviledge then the Gentiles, yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, that is, though we have known him to be a Jew, and to receive the seal of their priviledges on­ly, yet henceforth we know him so no more, that is, we have no more pri­viledge now by Christs coming from us, then the Gentiles; nor hath Christ any more income of priviledges from us, then he hath from the Gentiles; ours is alike from him, and his is alike from us, and no diffe­rence. And that this is the true intent of the words, see v. 17, 18, 19, 20. Old things are past away, i. e. old priviledges, that we claimed in Christ before others, they are all now conveyed over to the world: and therefore he hath committed to us the Gospel of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, i. e. It was onely our Nation that was reconciled, before Parents and children called his sons, spouse, off-spring, heirs; the blessings of the covenant were ours onely. But now all this is tendered to the world, Therefore we as Embassadors in Christs stead beseech you to be reconciled. And thus you have this innocent Text which hath been turned against Abra­hams seed (though it harbors not a harsh syllable to babes) wrested out of the paw of the Lyon.

2 Let us view the second part: Christ himself should not be mind­ed as at all interessed in Abrahams Covenant, he being now a Minister of a better Covenant, &c.

A. It hath been already fully proved, That Abrahams Covenant in all parts thereof was a full and compleat covenant of Gr [...]ce, and not of Works; Therefore M. P. to say Christ should not be minded or known in that Covenant, is as much as to say, that Jesus Christ is not to be minded as Mediator; for there is no other Covenant that he is Mediator of but that; and if this be not a bird of prey that flyes in the Region of blasphemy; Let God Almighty and his people judge.

Thus we may see what work ignorant men will make in preaching, that have onely a little Conscience, a great deal of Confidence, and a great Concordance.

This place also (notwithstanding any thing he hath said) doth vote for the ingraffing of believing Gentiles and their seed into the covenant made with Abraham, from which the believing Jews and their seed were cast out, therefore ( Job. 38.2.) who is this that dark­ens counsel by words without knowledge?

CHAP. XVII. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. with many other Texts cleered from his corrupt inter­pretation.

P. Pag. 120. THe next Scripture he faceth, as intending to relieve it out of our hands is, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. Moreover brethren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and were all baptized to Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, and did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. This is another Scripture made use of to prove a covenant of salvation to run in the flesh.

Rep. This Text was never pleaded to prove a covenant of life in the flesh; for as we never affirmed such doctrines, so is this Text im­pertinent, for such a purpose; but this we say, that this Scripture is by us brought to prove the manner of baptising not to be by dipping; so that we see he hath mistaken the door like a blind man groping in the dark; therefore I shall wave much like stuff that follows upon it.

P. Pag. 120. 121. Israel was baptized to Moses, a typical Media­tor, not to Christ, which is a main passage to be noted; and the covenant that Mose. was Mediator of, was a covenant of works: and then he shews how the Law did type out in that administration, our deli­verance from sin, death, hell, the devil, and what resemblance it had of these things, &c.

A. Though Israel was not baptized into Christ exhibited; yet as Moses was a type of Christ, so they were baptized into Christ, Act. 3.22.

2. The Apostle holds forth Israels Baptism as a Sacrament, and brings it in with the Manna and the Rock, which was Sacramentally Christ;

And compares these two, to the Sacraments of the Church of Co­rinth: who did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. So that Christ was as truly held forth in Israels Baptism Sa­cramentally, as in the Church of Corinths baptism, and as much in the Rock and Manna amongst Israel, as in the bread and wine in the Sup­per, amongst the Church of Corinth.

3 The Apostle by telling the Church of Corinth of Israels S cra­ments and deliverances they injoyed from God [they were all bapti­zed, and did all eat] compares them with this Gospel-Church, as an equal parallel, to let them know, that as they had equal priviledges, so the same since in a Gospel-Church, would bring down the same judgements; as it did already begin to work for their unworthy recei­ving the Supper.

Now their priviledges being compared as equal, and yet, Israel be­ing all baptized Sacramentally into Christ, men, women, and children, doth cleerly import that the infant-seed of that Church, to whom this example is brought, were also baptized into Christ, or else the parallel could never hold: so that what was done in baptising Israel [...]o Moses as a typical Mediator, was but a prefiguration of what should be done to Gods people Israel, i. e. men, women, and children, un­der Christ the true Mediator; therefore this which he lays down mainly to be observed, that Israel was not baptized to Christ, is observed to be untrue: And as for the manner of baptising, either by sprinkling, or powring forth water; it is as fully held forth in this Text (as before proved) as that they used wine in the Supper. But of this he speaks but little: though indeed it is the main thing for which this Text is so often cond.

P. As to that where he tells us, Moses was a typical Mediator of a covenant of works.

A. Then is Christ a Mediator of a covenant of works, and then he contradicts what he affirmed in pap. 127: where making Abrahams covenant to be of works: he tells us that Christ was not now to be considered or eyed, as a person interessed in that, but a better cove­nant. And how a covenant of works can stand with a Mediator, or a Mediator with such a covenant, is to me a paradox, and not to be known I am sure on this side the water.

P. Those Teachers mentioned in Act. 15. that would impose a yoak upon the disciples necks, were much like to those now, who plead for Infant-baptism. For they had no warrant for what they did.

A. He appears mistaken: for our Ministers now, neither plead for Circumcision▪ nor Justification by works which was the main rock, those primitive Churches (by reason of the false teachers) were like to split upon; yea it is a thing note worthy, that in all those primi­tive revolts from the truth, the false Teachers did usher them in, by preaching up Circumcision, after the Law of Moses; by which means they made rents and divisions in all Churches; so that, had not Infants been Church-members, that were strongly riveted in their Parents affections, it could have been no taking Argument to Parental-members, to fall back to Judaism, or any probable ground of hopes to incourage the false Teachers in their works: for upon the strain of Anabaptists they might have done as they pleased, with their children Circumcise, or Paganize them; for they were not to be of the visible Church til they were adult believers, and so converted to the Faith by the word preacht. And the very Text it self doth imply that children in the Primitive times were called Disciples; or else how should it be called a putting a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples, after the manner of Moses? It was the childrens necks, that bore the yoak; Zipporah knew it right well: so that it is apparent, what he saith of our Ministery in comparing them to those false Teachers, is but his usual way of reproaches, in which he shakes hands with those false Teachers mentioned, whose main work hath ever been to smite the shepheards, that the sheep may be scattered; and to extinguish their light, that so their glow-worm shining may be seen in the dark. But I hope the light of these times, with the barking of the wolves now abroad, will sufficiently discover them to be beasts of prey, though they go mantled in sheeps cloathing.

P. p. 124. This being premised, that Moses was a Typical Media­tor; and their baptism, and the Rock, and Manna a type of Christ: from hence the sense of the Text is drawn plain, That as the spiritual disci­ple or Israelite is baptized into Christ, so the temporal Israelite was baptized to Moses in the cloud and sea: and they are called spiritual meat and drink by a figure.

