An argument for infants baptisme deduced from the analogy of faith, and [of the] harmony of the [Scr]iptures : in which in a method wholly new, and upon grounds not commonly observed bo[th the] doctrine (of infants baptism) is fully asserted, and the objections against it are obviated / by Richard Burthogge. Burthogge, Richard, 1638?-ca. 1700. 1684 Approx. 264 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 105 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A30628 Wing B6148 ESTC R35796 15562728 ocm 15562728 103760 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A30628) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 103760) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1587:18) An argument for infants baptisme deduced from the analogy of faith, and [of the] harmony of the [Scr]iptures : in which in a method wholly new, and upon grounds not commonly observed bo[th the] doctrine (of infants baptism) is fully asserted, and the objections against it are obviated / by Richard Burthogge. Burthogge, Richard, 1638?-ca. 1700. [32], 174 p. Printed for Jonathan Greenwood ..., London : 1684. Imperfect: t.p. stained with loss of print. Errata: p. [32] Reproduction of original in the Bodleian Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800. Theology, Doctrinal. 2003-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-05 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-03 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2005-03 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion AN ARGUMENT FOR Infants Baptisme , Deduced from the ANALOGY of FAITH , A 〈◊〉 Harmony of 〈◊〉 ●●●iptures . In Which , In a Method wholly new , and upon Grounds not commonly observed , 〈◊〉 Doctrine ( of Infants Baptism ) is fully Asserted , and the Objections against it , are obviated By Richard Burthogge , M. D. LONDON , Printed for Jonathan Greenwood , at the Crown in the Poultry , 1684. TO THE Excellent Lady , THE Lady ANNE DRAKE , OF Place in Buckland Monachorum , in the County of Devon. Madam , WHat is done in the following Letters in Defence of Infants Baptism , is so justly Your Ladyships upon so many Titles , that to disown it by Dedicating of Them to any Other , or not to own it by not Dedicating of Them to Your Ladyship , would be as great Injustice , as , but for your Interest in Them , to do the last , a Presumption . The First of Them is a Second Edition of a Former sent my Adversary ; in which ( as I thought the Return he gave , obliged me to do ) I made such Alterations , Additions , and Emendations , as might illuminate my Principal Argument ; without engaging me in Matters Forraign to it . And to his Rejoynder unto This as so Enlarged , the Second is a Reply : and those that follow , are Defences to Both. My Argument is founded on that Covenant of Grace it pleased God to make with Abraham , and with his Seed : In which , as he gave Himself , and all he hath to Abraham , and to his Seed ; so he requires ( what is most highly reasonable he should ) that Abraham , and all he owned , and that Abraham's Seed , and all they own , should be His : And that in Token of being so , both Abraham himself shou'd keep the Covenant , by wearing the Initiating Sign thereof himself , and putting it on all His , ( that was capable of it ) and also , that his Seed should keep it in like manner . Certain it is , the Seed of Abraham is as much obliged to keep the Covenant as Abraham himself ; [ Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations . ] And I have proved the Believing Gentiles to be That Seed ; so that , though the Gentiles must believe , to become the Seed of Abraham ; yet , on becoming his Seed , they come also under the Obligation to observe the Covenant , as much as Abraham himself . I have also proved , That the Covenant of Abraham , is the first Solemn Formal Covenant of Grace , for Eternal Life and Salvation , through our Lord Christ , that , in Account and Reckoning of the Scriptures , it pleased God to make with Man ; and consequently , that the First Separate and Instituted Church , was then appointed in the Family of Abraham : So that , from the very Beginning that it pleased God to Establish and Ratifie his Covenant , and to Constitute and Frame a Church , as did Or●●●n the Signing of the A●●●● ; so he did the Singing of Infants : Therein laying the Foundations of the Common-wealth of Israel in the Membership of Children , as well as in that of the Parents . God never Constituted any Formal Church , until he had made a Formal Covenant ; and the Sign of the Covenant , is the Rite of Initiation into the Church : None comes into the Latter , but by the Former ; and Baptism is such a Sign . I do not say , That Baptism is come in the Place of Circumcision ; I know too well the use is made of that Expression , though in it self , and as meant , it be most Innocent and Inoffensive : But I say , It cannot be denyed , that as Circumcision was the Initiating Rite and Sign before the Coming of Christ ; so ( that ) Baptism is after it : And that , Now , to dedicate and give a Person to God visibly and solemnly , is , by that Sign and Rite to Matriculate him ; that is , to Enter and Initiate him into the Church . And now , Madam , Is not the Baptism of Infants , in the Notion I have of it , a thing of High and Spiritual Nature , and of great Significancy ? When it is not meerly Baby-sprinkling , and Sealing to a Blank , as some do phrase it : But done in token of our Dedicating of Them unto God , and in Evidence and Token that they are His. All Delivery and Surrender must pass with some Formality , some Rite ; and Baptism is that Formality , that Rite , by which we Christians do pass over , and assign our selves , and all our Children to God. The fair Stating and Illustrating the mentioned Points , in which I beat a Path but little trodden , is mainly the Business of the Letters , of which I make a Humble Offering to Your Ladyship : In writing which , next to the Zeal and Deference that I ow'd to Truth , I propounded to my self no greater Satisfaction , than the Occasion they would give me , of gratifying an Ambition I have ever had to Publish my self , Madam , Your Ladyship 's most Humble and Devoted Servant , Richard Burthogge . ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER . THE Concurrence of Events , that , at last , prevailed upon me to engage in the Controversie of Infants Baptism , ( managed on my part in the following Letters ) was so little ordinary ; that , if any be enough to make a Providence , This , Reader , were it proper to acquaint thee with it , would , I am confident , even in thy Iudgement , be thy Perswasion otherwise what it will , appear a great One. The Letters themselves do intimate on what Occasion originally they came to be Written , and also how to be Published , and that too without my Adversaries ; and therefore , I need not give my self the trouble of Writing , or thee the trouble of Reading more , in reference to these Points . Only , it may not be improper to do my self this piece of Iustice , to add , That though I do not Publish my Adversaries Letters , ( for that I leave to him , as most proper ) : Yet I have not been wanting in mine Own , to Publish all his Arguments that concern me , both in all the Strength he gives them , and with all the further Inforcement my self could possibly add to them . This , a Iudicious Reader will easily perceive me to have done ; and this I did , as well for that Respect and Care I owe to my own Reputation , as for that I owe and pay to Truth . I am of Alexander's Mind ; I would not steal a Victory ; and Truth need not : It is stronger than all things . I acknowledge , I have received a Letter from him , since my Last ; but that Letter ( as Others ) so little to the Purpose , unless Reflections and Extravagancies be so , that I do not find my self obliged to any other Answer , than what in my Last is added and marked thus [ * , ] and that 's but little : And an understanding Reader will plainly see , there was not much need of that : It is but one Paragraph , and two or three Words , by way of Illustration . Some happily may admire , that in a Rich and Fruitful Subject , as this is , I am so barren in Citations ; but they may please to know , that ( seeing a Doctrine is not true because a Multitude avouch it , any more than a Custom good because a Multitude follow it ) I do not value Authorities in the Search and Investigation of Truth , further than as they are Evidences to Matters of Fact. Indeed , on this Account I might have Cited properly enough , many hundred Authors , as Witnesses , to confirm Baptism to have been of old a Jewish Ceremony , used in Initiation of Proselytes , both Male and Female , Adult and Infant ; but that was done abundantly before , by the Learned Dr. Hammond , ( as I remember ) in a set Discourse of Baptism , and incidentally by Mr. Ainsworth , in his Annotations on Genesis 17th ; and by many others : and Repetition is a dull thing . The Argument I go upon , as I do manage it , is not common ; and hath little Authority to make it good , beside that of sound Reason , and good Sense , and that better of the Harmony of the Holy Scripture ; into which , rightly understood , it doth already open no small Lights , and may do more , if well improved . To the Question , How I came to hit upon it ? I say , I was concerned to see an Article of that Importance , which Infants Baptism by most is taken to be of , and indeed is of , to hang on Wyres only , and ( as some phrase it ) by Geometry : It must , I thought , have sure and solid Foundations , and such I could not see it to be Owner of , unless it were inlay'd ( as I find it is ) in the very Constitution of an Instituted Church , and in the Harmony of Scripture . Analogy of Scripture , is the surest Basis of Truth , in matters of Revealed Religion ; as Analogy of Nature is of Truth , in Points of Philosophy . This Argument I have so much spoken to in the following Letters , that I think there needs no more to make it perfect , and fully convincing , but to add these few following Considerations . First , That Baptism or Washing was at first a Jewish Ceremony , and that Aaron , and his Sons were Baptized or Washed with Water at the Door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation : That the Baptizing of Proselytes , very probably was done in imitation of That , and the other Washings among the Jews ; and to signifie the Cleansing of Them from the Defilement of Gentilism : And that the Christian Baptism in the Institution of it , had Aspect to both These , is also probable ; we Gentiles being by Baptism sanctified unto God , and made his Priests ; which seems very clearly to be implyed by the Apostle , when he calls Baptism , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Laver , ( Washing our Translators render ) of Regeneration , in Allusion certainly to the Laver under the Law , which was set between the Tent of the Congregation , and the Altar . Compare Exod. 40. 6 , 12. with Tit. 3. 5. Again , Let it be considered , that as no Alteration in the least , in reference to the Subject of Circumcision , was made by Moses , from the Rule in the First Institution under Abraham ; so that under Moses it is evident , First , That if a Proselyte were Master of a Family , the giving of Himself to God by Circumcision , would not suffice to qualifie him for the Passover ; except he gave his Family too , and that all his Males were Circumcized . God look'd not on him as a Convert , if he gave not all His , as well as Himself , Exod. 13. 48 , 49. And this is the more remarkable , for that the Proselytes were ( as ) the First-Fruits of the Gentiles . Secondly , That those Strangers in the Family of a Jew , who were the Masters Own , or his Property , were on his Account admitted to participate the Passover ; for he was to give them unto God , as having Right and Dominion in them ; and therefore might dispose of them : For This only is the Reason , why the Servant of the Jew , who was Bought with his Money , might eat the Passover ; and the Hired Servant not ; namely , that the Former as being bought with his Master's Money , was his Property , his own ; and therefore given with himself to God , and so received God's Mark of Circumcision , and consequently became capable of the Passover : But the Hired Servant being not his Master's , but his own Man , consequently could not , without his own Consent and free Act , be given and disposed of by his Master . But if he would ▪ Voluntarily be Circumcized , and so become Partaker of the Passover , nothing letted him though he were an Hired Servant , no more than any other Forreigner . See for this Exod. 12. 43 , 44 , 45. The next main Consideration I would wish to be reminded seriously , is , That in the New-Testament no New Rule is given either by Jesus Christ Himself , or by his Apostles and Followers , about the Subjects of the Sign of the Covenant ; which Sign now is Baptism : And therefore , certainly , it leaves us to the Grounds and Reasons of the Old-Testament , [ and to conformable and constant Practice in the Jewish Use of Baptism in the Admission of Proselytes ; ] especially seeing the Seed ( which Seed Believers are in Christ ) are under the same General Obligation to keep the Covenant in the Sign , and by the very self-same Rule and Direction which Abraham had himself . And then it is Rational to think , That as Abraham was made to understand it in Circumcision , so we must understand it in Baptism ; namely , to take in Infants as well as the Adult . This is the more probable , because in the Gospel-Institution we find that Baptism went by Families and Houses , as Circumcision did both before the Law , and under it ; as also , that in Baptizing of Proselytes , not only Male and Female , but ( as I said ) Adult and Infants were admitted . In the last Place ; It would be considered , that in the first Sign of the Covenant , which was Circumcision , though all Infants were not taken in directly and actually , yet none of them were excluded from it as Infants ; but only as Females : For the Nature of that Sign was such , that , in the Actual Administration of it , no Female was a Competent Subject : So that , in the first Signing by Virtue of the Covenant ; as much