A. He hath no way to put off his false doctrines, but by turning all Scriptures into allegorical notions: for what exposition he hath here given is as much besides the Text, and as unlikely to be true, as for me to say, the man in the Moon is like M. P. for let us but consider, that those Sacraments were spiritual to Israel, as Gods Church, as the Sa­craments of the Gospel were spiritual to the Church of Corinth. Now the Apostle in drawing the parallel, doth not speak of a spiritual [Page 103] Church in a carnal Church; or a spiritual Israelite, and a carnal Isra­elite; thereby making onely some to be baptized to Moses, but tells as plainly they were all baptized to Moses. Whereas, this whimsical notion would make us believe, there were some of Israel not bapti­zed to Moses: and when Paul saith, they did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; M. P. tells us directly contrary. You see then with what evidence of truth he speaks, when the Authority of an Apostle must vail before him: and though he saith the Sacraments are spiritual by a figure; yet if he were askt by what figure, he must either give a Parrots answer, or say nothing; al­beit he shews his ignorance to be medling, and his confidence (I am unwilling to call it worse) to notionallize the Sacraments themselves; as if they were not a spiritual meat, and a spiritual drink to the Church of God. By which we see, rather then he will have any dependance upon the Law, he will run beyond the Gospel.

P. p. 127. Those typical signes and figures then, which typed out Christ to come, did properly belong to the typical seed, the body of Israel, that typed out the spiritual seed to come, in Gospel-Ordi­nances instituted since Christ came, which are for confirm ng, that he is come: and these belong only to the spiritual seed in whom Christ is come already, dwelling in their hearts by Faith.

A. Here is such a pack of distinct [...]ons, that were not (I believe) heard of in past ages. It seems the spiritual Israel had no need of Or­dinances; for they did not properly belong to them, but to the carnal lump: and why then should Abel, Noah, Abraham, and all the seed by promise, be sacrificers? why then should David cry out after those water brooks, and even envy at the happiness of those birds who had their nests neer the Altar?

2 If the body of Israel did type out the spiritual seed to come un­der the Gospel; then whom did the spiritual seed of Israel type out? either no body, or by opposition the carnal Gospellers; for the spi­ritual Israel were types; though yet the carnal Israel, or the body of Israel, it will be hard to prove them types, especially in that nature, unless they were types of the Roman Apostasie.

3 If temporal Israel did then type out the spiritual Israel now; then their Apostasie, backslidings, divorce, and casting off, must type out the divorce, apostasie, backslidings, and casting off the spi­ritual seed.

4 If the carnal seed in those typical Ordinances did type out none but spiritual seed to be admitted to Gospel-Ordinances; then all [Page 104] that are now Church-members, must needs be spiritual, and so there are no hypocrites now in the Church: Let the world judge whether this is not wretched stuffe, which yet is the natural consequence of thi [...] unnatural distinction:

P. 128. It was not necessary, that all that were Circumcised should believe and repent, and so be first made Disciples: but Baptism is a confirmation of our Regeneration and our New-birth, and Union with Christ by Faith. And therefore belongs to them only, that are regenerated and born again of water, and the Spirit: so the Lords Supper, Let a man examine himself, &c.

A. It was necessary that Abraham should be a believer, before Is­rael could be circumcised. For had not Abraham believed, there had been no such seal given to his family; as is already proved.

2 (To let pass his Tautologies as the least of his offence) If bap­tism belongs onely to such as are regenerated; why was Judas, Demas, Magus, and those Act. 20.29, 30. baptized? or how shall it be known who is new-born? or can it confirm Grace where there is none? what confirmation was it of the New-birth to Judas and the rest? surely his words must admit of a large charity, to think that all that are dipt have truth of Grace confirmed in them thereby.

P. Pag. 130. The carnal Israelite was as capable to perform every Ceremonial Law without Faith, as truely as the Belie­vers:

A. A man had need of a belief of the biggest size also to credit this; for the true performance of those typical Sacrifices was not bare­ly in the work done, but when the worshippers had an eye to Christ, which the true believer then, ever had. For the main ing edi­ent to make that worship truly performed, was Faith then, as it is now; and he might with as much truth say, that he that is formal in Gospel-duties, either in prayer, hearing, receiving, doth as truely per­form them, as he that is a true believer. It is to me a most unsavory expression, and such loose stuffe, that surely if there be any close-walking. Friends to the truth, they cannot but reprove such loose doctrines.

P. Ibid. There is no less then a profession of Faith required in the Church of England, before baptism; and therefore this doth justifie what we hold, and condemn what they practice.

A. He begins now to flye low, to seek to streng hen his feeble pra­ctice, by the Liturgy and Canon of the Church of England; who before doth seemingly rejoyce, that he is converted both from their [Page 105] doctrines and practice, but what if they do hold that profession of Faith and Repentance, should precede baptism? so do we all. And as Faith was to Abraham, and is to us the condition, by which all our seed is taken into covenant with the Parent: so baptism seals the co­venant, and upon this ground Peter moved his hearers to be bap­tized: he backeth the motion, not barely from their own interest in the promise, as personal believers; but upon the joynt interest of their children with them, upon their Parental believing, Act. 2.38, 39. Re­pent and be baptized, For the promise is to you and your children: im­plying that the covenants sealed, should run as largely as the cove­venant. As it was to the grand covenant Parent of all the heirs of promise: i. e. Abraham. Thus all Noahs children were bap [...]ized in that typical baptism, with their believing parents in the Ark, 1 Pet. 1, 3, 21. Gen. 7.1. which was upon the same covenant-account, that Abraham and his seed were circumcised, and that a parental covenant­ing faith doth reach the seed; so as to incorporate them into exter­nal priviledges, Gods carriage to Moses, when he neglected his du­ty to seal his child, doth sufficiently evince, Exod 4.2, 4, 5, 6. and a­grees with Gen. 17.14.

2 Faith and Repentance is required also upon a personal account to initiate such as come to yeers, that are converted to imbrace the Gospell, as Jews or Heathens, or any other unbaptized persons. But therefore I hope that since he hath brought this instance, he will af­ford them to interpret their own meaning, which they have best done by their practice, though it may be not so orderly as he ought. How­ever we cannot but observe in this as in the like, by searching after Antiquities, and quoting the presidents of antient Churches, and wracking the books and meaning of the Fathers, as C. B. and others have done, they would gladly get some humane Authority to countenance their Innovations. But their fingers have been knockt off from that by worthy Mr Cobbet of New-England, that I believe they do not much care to plead humane Antiquities more.

P. p. 32. If the covenant of life belongs to all believers seed, then we need nor want for Church-members; because all the world are the children and off-spring of believing Noah: therefore this Argu­ment carries the right of covenant to all the world, because they are the children of a believer.

A. We do not baptize believers children for want of Church-members, but because it is an Ordinance of Christ. And though all the world be the off-spring of believing Noah, yet what he affirms is [Page 106] untrue, that therefore Noahs Faith carries the right of covenant to all the world, upon these reasons.

1 Because God did not pitch upon Noah to make him the Father of the Faithful, as he did upon Abraham to whom he gave the pro­mises, Heb. 11.17.