as any Adult Persons were taken in , so much those that were not Adult ; even Infants were taken in also : And if then , the Females were not Actually signed ; so neither in the Letter , and by express Denomination of them , were they then taken into the Covenant . For as the Sign was directly given only to the Males , so the Promise also , in terms , was only to the Males , [ Abraham and Isaac . ] But then , as the Females were included in the Males , in the Covenant and Promise , ( which , I think , no Body will deny ; ) so , by like Reason , they were included also in the Sign . If any ask the Reason , why the Females are not taken notice of in the Old-Testament , as much as the Males ? and why , at first , they were not , as it were , by name taken into Covenant , and so signed with the Sign of it ; but included only in Men , and accounted as signed in them ? there may be many Reasons ; but among them , two especially . The First is , That God is Uniform in his Works ; and that as in the First Creation he made Adam first , who was then the whole Kind , and comprehended the Woman in his Rib ; and then afterward took the Woman out of Adam : So in the Restoration , or New Creation , he would first by Name begin with the Man , and take him into Covenant , and Sign him ; and take the Woman in but Inclusively , as comprehended in Man , and as an Appendix to him ; which he did in the Dispensation , under Abraham and Moses . But then , afterwards , as he took the Woman in the Creation out of Man ; so under Christ , in the New-Testament-Dispensation , he took the Woman in her own Name , and put his Sign on her too : Both Men and Women are Baptized . A Second , and perhaps no less effectual Reason , is , That the Woman had been first ( as the Apostle observes ) in the Transgression ; she had spoyled the First Creation , and the Work of God in it ; [ What 's this that thou hast done ? saith God to the Woman : ] Therefore , as a Mark of his Divine Displeasure , God would not in the Institution of his Covenant of Grace , take her in her Own Name and Person , or otherwise than by Inclusion in the Man , into the Participation of it ; until by bringing forth the Lord Christ , the great Foundation of the New and Better Creation , she had made him , as it were , some Reparation ; and therefore , Christ is emphatically said to be Made of a Woman . Methinks the Apostle hath an Aspect towards both these Reasons , in 1 Tim. 2. 13 , 14 , 15. But howsoever that is , sure I am , 't is out of question , that before Christ , there was no little difference between Male and Female , in the Account of Scripture : for if a Woman bore a Man-Child , she was to be unclean but Seven days , and to continue in the Blood of her Purifying but Thirty-three days : But if she brought forth a Maid-Child , then she was to be unclean Two weeks ▪ and to continue in the Blood of her Purifying Sixty-six days : So much Difference , Then , there was between Male and Female ; for so we read in Exod. 12. 2 , 4 , 5 , 6. But , Now , the Case is alter'd ▪ For under Jesus Christ there is no Difference ; no more Now between the Male and Female , than between the Jew and Greek ; for so the Apostle Gal. 3. 28. There is neither Iew nor Greek , there is neither Bond nor Free , there is neither Male nor Female ; for You are all one in Christ Iesus . A plain Text ; wherein the Apostle as well implies there Was a Distinction and Difference before , as he affirms that there Is none now . As for mine Adversary ; though I do not take him to be the Greatest Clark in the World , or as Learned in the Learned Languages , and Human Authors , as many others ; and though I take it to have been a piece of Vanity in him , to tell me , as he doth , [ That as he remembred , one of the School-men said , &c. ] because I have Reason to believe , he understands the School-men , as little Hebrew or Greek : Yet I do not apprehend it any Disgrace ( as some would have it , ) to have been engaged with him ; both for that he is a careful , painful , and industrious searching Person , much conversant in the present Controversie ; and , I believe , can say as much for his Perswasion , as any other what ever : as also , for that the Point in Controversy between us , is not a Point of Human Learning : Here ( for the main ) is no need of Greek or Hebrew , or of the Subtilties of School-men , or of Exactness of Criticisme : It must be decided plainly by good Sense , and by the Harmony of the Scripture ; and an English Bible ( to which he doth appeal ) suffices for that . I do confess , I believe that some of the Grounds which I have said , will have no little Influence toward an Alteration in many received Schemes : But whether I have laid them right or not , I am no competent Iudge . For though I am much confirmed in the Verity of Them by their undergoing of One kind of Test , without any Loss ; yet before I do advance them from being Points of meer Opinion , to be Points of some Degree of Faith , I am willing they should undergo all Others . And therefore , Reader , they are put into thy Hands , ( for I have done with them ) to weigh and iudge them . ERRATA . PAge 2. line 4. add be . p. 12. l. 20. read by . p. 16. l. 20. dele it . p. 49. l. 27. read to . p. 53. l. 23. dele capable of it . p. 54. l. 14. dele ( ) . p. 99. l. 21. read in way of Covenant through Christ for Grace . p. 102. l. 17. read of all the Faithful . p. 103. l. 11. dele now . p. 105. l. 18. read of Genesis . p. 110. l. 5. add ) . p. 115. l. 27. dele : p. 128. l. 30. read be understood of that only . p. 129. l. 5. read same . p. 150. l. 20. read is meant . AN ARGUMENT FOR Infants Baptism , &c. The First Letter . Dear Sir , I Cannot believe my self obliged by the Occasional Discourse ( which I held almost a Year and three Quarters ago ) about Infants Baptism , to ingage any further in that Controversie , much less deliberately and solemnly ; yet , having received so large , and so elaborate an Endeavour for my Satisfaction , and so importunate and iterated Requests , to give you the Result of my most cool and serious Considerations of what you have done in It ▪ I may not be so much wanting in Civility to your Desires , and in Obedience to the Call I believe in them , as to decline the Incumbence and Obligation under which They put me to answer : And so , either to receive my self a further Illumination in the Point , or ( which is better , and which I hope ) to give it . Only , let me have leave to tell you , ( That ) I am sensible enough how difficult a Task it is , in it self , to Eradicate an Opinion grown inveterate by length of Time , and perhaps confirm'd by frequent Spoyls and Trophies over weak Opposers of It ; and that 't is more difficult for one in my Circumstances , subject to a thousand Avocations and Diversions ; and who , at the Arrival of your Letter , thought of nothing less in all the World , than of being engaged in this manner against Anabaptism ; and with a Person , a great part of whose time hath been imployed in Thoughts and Study about it . And yet , under Disadvantages so great against so great Advantages , believing my self in the right ; in that Confidence , I have made a Resolution to let you know my Sentiments ; and the rather , because I take you ( and I wish , I may not be mistaken in it ) to be so unfeign'd a Lover of Truth , and so Candid a one , that you will make Allowance for any Byass in your Mind , in favour of your Opinion , which a long Prescription may give it ; and that you will not Refuse any Light that may be offered , if you have no other Reasons for doing So , than either that It is New unto you , or that you have not struck It your self . As for my Sentiments on this Subject , that you may conceive Them with the greater Clearness , as also for Order sake , I will reduce them unto Two Heads . First , I will let you see the Mistakes under which you are , as to your Apprehensions of the Grounds of my Arguments for Infants Baptism , as deduced from the Covenant of Abraham . And Then , I will display the Argument it self in all its Evidence and Force , as it is bottomed on that Basis : And this , without concerning of my self in Other Arguments insisted on by others , and also touched and reflected on by you . The Mistakes you are under in your Apprehensions of the Grounds of my Argument , are Two , and very great ones : The First , That you conceive me to raise my Superstructure of Infants Baptism on this Foundation , [ That the believing Gentiles , and their Posterity , are in All respects to be blessed , as believing Abraham was ; ] which , say you , is Absurd . And well you may ( say so ; ) for indeed , Abraham had peculiar Blessings appropriated to his Person ; as to be the Father of all the Faithful , and particularly , of believing Gentiles , ( the Father of many Nations ; ) and therefore , instead of Abram , he was called Abraham . But though All the Blessings believing Abraham had , did not descend on his Spiritual Children , or his Seed , the believing Gentiles ; yet , if Any Blessing of believing Abraham's did descend , as That of the Promise did , it must be understood , ( that ) the Obligations and Duties arising from the Nature of the Blessing , ( which did descend ) or that are annexed to it , ( if there be any Such ) must descend too : And so , that the Seed , in that respect in which it is equally blessed with believing Abraham , must be equally obliged with him , to all the Duties and Incumbencies , that are the Consequents and Results of that Blessing . Your Second Mistake is , That you apprehend me to conceive , [ That every Child of a believing Parent , by vertue of his Birth , Priviledge , and as he is a Natural Descendant of such a Father or Mother , is a true Child of Abraham , or a Believer , ( for that I mean ) or , in your own words , That the Natural Posterity of Believing Gentiles , barely as such , are all of them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham , ( or Believers ) and consequently such as are entitled ( on the Account of being his Spiritual Seed , or Believers ) unto Abraham 's Covenant and Blessing . ] And in Opposition unto This , you much enlarge ; shewing the many great Absurdities , and ill Consequences of it , even to Fifteen : Arguments , which truly as to any other who hath Sense I think , and I am sure as to my self , are all needless , and might all have been spared . Certainly , I demand not half so much to enforce the Argument I used ; I think not every Child of a Believer to be a Believer himself in any Sense ; much less , that Saving Grace is as Original as Sin ▪ or that it comes by Traduction . All I postulate to build my Argument , is , That the ( true ) believing Gentile doth not forfeit , by believing , his natural Right to his Child ; but that the Children of True Believers now , under the Gospel , are as much theirs ▪ and in the same Right , as the Natural Children of Abraham were his . This is all the Question that I beg , and this sure you will not deny me . Only , by the way , I pray you to make no more of my Concession , than I intend it for ; for when some Pious and very Learned Men have argued for Infants Baptism , from the Children of Believers their being Abraham's Spiritual Seed , they mean not , I suppose , by calling them Abraham's Spiritual Seed , as I do , and as you do ; that they are Actual Believers , and consequently Children of the Faith of Abraham ; but only , that they are Persons of a Religious Consideration , and ( in some sense ) Holy , and related to God. And meaning but So ; though I acknowledge Children not to be Abraham's Seed in the Sense I mentioned , as Abraham's Seed is taken for Actual Believers , and you have proved by Fifteen Arguments that they are not , nor can be Abraham's Seed in this Sense ; my Concession gives you no advantage , nor do your Arguments signifie any thing against Them ; who , using the Expression in Another Sense , are nothing concerned ; for if They take Spiritual Seed in One Sense , and You in your Arguments take it in Another , you do not really oppose them , though you may think you do ; nor are your Arguments pertinent ; and the Dispute between you , as to that , is indeed but Strife about Words . Thus I have , with all the Clearness and Fairness imaginable , let you see your Two Mistakes about the Argument I urged ; and therefore , seeing you do not apprehend aright the Grounds on which I go ( in it , ) I am only obliged to you for your charitable Endeavours towards my Satisfaction ; but not ( in the least ) for any Effect of those Endeavours . It now remaineth , that I perform what I promised in the Second Place ; which is , To lay out the Argument for Pedobaptism , as it is founded on the Covenant , or Blessing of Abraham , in all its Force and Evidence ; which , to do to some purpose , I will demonstrate . First , That the Covenant of Abraham , which is called the Blessing of Abraham , or the Promise of the Spirit , is still in being ; and is that Covenant of Grace the true believing Gentiles are under . Secondly , That in respect of that Covenant of Promise , which is called the Blessing of Abraham , and the Promise of the Spirit , or the Spiritual Promise , all the Seed that hath the Benefit of it , are under equal Obligations to the Duty and Incumbence arising from it , with Abraham himself . Thirdly , I will shew , That the Duty and Incumbence to which Abraham was obliged , arising from the Covenant , or Blessing given to him , was , by way of Restipulation , to dedicate and give himself , and all his to God ; and , in token of that Dedication of himself , and of all that was his , to wear himself the Signe of the Covenant , and put it as a Cognizance , and Badge , and Mark of God upon all his that was capable of it . Fourthly , I will also shew , That from Abraham's Dedication of himself , and of all his to God , there arises a Distinction of Holiness into Internal and External , Absolute and Relative ; and that this Distinction ( of Holiness ) is Evangelical . And having evidenced these Four things , I will then proceed , in short , to form my Argument . In order to the evidencing of the First Particular , which is , That the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham , which is called the Blessing of Abraham , and the