2 Therefore as children, we are to acknowledge him to be our fa­ther, that God hath made to be so, which is faithful Abraham, to whom he gave the seal, and not faithful Noah. And had God pitcht upon Noah, as he did upon Abraham, no question but Noah had cir­cumcised his son as Abraham did, but

3 Had God chosen Noah as he did Abraham, yet it follows not, that all the world could claim a covenant-right to the seal, be­cause all the world were not heirs of promise, as we see, the seal continued not in the race of Ishmael; because discovenanted, though yet he was a son of Abraham. For upon the same ground, M. P. ar­gues all Abrahams off-spring to the worlds end should have been cir­cumcised. But therefore Faith ingraffs, as unbelief cuts off: by all which we see how vainly confident he is, in what he saith, and affirms: Thus the honor and reputation of that Text 1 Cor. 10. stands un­toucht. For indeed whatsoever he hath brought thereupon, with which he fills twelve pages together, is but meer impertinences; be­cause he hath taken a wrong aym from the Text.

CHAP. XVIII. The cleering of Mark 10.13. about children being brought to Christ with other Scriptures.

THe next place he pretends to meet us in by way of encounter is, Mark 10.13. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them. And his Disciples rebuked them that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: For of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

P. The first thing to be considered is, whose children these were, whether of wicked or godly Parents; but by the former discourse in the chapter, it should seem they might be wicked and ungodly Pa­rents, because there was such mentioned before that tempted Christ.

Rep▪ Be sure ill will never thinks well, and his ground to think they were wicked, is non at all; for how often doth one and the same ch­in Scripture speak of three or four distinct things that have no con­nexion with each other, the subsequent having no dependance upon preceding discourse? it is needless to give instances, the Scripture is full thereof. But

2 That they were believing Parents, consider these grounds: First they were such, that in those days did visibly own Christ, and if we consult Mark 10. fully; It was not long before Christs Passion, when he had many enemies abroad. And therefore danger might ensue such an action. And who would adventure to abide the frowns of great men for Infants, were it not their own Parents, and such also that had a face heavenward? Again he

P. Consider also wherefore they were brought to Christ, it could not be to baptize them, because Christ himself baptized none; there­fore it was probably to cure some bodily disease or distemper, for the Text saith, he laid his hands upon them and blessed them.

A. We never brought the place to prove that Christ baptized [...]hem; but to shew the abundant love, care, and good-will, that Christ bears to such little ones; especially to take such into his king­dom. And for him to say or think, that it was to cure them of some disease, is st [...]ange. For why then should such words be added? why then should he take them up into his arms? why should it be called a blessing them? it is a word too high for a common cure, yea to think the Apostles should keep any off from Christ, that came to be [...]ured of diseases, smells too much of uncharitableness. It is cleer therefore they were brought to Christ for a blessing, which though it were not baptism, it might be for confirmation after baptism, for it is likely they were baptized by John, because the pl [...]ce where it was done, was in the coasts of Judea: where John had before been bap­ [...]izing; which also gives some more probable grounds (I say no more) that their Parents were godly; because as John pointed at Christ in ad ministring the Ordinance, so we finde these taking notice of Christ accordingly; and that there was imposing of hands after baptism, consider, Act. 8.17, 18. ch. 16.6. sure it is Christ would have us learn something from that carriage of his, that Infants are capable of cove­nant-blessings, for in that channel all blessings run By which it is apparent that we have the stronger ground (especially, if to it be ad­ded a finger of Charity) that their Parents were not onely godly, but the children had been before taken into Abrahams covenant. [Page 108] And the seal thereof, as will further appear in the next. —

P. For of such is the kingdom of God.

Now it is doubtful whether these children had believing Parents to the fift or sixt generation; therefore if you make it to countenance that error of the covenant in the flesh: that appears erroneous, in that the greatest number of believe [...]s children never belonged in that sense to the kingdom of God. Adam had a Cain, as well as an Abel. Noah had a Ham, as well as a Shem, Abraham had an Ishmael as well as an Isaac, Isaac had Esau as well as Jacob; and so through the Scri­pture, God brings forth a generation of wicked from the godly, and a generation of godly from the wicked indefinitely.

A. That we have good grounds to judge their parents godly, hath before been made appear: but if this were all the difference, methinks a sober is more becoming then a censorious judgement. — By king­dom of God we are to understand the visible Church: most properly of such is the kingdom. For otherwise it had not been a suitable re­proof, for their offence, in that it lyed in their not suffering children to be brought to him to receive an outward favor and blessing. They could not have hindered them from the kingdom of glory, but from the visible Church they might; therefore Christ takes them up roughly, Suffer them to come unto me, and forbid them not. In which there is a double command, implying much heat of spirit against such an action, and much love and tender affection to the babes, as if he had said, do you that are my disciples reject them, because they are children? I would have you know for time to come, they are as ca­pable of blessings as your selves. For of such is the kingdom of God; my church & kingdom is made up of such, as well as of men and women. Methinks Christ here looks with a chiding countenance upon the Anabaptists of our times, who are guilty of the same offence.

II. P. But how wide is that which remains, from the business, where he saith the greatest number of believers seed never belonged to Gods kingdom, when as we know the very instances by him cited, do suf­ficiently prove, that the seed of believers, though they have proved vile and wicked, yet they did belong to the visible Church and king­dom, till by casting out they were discovenanted. Did not Cain be­long to the Church as well as Abel? see Gen. 4.3, 4, 5. Heb. 11.4. So in Noahs Family, were not Ham and Japhet as well baptized in the Ark, and so members as well as Shem? was not Ishmael as well a Church-member in Abrahams family as Isaac; so Esau the like as well as Ja­cob? These are his own examples, by which we see from the very [Page 109] first preaching of the Gospel, the seed of believers have ever had a vi­sible right of Church-membership, till cast out; and of such was the kingdom, and saith Christ of such is the kingdom: so that if the king­dom was of such, and is of such, then for shame acknowledge them to be subjects.

P. If children be admitted into the kingdom of God, by vertue of a covenant of life made by faith and generation, then this crosseth the doctrine of the New-birth, Joh. 3.5.

A. The contrary hath been already proved; for if that were true, how came that doctrine of the New-birth to be taught in Israel, by the place cited? and yet their seed were then admitted Church-mem­bers, as now. I refer the Reader to my former Answer to the third fundamental. As for the making a covenant of life by birth, we ab­hor it, as hath been often said; it is onely a visible right we plead for, and that which they ever had.

P. p. 135. The place before cited is explained by Mat. 18.3, 4, 5, 6. He that offends one of these little ones that believe in m [...], where it is spoken of children in grace, and whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein, that is, such like in grace as these in nature.

A. That the words are spoken of Infants is cleer, for Christ took a little child and set in the midst of the disciples, and tells them that such did believe.

2 The resemblance cannot hold, for children are pettish, cross, and froward by nature, therefore that example had been very unsuitable, but Christ shews the right such little ones had to the kingdom; be­cause they had faith, And whosoever receives not the kingd [...]m of God as a little child; that is, as a little child receives it; cleerly implying that such children are capable of receiving admission into the king­dom. Therefore it doth not at all relate to a parity.