Promise of the Spirit , or the Spiritual and Evangelical Promise , ( that this ) is still in being , and is the Covenant of Grace , into a Participation of which , the ( true ) believing Gentiles are taken : I only Premise , That That is the Covenant of Grace the believing Gentiles are under , Which is the true Ground and Foundation of all their Hopes , and of all their Comforts ; and Which , by having a Title to it , and Interest in it , doth give them a Title to , and Interest in the Coelestial Inheritance , the Heavenly Country , the Everlasting Mansions in the Father's House ; and , in a word , to Salvation . And This the mentioned Covenant , the Blessing of Abraham , and the Promise of the Spirit is , and doth : This is the true Ground and Foundation of all the Hopes of Gentile-Believers , and of all their Comforts ; and a Title in This , is the only Title they have to the Heavenly Blessedness and Salvation , or ( as the Apostle is pleased to stile it ) ot the Inheritance . For thus in the Third of Gallatians , the Apostle carries it ; when Verse the 16th , he affirms , That to Abraham , and to his Seed , were the Promises made , and Verse the 18th adds , That if the Inheritance be of the Law , it is no more of the Promise ; but God gave it ( namely the Inheritance ) to Abraham by Promise : And by What Promise , but that ratified Covenant of Promise , I will be a God to thee , and to thy Seed ? As appears by comparing it with Verse the 16th . But he asserteth This more clearly afterwards , in Verse the 20th ; where he sheweth , both that the only Title to the Inheritance is Heirship , according to the Promise ; and that the only way of Becoming Heirs according to the Promise , and so of being interested in it , and entitled to it , is by becoming the Seed of Abraham to become the Children of God ; and the only way of Becoming the Seed of Abraham ( for the Gentiles , ) is by Putting on of Christ through believing : For , saith he , if you be Christ's , or the Members of Christ ; what then ? Then you are Abraham's Seed ; and what if Abraham's Seed ? what then ? Then you are Heirs according to the Promise . In short , this is the Clymax ; if Believers , then Christ's ; if Christ's , then Abraham's Seed ; if Abraham's Seed , than Heirs according to the Promise : for the Promise is , I will be a God to Thee , and thy Seed , and I will give to Thee , and thy Seed , &c. Nor doth it make any Alteration in the Case , that Faith is now the requisite Condition of Salvation , or that we must believe to be saved : This but evidences the more clearly , that the Gospel is but a Renovation of the Covenant of Abraham ; for as it is through Faith , that we Gentiles do become Christ's , and by being Christ's , that we become the Seed of Abraham , and consequently Heirs of Salvation according to the Promise ; So it was through Faith , the Righteousness of Faith , that Abraham ( the Father of the Faithful ) had the Promise himself : For so the Apostle , Rom. 4. 13. for the Promise , That he should be the Heir of the World , was not to Abraham , or to his Seed through the Law , but through the Righteousness of Faith. Abraham believed God , and We Christ ; it was through Faith , that Abraham had the Promise ; and through Faith also , that we the believing Gentiles have it ; as being Children not of Abraham's Body , but of Abraham's Faith , Rom. 4. 12 , 13 , 16. And if the Promise made to Abraham , be the Ground and Foundation of all our Hopes , and all our Expectations , as we are Christians , and it be the True Covenant of Grace ; to be sure , it is still in being , or we do but beat the Air , and are at a loss ; our Hope is in vain , and our Rejoycing in vain ; which God forbid : And in being it is ; for the Law that came four hundred and thirty Years after , did not , could not Disanul the Promise that went before ; and if the Law did not , if the Law could not , nothing else did , nothing else can disanul it : This the Apostle evidences , Gal. 3. 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18. And surely , the Promise to Abraham , I will be a God to thee , and to thy Seed &c. is a Covenant , a ratified Covenant , and confirmed by two immutable things , by Word and Oath , In which it is impossible for God to Lie ; and therefore , cannot be disanulled ; and if it be not disanulled , it is still in being . Here I thought to have dismissed the First Particular , and so ( to ) proceed to the Second : But it strikes into my Mind , that you may think I have not clearly enough expressed what I mean by the Covenant , the Blessing and the Promise of Abraham , which did descend on the Gentiles ; which if so , would be Matter of a fresh Dispute : And therefore , though I think the Scriptures I have insisted on already , do sufficiently instruct us in what the Promise is ; yet , to leave no room for any further Mistakes , I shall be more express in it . By the Promise , the Blessing , the Covenant of Abraham , ( for under all these three Terms it is represented by the Apostle ) I mean that Covenant of Promise made to Abraham , Gen. 17. 7 , 8. consisting of Two Parts ; a more Spiritual Part , in the 7th , I will be a God to thee , and thy Seed ; and a more Temporal one in the 8th , And I will give , &c. And I take in Both , because I find the Apostle saying , That to Abraham , and to his Seed , were the Promises made : the Promises ; not a Promise , ( which had left it doubtful ; ) but the Promises , as speaking not of the One only , I will be a God to thee , and thy Seed , which is the Spiritual Part ; but of the Other also , which is the Temporal , I will give to thee , and thy Seed , &c. Thus the Covenant of Promise involveth and includeth in it Two Promises ; the One of which indeed is Principal , the Other but Additional ; but Both are in the Covenant , in the Blessing , and consequently Both are ratified and established : The Promises were made to Abraham , and to his Seed ; the Covenant in both respects descends . I know you take it for a very strong Argument , That the Covanant of Abraham , Gen. 17. 7 , 8. cannot be the Evangelical and Gospel-Covenant ; because it is a Mixt one , and composed of a Temporal ( as well as of an Eternal ) Bequest : But for that Reason , I the Rather take it to be Evangelical ; For this is Gospel , that Godliness is profitable unto all things ; that is , in all respects , in respect of this World , and in respect of the Other : And why so ? Why , it hath the Promise ; Having ( the ) Promise of the Life that now is , as well as of that to come : And what is this but a Finger , to point you to the Covenant of Promise ; as the Evangelical Covenant , the Promise , the Blessing that did descend on the Gentiles ? 1 Tim. 4. 8. And indeed , the Inheritance promised to Abraham , and which in , by , and under him , is descended on the Gentiles , is not only a Coelestial , but a Terrestrial one also : For by that Promise , Abraham was not only the Heir of Heaven , but also Heir of the World ; and so the Apostle stiles him : And the same Apostle tells Vs , All is Ours ; and Abraham being constituted by the Promise , Heir of the World , He and his Descendants , according to the Flesh , were to take Possession of it , and to have Livery of Seisin given in Canaan ; a Livery of Seisin , which was given indeed , and taken but in Part of the World , ( as Livery of Scisin usually is ) but in the Name of the Whole . It is true , Canaan only was promised in the Letter , and was Inherited only by the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham : But then it must be considered , that in the Covenant there is more implyed , than is expressed in the Letter ; and that as in the Letter it speaketh of the Seed which is Natural , namely Isaac ; yet , in the Mystery , it meaneth Christ , and that Principally : So , though in the Letter it speaketh but of Canaan , as given for a Possession , and enjoyed so by the Carnal Seed ; yet in the Mystery , it means the whole World , of which Canaan was a Part : in which indeed he took Possession , or had Livery and Seisin given him ; but , as I said , in the Name of the Whole . Abraham was Heir of the World ; and so are all Believers , as Abraham's Seed ; for All is Ours : But how ? For We are Christ's , and Christ is God's : And it is , I will be a God to Thee , and thy Seed ; which Seed is Christ. This is the Believer's Title , and this his Deed ; his Charter , by which he holds All. And having evidenc'd the First Particular , That the Covenant made with Abraham , or the Blessing of Abraham , the Promise of the Spirit is still in force , and is that Covenant of Grace by which believing Gentiles , the true Seed , now both have and hold their Title to Heaven , and to Earth too . It will not , I suppose , require either much Time , or much Argument , to secure the Second ; which is , That the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham , the believing Gentiles , who have the Benefit and Advantage of that Spiritual Promise and : Blesing , and to whom it is made as well as to Abraham , are under equal Obligation to the Duty and Incombence arising from it , or annexed to it , with Abraham himself . For it is a common Notion , a Sentiment approved by the Light of Nature , That he that reapeth any Profit and Advantage by a Grant ▪ ought to bear the Burthen , and answer the Duty and Incumbence that accompanies It. And indeed , to hope for Salvation , and other Benefits convey'd in the Covenant and Charter of Abraham , without submitting to the Duties and Obligations that do arise there-from , or are annexed thereto ; were for a Person to claim an Inheritance by a Deed of Conveyance , without holding himself obliged to the Covenants and Provisions with which It is granted Therein . Certain it is , as I have shewn already , that the believing Gentile claimeth , hath , holdeth nothing , but in , by , and under Abraham : He is Christ's , and so Abraham's Seed ; and so Heir according to the Promise : And he that claimeth , hath , holdeth nothing but in , by , and under Abraham , must claim , have , hold , as Abraham did , according to the Tenor and Obligation of the Deed of Gift , the Charter , the Covenant of Promise , which it pleased God to convey it by , and with the same Incumbence and Duty . And this remindeth me of the Third Particular , which I promised to demonstrate ; namely , That the Duty and Incumbence to which Abraham was obliged , arising from the Covenant or Blessing given to him , was , in way of Restipulation , to dedicate and give himself , and all his , to God ; and in token of that Dedication of himself , and all his , to put the Sign of the Covenant , as the Cognizance , and Mark , and Badge of God on all his that was capable of it , as well as to wear it himself . I know it cannot be difficult to You , ( if it can to any Other ) to conceive that in Restipulation unto God , who had made over unto Abraham , not Himself only , but All he has , ( that ) Abraham Correspondently should give Himself , and All he had to God : And indeed , this Mutual Stipulation between God and Abraham , [ That God and all His should be Abraham's , and Abraham and all his should be God's ] is the very Essence and Substance of the Covenant : I will be Theirs , and They shall be Mine ; I will be a God to Thee and thy Seed , and Thou and thy Seed stall keep my Covenant . It is true , the Covenant doth run in Absolute and Promissory Terms , and therefore is called the Covenant of Promise ; but yet to be a Covenant , as there must be Parties , so there must be a Mutual Stipulation between them : And here , the Stipulation on the Part of Abraham , though it be not so express and literal , is plainly implied in the Duty and Incumbence God imposes on him , in relation to the Covenant , as an Obligation and Consequence arising from the Nature and Merits of It : Which Duty and Incumbence , and the Consequentialness of it from the Covenant , is , Gen. 17. Ver. 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations . Or , more consonantly to the Letter of the Original , but to the same Sense , ( and in Covenant-form , ) I will be a God to thee and thy Seed , and I will give to thee and thy Seed , &c. and , Thou and thy Seed shall keep my Covenant . In the Former , is the Stipulation or Promise God is pleased to make to Abraham , and to his Seed : And , in the Latter , the Obligation and Consequence it lies upon them ; and which , therefore , God expects too , as importing Their Stipulation , and that Acknowledgment they owe for His. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore : Therefore , wherefore ? Therefore , because I have Established my Covenant , to give my Self and all I have to thee ; to give my Self , and give Canaan , and in Canaan the World : Therefore , thou shalt give thy self , and all thine to Me : And in token of it , ( that thy self and all thine is Mine ) thou shalt observe my Covenant in the sign of it ; and that so , both as to wear the sign thy self , and to put it upon all thine that is capable of it . This is evident , Gen. 17. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , &c. This is my Covenant , namely , the sign Circumcision , &c. You may here , perhaps , not a little wonder , that I use so General and comprehensive Terms ; and that I say , the Obligation which lay on Abraham from the Covenant , was to dedicate and give Himself , and All His , to God ; and in token of it , not only himself to wear the Sign and Token of the Covenant , which then was Circumcision ; but to put it on all His that were capable of it : I say , Happily you may not a little wonder , why I said not all his Seed ; but all His : Which , if you do , you will no longer have no cause to continue it , than till I tell you , It is to signifie , that the Obligation on Abraham arising from the Covenant , was Solemnly to dedic●te and give to God , together with himself , All that he had Property in , and Title to , and was Owner of ; not his Natural Seed only , the Off-spring of his own Body , but even his Servants or Slaves . And here observe ; if Abraham by vertue of the Incumbence and Obligation which the Covenant of Promise did lay upon him , [ Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore ] was Not only to circumcize his Natural Off-spring , But his Slaves and Servants , ( as he was , Gen. 17. 