P. And whereas he afterwards tells us, to expound it of believers adult, is most agreeable to the Analogy of saith, and that the whole Word of the Lord disclaims the contrary, as destructive to Gods truth:

A. The Analogy of faith hath ever taken in children into the Church, and kingdom; therefore his high language is but like a flash of lightning, and fitter to take with children and boys, then with men of Reason and Conscience: What he hath said hitherto hath been examined, and not a word in Gods book makes against it. But the whole tenor of Scripture with much pleasant harmony doth agree [Page 110] to give believers seed a name in Gods house. And whereas he saith such a practice destroys the truth of God, it hath been also sifted, and it pleads to his Charge, Not guilty.

CHAP. XIX. The Word Administration carpt at by M. P. justifyed, and Gal. 4. answered and cleered.

Obj. p. 137. BƲt this which you call a covenant of Works consisting of temporal Promises, Laws, and Statutes, is to be un­derstood of a form of administration of the covenant of Grace, and not a distinct covenant of Works.

P. I know this Objection some bring, but if it be well weigh­ed, it is inconsistent with their own Arguments, for if that be true, then was there no covenant made with Abrahams seed, but onely the administration of a covenant; therefore ill do they affirm, that the covenant was made with them; therefore the Administration. This Objection is false and groundless, as appears by several express Texts of Scripture which do evidently prove it two distinct covenants.

A. He here quarrels with the word administration, because he un­derstands it not, for though it be so cald, by reason the spiritual part runs therein, yet it loseth not the name of a covenant; because it is mans part of the covenant, and called Gods covenant; and yet it is Gods administration to man. For his grand mistake is, in that he thinks the covenant of grace hath no conditions, but absolute; the contrary to which is before proved. The Rainbow in the clouds is called Gods covenant, Gen. 9. As here circumcision is called his co­venant, but surely M P. will not deny but it is an administration, wherein Gods favor to the world is manifested; how else can it be called a token of the covenant, and a sign thereof; as a so is circum­cision called a sign and seal, and token of the covenant. And when God saith this is my covenant, he means not a distinct covenant from the other; but that part of the other which related to mans duty. And so it was Gods Administration Office to the world. I need not stand much upon this, because it is so fully spoken to before, in pro­ving circumcision no covenant of works. For the leprosie that over­spreads all his book, ariseth from that. I shall briefly touch upon this word administration, to shew the propriety thereof, as used in the [Page 111] Objection. The Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 12. useth the same word in the same sense, there are differences of administration, that is, one le­gal, the other Gospel, but the same Lord. He is there shewing the different estate that was betwixt Jew and Gentile in the things of God; and therefore when he speaks to the Corinthians in ver. 2. he speaks so as that he would have them understand the difference, be­twixt true and false worshippers, ye know brethren that ye were Gen­tiles carryed away to these dumb Idols, even as you were led. But after­wards having shewed that Christ was to have a mystical Church-bo­dy in the world, which was to consist of Jews and Gentiles; he tells us that in the compleating of this body there are different admini­strations; yet so as that both Jew and Gentile are baptized by one spirit into this one body. So that those words, different administrati­ons, can relate to no more sorts of people, but Jew and Gentile; and therefore can be but two; namely the Jewish or legal Administrati­on, and the Gentile, or Gospel-Administration, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit of God working in both of them; and yet so, as that the Jews and their children, and the Gentiles and their children make up as one seed, this one body of the mystical Church: ver. 12, 13, 38. Gal. 3.14, 16. compared; and this different Administration came from Christ as Lord; therefore called the same Lord, implying that Christ as Lord gave Israel that typical Administration, and so Christ as Lord changed it, and set up a Gospel-Administration: and in this sense is Christ called the Lord also of the Sabboth-day; cleerly implying that what change hath been made of Sabboth-seals, or any other Ordi­nances, it was done by the Prerogative-Royal of Jesus Christ, as Lord thereof; for the use of that one body and Lordship of his (the Church:) by which we see there are two, and but two Administra­tions; which therefore as it may satisfie M. P. in the significancy of the word, and yet remain as a covenant also; so doth it meet with that licencious rotten abuse of this word, in making as many several administrations as there are new opinions in the world.

P. p. 138. He brings many Scriptures to prove that Circumcision is cald a covenant, not an administration, Gen. 17.7, 13. Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. &c.

A. Though God calls it not an administration, but a covenant, yet it becomes a covenant made with man by vertue of administration, and the meaning is no more but this, that Grace to man runs through those Ordinances. If Circumcision be a covenant, it must have an administrator, or else the covenant ceases. If it be a covenant to Isaac, then Abraham must administer it; so baptism is an Ordinance, yet [Page 112] had it no administrator, it would cease to be an Ordinance: it is true there may be a neglect of an Ordinance, as there was of Circumcisi­on, and yet the Ordinance continued, for they wanted not an admi­nistrator.

2 Though God called it not an administration in Gen. 17. yet Paul called it so in 1 Cor. 12. as is before proved, and surely M. P. will not deny, but that Paul spake by the spirit of God when he so called it.

3 Tis also called an administration, in reference to the care and pains Gods people are to take in administring for their Fathers estate, left in a way of Will and Testament, which is to be made sure into that administration-office of Gods Ordinances, both then under Law, and now under the Gospel; according to 2 Pet. 10, 11. For so an entrance shall be administred abundantly into the everlasting kingdom. By all which therefore we see the word is proper, full, and significant, only carpt at out of ignorance: that it remains to be a covenant, i. e. on mans part and an administration, i. e. the way God hath appointed to convey justification to life, and both these reaches Parents and children.

As for all those Scriptures he here brings to prove two covenants, and therefore one of works; they have been already answered, to which I refer the Reader, onely I shall take in one or two Scriptures in which he hath made sad work, that have not been so fully answer­ed before, because I intended it for this place. The first is

Pag. 140. Gal. 4.21. Tell me ye that desire to be under the Law, Do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was by the bond-maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free-woman, was born by promise, which things are an Allegory, i. e. by these things other things are meant. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai in Arabia, which gendreth to bondage, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free: which is the Mother of us all. Now, we brethren, as I­saac was, are children of the promise: but as then he that was after the flesh, persecuted him that was of the spirit, even so it is now; but what saith the Scripture? cast out the bond-woman, and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free: so then bre­thren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free.

P. From hence observe, that Abraham is here a type of God, and his two wives, Sarah and Hagar with their two children, are a type of the two covenants, and the two seeds in those covenants, and both [Page 113] continued in Abrahams house together for a time. But when Isaac was born and Ishmael was found s [...]offing, then Sarah the free-woman, will have Hagar and her son live no longer in the house with her and her son.

Again Abraham had first the free woman, and last the bond-wo­man; the free-woman was sometimes barren in Abrahams house, the bond-woman was fruitful; the mystery of all is this: First God made a covenant of Grace, which proved barren.

Secondly, He made a covenant of works in his Church, which pro­ved fruitful; that had abundance of seed which became his by nature without Faith, all which time the covenant of grace and works a­greed well together in Gods house: but when the true Isaac was born. i. e. Christ; without strength of nature, but by faith in a promise; yet still grace and works as two covenants dwelt together: but when Christ is weaned, i. e. come into the Ministery, then all the [...]ons of Hagar, the old covenant, i. e. the Scribes, Pharisees, perse­cuted Christ, and all those in him: whereupon the free-woman or co­venant of grace dothtestifie, that the covenant of works with her seed, shall no longer remain in the Church of God, but onely the chil­dren of the free-woman born by faith in a promise, must for time to come remain in Gods house, therefore now rejoyce thou barren that ba­rest not, the covenant of grace is become fruitful in all Nations, and therefore Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all; and that us or we, i. e. members of the Primitive Church be formed, [...]rom above by faith in a promise.

From hence it is plain, there were no carnal babes in the Church: but when Christ the true seed of grace was persecuted by the Jews; he seed of the covenant of works, the Gospel, doth plentifully hold forth the abolishing thereof, and casting out those bond-children out of the Church of God.

Rep. To shew the vanity of all this, we must track him by due pa­rallel, by which we shall see the mysterious depths of confusion he is un into; after which I shall bri [...]fly cleer up the Apostles intent from [...]hat Scripture.

1 If Abraham stands here as a type of God, and his two wives as type of the two covenants: then as Hagar b [...]ought forth Ishmael to Abraham a type of God; So must the covenant of works bring forth by strength of nature, children unto God; and those children are as [...]uely the sons of God, as those born by promise: as Ishmael was as [...]uely son to Abraham, as Isaac.

[Page 114]2 As Abrahams affection was, that Ishmael might be the son of pro­mise, so is it Gods desire that the seed of the covenant of works should be the seed of promise.

3 As Hagar and Sarah lived together in Abrahams family a type of God, till Ishmael scoft Isaac, so shall the two covenants and their seeds dwell together in heaven, till the covenant of grace be scoft at, by Hagars seed.

P. Secondly, When he comes to explain himself, then saith M. P. God made a covenant of grace which proved barren, and then a co­venant of works which proved fruitful, as Abraham had first Sarah, then Hagar.

A. Did not God know the covenant of Grace would prove bar­ren?

2 Because that covenant proved barren, therefore the other cove­nant was given to God that he might have seed, as Hagar was given by Sarah, to Abraham that was the type of God.

3 To make Abraham a type of God here, is to make him a crea­tor: t [...]at as God made the two covenants which were to be as his two wives; so Abraham made Sarah and Hagar. I hope when M. P. comes to review his work, and to consider what gross wickedness follows, in ma [...]ing Abraham the type of God; he will blush at his own bold­ness, blindness, and ignorance.

P. Thirdly, When Christ the true Isaac was named, i. e. came nto the Ministery, then the Scribes and Pharises persecuted Christ, [...]pon which the free-woman or covenant, cast out the bond-woman and her sons, i e. the covenant of works and her children by nature, which was the National Church of the Jews.

A. All this while he hath carryed on the parallel of the two co­venants, till he hath cast out all the Jews and their off-spring, that pleaded a right to Abrahams covenant in the flesh: but M. P. for­gets, that the Apostle tells us there was some never broken off, nor ne­ver cast out, when as some of the branches were broken off, Rom. 11.17. and he forgets that the natural branches, i. e. the Jews and their chil­dren, shall be taken in again, ver. 24, 25, 26, 27. which must be there­fore into the o [...]d flock, or root, which remains.

P. Fourthly the free-woman or covenant, doth now testifie that the bond-woman, i. e. the covenant of works and her children, shall never remain in Gods Church now; but onely the children of the free-woman shall remain in Gods house.

A. By children of the free-woman he understands real and true [Page 115] believers: so that the inference riseth thus: that in the Gospel-house and Church of Christ, there shall be none that belongs to the cove­nant of works, thats abolisht, and the seed cast out, that now th [...] Churches are all Saints, are all heirs, all free-born, no hypocrites; and thus what Paul writ to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and tells us that in those Gospel-Churches there were many under that covenant, and yet Church-members, is by M. P. reproved for fals­hood, for the free-covenant of grace had cast out the covenant of works and her seed long before.

P. Fifthly, Now rejoyce then barren that barest not, the covenant of Grace is become fruitful in all Nations; therefore Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all, i. e. of us the pri­mitive Church born by faith in a promise.

A. The Reader may remember he hath often before told us, that the spiritual covenant of grace, as it did not run upon intail, so was it made indifferently to all Nations, and that it was not confined to the Jews. For in that spiritual covenant, all Nations had a like share and benefit, in thy seed all nations are blest. Now if that be true, then this is false. For what cause hath the barren covenant of Grace to [...]ejoyce now, more then it had of old, for she had her seed in all Nations then, according to the intent of promise: or if this be true, what he hath said before is false; so that take it which way you will, he is judged out of his own mouth.

2 To that other part, consider how many hypocrites there were in the primitive Church, Judas with his followers of [...]en mentioned; were these born from above by faith in a promise? thus then his own Conscience may by this time tell him, he hath been deceived and de­uded in the opening of S [...]r ptures. Abraham was no type of God in this Gal. 4. but held forth as the father of the Church-seed, v. 22. And so Hagar brings forth children to Abraham as well as Sarah; the [...]ree intent of this place appears to be this

The Apostle in this chapter brings this Allegory, to convince those Galatians, which having imbrac'd Christ, were fallen back to the Law Ceremonial, and to seek for justification by works. And there­fore he calls them fools, and tells them they were bewi [...]ched to fall back from Gospel O [...]dinances, to the Law; from the spirit, to the flesh; from liberty, to bondage, ch. 3.11.5.1, 2, 3, 4. and having used many pressing Arguments in the preceding chapter, he at last comes in with this example of Sarah and Hagar, to shew that as Hagar when she thought to mistress it, was cast out of Abrahams family; so [Page 116] So the Law ceremonial, when made a covenant of works, and the Law moral also, in that abusive sense was to be cast out of the Church of God, both under the Law, and under the Gospel. But as Sarah was contented to have Hagar dwell with her a servant, so in that sense did the law ceremonial & moral attend grace, being in truth the Law of Christ. But as a covenant of works, it could not make one heir of promise; Therefore it was but a foolish thing for the Gala­tians to think by works to merit heaven: for there was never any man saved by works, ch. 3.11. But if your heart and affections be set that way, it genders to bondage, and makes you fruitful to hell, & so leaves you under the curse of God, v. 24, 25. look upon Jerusa­salem and her children, that is, upon all those amongst them, that lived under the works of the Law, and were mistaken, as you are. Are they not all in bondage? and doth not Gods wrath lye upon them at this day? ver. 25. Then again look the other way, See to Jerusalem which is above, the Church in heaven, or the Church that hath her conversation in heaven, she is free, she got heaven by faith, and was justifyed by faith, and not by works; she is our mother, ver. 26 so before was not Abraham our Father justifyed by faith? And here, Is not the Church our mother got to heaven by faith? And what, shall we think to be justifyed by our works? No saith Paul, it is a mistake; for the desolate i. e. the Gentile-Church, shall have more children then the warryed wife, i. e. the Jewish Church: therefore let the Gentiles rejoyce rather, and be thankful that God hath made them more fruit­ful then to fall back to a covenant of works: and then again he brings in Isaac. Look to him, For as he was, we are children of promise. As if he had said, we are to look to Abrahams covenant, and how the promise was made with him, and his seed. The present conditi­on of this Church resembles that family: though he had many chil­dren; yet there was but one Isaac, to whom the covenant was con­veyed: therefore away with this Justification by works, cast it out, it will not make you heirs, so then brethren we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free. Thus you have briefly the natural mean­ing of the places; after all those unheard of parallels, and confused constructions, wherewith it hath been intangled, to make it speak for a knocking of that little nail of Infants out of that sure place of Gods house.