10 , 12. ) It must needs follow , that the putting of the Sign and Token of the Covenant upon Children ( even then ) arose Not from their being comprehended in the Seed , and as God was a God to Abraham's Seed , and from God's requiring the Seed to keep the Covenant : For His Infant Slaves and Servants , whom Yet he was obliged by the Covenant to Circumcize , were Not of his Off-spring and Seed . But How , then , did the Obligation to Circumcize his Infant Servants and Slaves , arise from the Covenant ; in which no mention , in the least , of Slaves and Servants ; but only of Seed ? Certainly , no otherwise than in the Way I have mentioned , ( and this Consideration makes it clear ) namely , that Abraham in Restipulation and Answer unto God , was obliged to dedicate and give himself , and All he had to him , as God did give , and convey , and make himself and all he hath to Abraham ; and consequently , in Sign and Token of this , [ That as God hath given and made Himself , and all He hath to Abraham ; so that Abraham must not only dedicate and give himself , but , which is the Consequence of it , all is his to God , ] the Sign and Token of the Covenant between them , called God's Covenant , and consequently God's Sign and Mark , must be both on Abraham himself , and On all that is his : That is , It is not only to be worn by Abraham , to shew that he himself is God's , and that he hath given himself ; or by his Children , to shew that they are God's , and that he hath given them : but even by his Servants and Slaves , to shew that he hath given Them too , and consequently All that he hath . And indeed , he that gives himself , gives All that he hath , with himself : He owns nothing , that is not His own . 'T is as they were Abraham's Property , that his Infant Servants and Slaves were Circumcized ; and , doubtless , All that was Abraham's , capable of Circumcision , had it on the same Account that Any had : And therefore , as the Infant Slaves were Circumcized as His Property , and by vertue of what is said to Abraham , Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore ; so were His Children also : And Consider it , [ All Infants were Circumcized by vertue of the Same Incumbence . ] As to your Wonder , why I do express the Obligation and Incumbence arising upon Abraham from the Covenant , in these terms , that He was to dedicate and assign himself , and all his ; and , in token of it , to put the Covenant in the Sign of it , as the Mark and Cognizance of God upon himself , and on all his that was capable of it . You admire how Capable comes in ; but you might with more Justice have admired , if it had been left out : For Implied it must be ; It could not be his Duty to put the Sign upon Vncapable Persons . But your Admiration is More the Object of Mine , after you have Granted , that God commanded Abraham , ( Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed ) in General terms ; wherein , you say , both Sexes may seem to be comprehended , ( and indeed say I , are so ) for if he did command in General Terms , that Abraham , and all His ( Seed you say ) should keep the Covenant in the Sign and Token of it ; and yet afterward did Institute Circumcision to be that Sign and Token , which was not competent to all : How can the Generality of the Precept , ( Thou shalt put the Sign on all thine ; when Circumcision , that is Not competible to all , is that Sign ) be understood Accommodously and Conveniently , as it must be , but Thus ; Thou shalt put the Sign on All thine that are capable of it ; and the wearing of it by These , shall be Interpreted the putting of it on All. By this time , I believe , you will be inclinable enough to grant , that I have proved sufficiently , that Abraham was obliged as to dedicate and give Himself , so to dedicate and give All his , his Children , and his Servants to God , Possessor of Heaven and Earth ; and , in Token of it , to put the Covenant upon Them ( as far as they were capable thereof , ) in the Sign of it , namely , Circumcision . But you will say ; It Seemeth not to be , ( but give me that Expression again , for You will be more Positive ) it Was not done ( you will say ) with any Relation unto us believing Gentiles , who are not Circumcized : And that seeing there is a Change and Alteration made in the Sign , the former Obligation ceases ; for if Circumcision it self is past , and done away , no Duty and Obligation that but commenced with it , can now abide and remain . But I pray consider , that not only Abraham was under Obligation to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it , but the Seed of Abraham also ; that is , All those to whom the Covenant is made , are equally obliged to the Observation thereof , in the Sign of it : ( And therefore ) not only Abraham was obliged , but his Seed too . For , as God is pleased to say , I will be a God to thee , and to thy Seed ; and I will give to thee , and to thy Seed : So , he says , Thou and thy Seed shall keep my Covenant . Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , ( and not only Thou , but ) Thou , and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations : Thou ; thou and thy Seed . So that , if the Believing Gentiles be ( as indeed they be ) the True Seed , and Principally intended in the Promise ; for it is Seed , not Seeds : Seed ; speaking but of one , and that One is Christ ; and Christ not Personal only , but Mystical , or Christ with his Members ; for it is of Many in One : For the Seed , which is to keep the Covenant , is to do it in their Generations ; not in his Generation , but in their Generations , and that is Plural . I say , if the Believing Gentiles do become the Seed of Abraham , ( as they do ) they come also under Equal Obligation to observe the Covenant , with Abraham himself : For it is , Thou shalt keep the Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed . And to keep the Covenant , ( as I have evinc'd already ) is for him that is in it , in token of his Dedication and Assignment of himself , and of all his to God , not only to wear the sign of the Covenant himself in his own Person , but to put it upon all his that is capable of it ; so to manifest , that he owns not any Interest or Property at all in any thing , or Title to any , but what he returns to God ; and that both himself , and all his , are the Lord 's . And think , Are not the believing Gentiles as much obliged to assign , and dedicate , and give all , as Abraham ? Yes , doubtless , and are as much bound to Shew , and Own , and Declare they do so , as He. But whereas it may be objected , That Circumcision was the Sign and Token of the Covenant then , [ This is my Covenant which you shall keep between Me and You , and thy Seed after thee ; Every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcized : ] And that Circumcision , as being a Legal and Carnal Ceremony , is abolished under the Gospel ; and therefore , as all Ingagement and Obligation unto That , so all Ingagement and Obligation unto any Sign and Token by vertue of the Command of That , is ceased . I answer , Though