The next Scripture that falls in to be considered, is Act. 13, 45, 46. when the Jews saw the multitude, they were filled with envy, and spake a­gainst those things that were spoken: then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold [Page 117] and said, it was necessary the word of God should be first spoken to you; but seeing you put it away, and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life, Lo we turn to the Gentiles; for so hath the Lord commanded us.

P. From this Text it is cleer, that when Christ the true seed was persecuted by the Jews, and the Gospel rejected; all those children of the covenant of works were cast forth of Gods Church; the A­postles h [...]ving left them.

A. Though Paul and Barnabas had left the Jews; yet Peter, James and John, who were the Apostles of the circumcision, Gal. 2.7, 8, 9. had not left them, but continued; therefore this proves nothing at all, for the discovenanting of children.

2 Suppose they had been wholly left by the Apostles, and so were all in bondage with their children (as thats the drift of his words) then their rejecting the Gospel, which caused the Apostles to leave them, was the ground of theirs, and their childrens falling into bon­dage. The Apostles bringing that Gospel to the Gentiles, supposeth that upon the imbracing of that Gospel, they and their children were freed from such a bondage: or take it in his own phrase; though the covenant of works and her children were cast out of the Church, yet the covenant of Grace and her children are still remaining in Gods Church.

P. Therefore whereas M. P. tells us in pag. 145. that the foremen­tioned Objection is answered, and that we have no ground in Gods word for Infant-baptism: —

A. He hath not given the least shew of an Answer to the Obje­ction, but it still stands in force, as is by this manifest; and notwith­standing all his vain distinctions, workings, and counterworkings, of Scriptures, to make them speak a word of comfort to his practice, do­ctrine, and opinion, and of confutation to us; they still cry out in the behalf of childrens right to the seal; as those little ones did, who met Christ with branches of Palm-trees, Blessed is he that cometh to us in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the highest. Reader, we are run through the main body of all his Arguments and Scriptures, what remains behind is very little; onely heats of spirit against such as will not follow him to the Rivers side, and so like those blind men Christ speaks of, follow a blind guide till they both tumble into the water. But because the temper of his spirit shall be seen, I shall therefore briefly touch upon the remainder as it comes to hand.

CHAP. XX. Contains the Answer to many Scriptures by him abused: to the end —

Pag. 145. HE quotes Ezek. 14.2, 3, 4, 5. The word of the Lord came to me saying, Son of man, these men have set up their Idols in their hearts, and put the stumbling block of their ini­quity before their faces, should I be inquired of by these, &c?

P. In which place you see, when souls set up an Idol in their hearts, God doth answer them according to that Idol. Therefore such as defend Infant-baptism from a covenant of Grace in the flesh, they defend and maintain a dangerous error, and consequently, it must be rotten and false.

A. Well argued Sir, is it not? who is it that hath set up an Idol in his heart? what all the Churches of Christ throughout the world? Surely were not your heart swell'd with pride, though yet pretending a voluntary humility, to catch souls into your snares, you durst not spe [...]k such condemning words, to abuse the way and Word of God.

P. Pag. 146 He gives another result, childrens baptism hath no ground from the word of God, either command or example, but on­ly a consequence; so that it is meerly a tradition of mens setting up, in the room and place of the commands of God, to wit, baptism of believers, and thus they make void the commands of God, Mar. 7 7 and th [...]s is the very sin of those that plead for Infant-baptism, when Gods word s [...]ith Repent and be baptized, and arise, why tarryest thou? be baptized. These and many more are made void by christening of children, and thus poor souls are nurst up in ignorance, &c.

A. It had been far better to have overturned our pract ce by dint of A [...]gument, Scripture and Reason, and to have left cut all such su­perfluity of naughtiness, which tend [...] onely to reviling these Texts have been already answered, and our practice hath appeared to be warranted from the covenant of Grace, and the pleasing consent of Scriptures, which is undenyab e to any man that is not partinacious in his errors; it is an Ordinance, that the Churches of Christ stand possest of, and doth he think to perswade good men from their Reli­gion, R [...]ason, and Conscience, by telling us it is a teaching for Do­ctrines, the Traditions of men? He must therefore come to a new [Page 119] result, and tell us when the Tradition began, in what age or time, who was the first Author; it was not set up by Antichrist, he is little more then of 1200 yeers standing. And as M. Cobbet in his answer to Denn and Blackwood, with several others, who have laboured to finde out the first rise, cleers it, to be the practice of the Churches for hundreds of yeers before Antichrist rose; to conclude this, if it be a Tradition, it was received from the man Christ Jesus, who tells us, of such is the kingdom.

P. Pag 147. He brings Lev 10.1, 2. and compares Infant-baptism, to their offering strange fire to God, which he had not commanded, for which God burnt them with fire from heaven. —

A. Tis a very good lesson, well learnt, but by that rule he would be put by as a person not fit for a Minister of the Gospel; how much strange fire hath he cast up and down these Nations, such, by which he hath at least endeavoured to burn down whole Churches? And how much strange water hath he overwhelmed poor weak Christians by, to the dishonor of God and his ways? God is gentle in driving his flock, and the tender Lambs he carries in his bosom, and gives them rest; and tells them his yoak is easie: but his opinion and pra­ctice is to perswade the people of God that they serve a hard Master, &c.

That be they never so weak and tender, yet must they stoop to a destructive practice, and that in the sharpest seasons, as if men and women were made of some other mettle, and not flesh and blood. But methinks the Scripture he brings should make him see his error. If Nadab and Abihues sin was offering up such fire which he com­manded not, then it seems God expected, they should pick out his meaning, by comparing things rationally together; for they had no express command not to offer such, or what fire they should offer; but fire they were to offer▪ by which we see, if God gives but the hint of a truth, he will have his children to finde out the whole: so that, had we onely the hint of Gods minde touching Abrahams covenant, how it took in believers and their seed under the Old-Testament; and it being a covenant of pure grace, and therefore unchangable; reach­ing to the Gentiles, and such an example as he gave in Zacheus a Gen­tile, calling him a son of Abraham, and therefore salvation was come to his house: I say such hints as these, had we nothing else to say; were enough for us Gentiles to pick out the rest; that if they had Abrahams covenant and blessing given, then in the same extent, and surely the seal must follow. I onely touch this by the by. It [Page 120] hath been before cleared, that every part and parcel of Gods word is for us, to justifie our practice of Infant-baptism.

But suppose his own sense of this place were to be understoōd con­cerning Nadab and Abihu, as a reproof to us for practising things without a command, in so many express words, or syllables; then also it is offering up strange fire in his sense, for Christians under the Go­spel to keep the Sabboth; because it is not so expresly commanded in the New-Testament: which without any peradventure must upon the account he pleads be his judgement; and were it not for a curbing power, I doubt would quickly be his pract [...]ce. But take heed M. P. that your heart be not rotten in this, lest strange fire or strange water make you a like example with those persons before mentioned.

P. Pag. 148. He applyes these Texts to our practice, Jer. 9.13, 14, 15. 1 Sam. 13.12, 13. Jer. 8 9. Because they have forsaken my Law, and walked after the imaginations of their own hearts; therefore I will give them to feed on wormwood, and give them the water of Gall to drink, and will consume them. Again, therefore the wise are dismayed and ashamed, they have rejected the word of the Lord. Therefore will I give their wives to others, &c. They have built the high places of To­phet in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not.

A. What could th [...]s Author say more, and how could the Scri­ptures be more abused, and the powers of the Nations be more strook at? his voice speaks nothing but Gall and Wormwood, and con­sumings, and giving our wives to others, and telling us we sacrifice our children to devils, offer them to our own inventions, set up our posts by Gods posts, and our selves in the room of God? Is there not (think you) a young Pope sprung up in these Nations, who begins to throw fire out of his sleeve to terrifie the world? Magistrates, are you all a sleep? I am sure you are not all Anabaptists, you own the Ordi­nance of Infant-baptism. Why will you suffer it to be reproacht, and Christ therein? Do you not see the language he gives you for offering your children to God, which he calls to the devil? for such are Idolaters, devil-worshippers, Rom. 9.20. 1 Cor. 10.19, 20, 21. Deut. 32.17. Psal. 106.36, 37. is Satan ever the more to be hugged in the bosom for his bringing of Scripture, when it is onely to hide the Serpents sting in the tayl? Awake, awake, put on strength, O thou Arm of the Lord. Consider what your duty is touching the first Table, and remember honest New-England.

P. The Scripture by M. P. quoted against us, is 2 Cor. 26.14, 15. [Page 121] of Ʋzza who fearing the fall of the Ark, put his hand to it to bear it up without a command, and King Ʋzziah who medled with burn­ing Incence, without Authority from God. And being wroth with the Ministers of God, the leprosie rose up in his forehead and Gods wrath brake forth upon him.

A. If these Texts by him cited, are not applyed to his own heart; it is a sign he is obdurat, and some sad judgements are like to befal him; for the places are directly parallel to his own practice: what did Ʋzza do, that M. P. doth not? Hath he not put to his hand to stay up the Ark of God without a command or call to the Mini­stery? yea rather, is he not endeavouring to his utmost to pull it down? What did Ʋzziah do, that he doth not? It appertaineth not to thee Ʋzziah to burn Incence to the Lord, Go out of the Sanctuary, for thou hast sinned. And it shall not be for thine honor from the Lord God, ver. 18. Did God punish a King? and shall it be unpunisht in a mean man, who not onely intrudes, but also strikes the faithful Ministers and servants of God with his Censor, I mean with a reviling tongue? but it shall not be for his honor from the Lord God. Remember the judgement of Ʋzza and Ʋzziah, and apply it inwardly.

P. He comes now again to appeal to such as fear God, and advise them, to take heed of such an Idol. And to any that is not blinded with the stumbling block of their iniquity, by reason of Satans sub­ [...]ilty, to judge how they cross the doctrines of the Gospel, in bapti­sing visible, graceless, Christless children.

A. This appeal is made to you that fear the Lord, you see what his four last words speak, visible, graceless, Christless children, but why visible? was Isaac so when an Infant, who was the seed of pro­mise? and doth not Paul tell us, as he was, we are children of the pro­mise? If as he was, then as the seed of covenanting believers as he was, Gal. 4.28. see the censorious spirit of this man, who is not a­shamed to say, believers seed are visibly graceless, when as Paul tells us they are to be reputed holy: 1 Cor. 7. Which way, saith the false Prophet, went the Spirit of the Lord from me to you, when he strikes Micaiah on the cheek? If the Apostle tells us that children are ho­ly, Mr. Patient will be sure to flye in his face and say, they are graceless, Christless children.

However, you to whom the appeal is made, receive it, and when you have done, make your complaint to God, and be not frighted from owning those which God owns, the King is bound to maintain the cause of his subjects. And such are Infants. For of such is the [Page 122] kingdom. And God will in due time plead the quarrel of his cove­nant, against all their opposers, it will be seen in this generation.

P. p. 153. He comes to lay down an Objection of such as would have no baptism at all; which though it doth not so properly relate to us that maintain it, yet

A. I shall give the Reader this hint, whatsoever he saith, for dip­ping of believers, it hath been already answered. And therefore let me advise you to be so far either from casting off the Ordinance, or im­bracing a false Ordinance; that you keep close to that good old way of baptising the family-Infants of Jesus Christ, and for the better strengthening of such, whose weakness may not be able to oppose Sa­tans depths: as that good woman once said, she could dye for Christ, but was not able enough to dispute for him. Besides what is before laid down, consider Mat. 21.43. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to another nation, bringing forth the fruits thereof. The kingdom of God there mentioned, was the Church of the Jews who had the laws and the Ordinances of worship amongst them; in which kingdom were included as subjects, men, women, and children by vertue of Gods covenant made with Abraham, the father of all Church-incorporated-believers, both Jews and Gentiles, then and now. Now saith Christ, this kingdom of God should be taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles; from whence then we may easi­ly gather, that if Gods kingdom now given to the Gentiles, be the same for substance, with that which was taken away from the Jews; then must the Infants of Church-believers, be also subjects of this kingdom, as they were then; and the reason is undenyable, because it is implyed in the words of Christ. Not to be another, but the same kingdom; for had the Jews been fruitful subjects, the kingdom had still remained with them, and not been removed.

A second place to be considered is that of Paul. Heb. 3.5.6. And Moses verily was faithful in his house as a servant. But Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we. The Apostles intent was to draw a parallel betwixt the family of God then, and now; in both which families Christ was the son. And the first house was as well Christs house, as the second, Mat. 21.13. Isa. 56.7. compared, the in­ference is this, that as the family of Christ in the first Gospel-house to Israel did consist partly of children, so doth the family of Christ in this second Gospel-house, consist of the same; for it would be un­reasonable to think, that Christ had changed the family, and so cut off children now; such thoughts represent him to be less faithful then Moses who was but a servant.

Obj. But what command have you for your practice? these are natural inferences, but nothing should be practised without a command.

A. If this Objection be admitted, then as before, the Sabboth is null; because there is not a cleer New-Testament command to keep it, and yet should it not be observed, the Ordinances of the Gospel must fall. For what Ordinances can be practised, if there be not a time appointed by Christ that shall bind all Christians, which yet must be found out from Scriptures compared, the old-Testament and new, being laid together and not severed, with the constant practice of all Christian Churches from the primitive time, so that they may as well make the Sabboth-day Antichristian, because it wants such an insti­tution, as Infant-baptism, for they are inseparable twins.

2 But the Scriptures do hold forth a command from Mat. 28.19. Go and disciple all Nations, baptizing, &c. It hath been before cleer­ed, that this command reaches children: to which I refer the Reader in answer to his four Essentials. But the sadness of our times is, that men have such itching ears; that notwithstanding the Scriptures speak and the spirit speaks, and Gods Ministers speak, yet they will not hear:

3 We that are children under the Gospel, have also a Gospel-fa­ther to look at. For when the father of a family receives rules to walk by, and to order his children, it is reasonable that they should submit. Now the bond of the covenant was given as the standing rule of the house, to Abraham as the Church-Father of all covenanting believers, both Jews and Gentiles, Rom 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Gal. 4.28. And therefore if he had a command to in-church his seed whilst Infants, Gen. 17 9, 10. and to give them the token of the cove­nant in their generations; then look what token or seal God shall affix to his covenant, either of circumcision then, or baptism now; it is and ought to be obliging to all his seed to a thousand generati­ons, Psal. 105.8. till Christ shall remove it; and had not the exam­ple of Abraham as a father been binding to the seed, the Apostle would not have turned the Christian Churches of the Gentiles to look upon Abraham, thereby to rectifie their mistakes in doctrines of faith, Ro. 4 1, 2: 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 24. c. 11, 16, 2 [...] Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9, so that it is apa [...]ent that what command was given to Abraham as a father, in the sense beforementioned, is in force to all his children: that Objecti­on therefore is null: — Having laid down these things to be duly weighed, I shall pass over many pages which he hath written to such as are against all baptism, and shall g [...]ve him a meeting in tother side.

P. Pag. 160. But some will say they are not drawn forth by a di­vine power to embrace it, though convinc'd, to which M. P. answers, that where God gives grace, there he doth give a power to submit to all his ways, and so to this of plunging.

A. Tis an undoubted truth, that as God gives grace, he gives power, yet Gods grace doth not lead man to destroy nature; there­fore when he comes to apply, he abuses the Scripture; it hath been be­fore proved, that dipping is not the way of Scripture-baptism. Consi­der 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. and compare it with the history: was Israel plun­ged in the Red-Sea? the opposers dare not say it if they have any Conscience. And yet Paul tells us they were baptized, and David in the place before quoted tells us, how the clouds poured forth wa­ter: the like appears from Act. 1.3. ch. 2.17. with Joel 2. compared, tis cleer that baptism was by pouring out water: to intrude such a de­structive practice is therefore against the Apostolical interpretation of the word, and against the very light of divine or humane reason: for shall we think that he that bids us put on as the beloved of God, bowels of mercy, and tenderness, should be so hard a master, to com­mand us in the most sharpest seasons to be duckt; yea, an action that cannot be done in many Countries? for shame, harden not your hearts against truth any longer, and be of a more tender hearted spi­rit to poor deluded Christians; and do you that fear the Lord, re­member that you do not abuse your power God hath given; to such licencious practice, that would ruine the very foundations of the Gospel.

P. p. 164. Doth acknowledge there may be good people not of his opinion, yet they are not to be lookt upon as a Church, unless they will be dipt.

A. He hath before called us such as offer up our children to devils, and can he have so much charity to judge such good people? these are but terms of insinuations to gain the more upon such good people to bring them into his strain of discipleship. He brings us again, the example of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jaylor, and then tells us the Church of Samaria was gathered by faith and dipping: and to practice o her­wise, is contrary to Christ and the Apostles. All which is before proved false, and there is not a word in the Scriptures that saith as M. P. doth, that the Church mentioned was gathered by dipping: yea so to practice and apply it as he doth is to adulterate, and so destroy the Ordinance. Away therefore with such st [...]ffe, tis abominable: it is likely, is it not; that Peter could stand a whole day in a River, to [Page 125] plunge 3000 souls, or that Lydia should be duckt, before she went home? or that the Jaylor should be plunged in a deep River at mid­night? were Jesus Christ preacht to the Turks or Pagans, upon these terms, by some of those dippers, or to the Jews, upon their imbracing the faith, it is the way to harden their hearts against the truth. —

P. p. 172, 173. He perswades Christians it is a sin to neglect plung­ing, and if they have truely repented, they will be drawn to practice all the commands of God, and this amongst the rest; or else they cannot be admitted as persons that have repented at all.

A. We may here see the mystery of iniquity in its workings: It must Lord it in the Conscience, or else it cannot stand: thus did those Circumcision-preachers, Act. 15. there was no salvation without it, as here, there is no repentance tr [...]e without dipping, it is a sin to neg­lect it, Christians look to your Consciences, keep out such false-teach­ers, who bring upon you greater burdens then Circumcision ever was, Christs house will have no such washings, and if you once let them into your Conscience, possession will be soon lost.

P. p. 174. But some will say they were baptized in their infancy, and shall such be kept out that are good people? To which he an­swers, that though many are good, yet they live in a sin, though it be a sin of ignorance to them; for otherwise they could not be Chri­stians. But however the Church knows it to be a sin, therefore they ought to be kept out; and if any such be in, that baptize their chil­dren, they ought to be cast out. —

A. The Reader may still see his censorious spirit, wherein he flyes in the face of all the Ministers of Christ, wounding their credit and esteem in the hearts of Christians. For whosoever doth knowingly oppose their dipping, and not ignorantly, cannot be gracious, so that either the Ministery must be ignorant, or graceless. And that their Church knows it to be a sin, and therefore ought to keep out, and cast out such as practice it.

A. I hope you shall have no cause to threaten such with casting out: and if you speak in the name of all the Anabaptists, when you say the Church knows it to be a sin, I must then needs say they are as ignorant as your self, though it is hard so to be. —

P. In p. 176. he useth another way to make us yield up to his pra­ctice, and answers an Objection that some do make, that though it be an Ordinance, yet many do rest in it: and therefore its better not to practice it: he grants that many do rest in them, yet he would admo­nish all those that fear God to be conformable, so was Paul Gal. 1.16 [Page 126] so was Peter, when Christ bids him let down his net, so was Abraham in sacrificing his son; he disputed not, and therefore he would have Christians suck in this as a maxim, never to dispute a command, and so he concludes his whole with Phil. 2, 12: Do all things without mur­murings and disputings.

A. We are now drawing to an end, in all which we may see how many ways, and wiles the Tempter hath, to get within us; he useth his weapons every way, and comes so high now, that it is a sin against Conscience to dispute it, and it must be suckt down as a maxim, which I could easily grant, if it could be proved that either the subject, or manner were commanded as it is by him practised. But he that so sucks it in, had as good suck down Ratsbane. The instances brought are of such who had a cleer command, for what they did from Christ himself, hold forth therein nothing relating to dipping. In fine we may say of his whole book, it is nothing else but a lump of error, and bitter revilings against the ways of God, and Ministery of his word, wherein he hath dealt like those unfaithful spyes, that went to view the Land of promise, who by the ill reports he makes, disturbs the multitude, and sets them a murmuring against Gods Joshuas; that so his people may either retreat back to Egypt, or run into Babylon. His charge against us appears to be false, the truth is cleered from the contempt and reproach cast upon it. Reader, I shall therefore commit thee to the grace & keeping of our L. Jesus Christ. And as for such who turn aside to their wicked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity. But peace shall be upon Israel, Psal. 125.5.