Circumcision , that at First was the Sign and Token of the Covenant , be taken away ; yet it will not follow , that the Obligation to observe and keep the Covenant in any Other Sign or Token , doth cease with it . And to demonstrate this ; it must be minded , that as the Equity and Reason of the Command doth hold in Baptism , as well as in Circumcision ; and for any other Sign ▪ and Token as well as for This ; and to the Seed , as well as to Abraham ; God being as much a God to the One , as to the Other : So also that in the Form of the Words , the Obligation imposed upon Abraham , and his Seed , is in the First place , to keep the Sign and Token of the Covenant , or to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it : And but in the Second ( place , ) to observe Circumcision ; namely , but as it is that Sign . So that a plain Distinction is mad● between the Obligation to observe the Sign and Token of the Covenant , ( or to keep the Covenant in the Sign and Token of it ) and to keep it in Circumcision , as that Sign and Token ; the Former arising from the very Nature of the Covenant , ( Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore ) and therefore of as perpetual Obligation and Existence , as the Covenant it self : But the Latter is more positive , and Secondary . Wherefore , tho' there be an Alteration in the Second , it will not follow that there must be one in the First ; or that the Covenant ought not to be observed in the Sign and Token of it , if , for certain Reasons , Circumcision be no longer ; but something else be that Sign and Token : The taking away the Second , doth not destroy the First ; for being before it , it may be without it . Thou shalt keep the Sing of the Covenant , that is First ; Circumcision is that Sign , that is Second : And why One in the first Place , and the Other but in the Second , but to shew , the Covenant must be kept in the Sign of it , even when no longer Circumcision , but some other thing is in the Counsel of God ordained to be that Sign ? And indeed , it is much , that the taking , and the putting of the Sign of the Covenant , should ( as it is ) be called keeping of the Covenant ? Must not we Now keep God's Covenant ? And to the end you may see the Harmony of the Scripture , and ( with it ) the Cogency of that Illation , which I make from the Form of the Words here ; see the like ( Form of Words ) in the Fourth Commandment , in relation to the Sabbath , bottoming the like Illation ; Remember the Sabbath-day , to keep it holy ; that is first ; and , as it is first , so it is primarily Moral , and Eternal and unchangeable : But the Seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord ; that is in the second place , and is but secondary and positive . What ? Doth the Obligation to the First , and that which is Primary in the Command , cease , because there is an Alteration in the Second ; and that not the Seventh , but the First Day of the Week is now the Sabbath of the Lord ? Who will say it ? So , though Circumcision be no longer the Sign and Token of the Covenant , but another thing be It ; 't will not follow , the Covenant is no longer to be observed in the Sign and Token of it , because not Circumcision ; but that other Thing is now ( become ) that Sign and Token : Which you will conceive the better , if you bethink that Circumcision was not abolished in the Gospel , as it was of the Fathers , but as it was of Moses , ( a Distinction Christ himself makes ; ) or not as it had relation to the Covenant of Promise , as the Sign of it , as if in that respect it were a weak and carnal thing ; but as it was Adopted by the Legal Mediator , and made a Sign of that Administration and Covenant , in which He had to do ; for afterwards , who so was Circumcised , did become a Debtor to the whole Law ; and therefore , if the Law did cease , Circumcision could not continue . But remember , it was on an Evangelical and Gracious Consideration , that Circumcision did become the Sign of the Legal Covenant or Administration : For why was it ? Were there not other Matters enough to make Signs of , but that Circumcision , which was a Sign of the Promise , must be Impropriated to be the Token of the Mosaick Covenant ? Why was it then ? Not truly ( as you may think ) to make an Alteration in the Promise , in respect of the Subjects , to which the Sign Thereof was to be given , or of any Priviledges , or first and immediate Duties and Obligations of It ; but to establish and confirm the Promise . For Circumcision , the Sign and Token of the Promise , was , in Divine Wisdom , annexed to the Legal Covenant , ( as the Sign and Token of That , ) for the same Reason that Jesus Christ himself , ( who was the Capital Seed , to whom the Promise was made ) was made the Minister of the Legal Circumcision : ( He was the Angel that spake with Moses in the Wilderness , or that gave the Law ; and He , in the Days of his Flesh , but preached to the Jews . ) It was for the Truth of God , to Confirm the Promises to the Fathers ; for so saith the Apostle , Rom. 15. 8. Now I say , that Jesus Christ was the Minister of the Circumcision , for the Truth of God , to confirm the Promises unto the Fathers . I say , for This Reason , as also ( which is an Amplification of it ) perhaps to shew , that there was no Salvation and Inheritance by the Works of the Law , Circumcision , which had been the Sign and Token of the Promise made to Abraham , was taken and applied to be the Sign and Token of the Legal Covenant , which came by Moses ; to Become which indeed by the ( capable ) Ceremoniality of it in some respects , [ not as it was a Sign of the Covenant ; for there is nothing like a Ceremony in being but that , but as it was confined to one Sex , and ( in the Execution and Performance of it ) to a certain Day ] it was very Proper and Fit. The Reason , I say , it was applied to the Legal Covenant , besides the Fitness of it , was for the Truth of God , to Confirm ; and not either to Destroy or Alter the Promise made unto the Fathers ; God taking the Token of the Covenant of Promise , and putting it upon the Legal Covenant , to be a Sign of it , to shew he had his Covenant of Promise still in Remembrance : For Doing so , He could never look on , or so much as think on the Law , but He must also remember the Promise ; the Sign and Memorial of the Promise being thus annexed , and put to the Law. [ Thus Circumcision , the first Sign and Token of Abraham's Covenant , though it were Adopted into the Law of Moses , and made a Sign and Token of that Covenant in which he Mediated ; it was So but for the same Reason , that Jesus Christ himself was made the Minister of it : That is , not in Derogation of the Promises made to Abraham , and his Seed , or of any Priviledges , and Duties and Incumbencies arising from Them , but in Confirmation ( of them . ) It was for the Faith of God , to confirm the Promises to the Fathers . And therefore , though as Adopted into the Law of Moses , and made a Part and Member thereof , it must consequently be annulled , and cease therewith ; yet , seeing that Adoption of it into the Law was in Confirmation of the Promise , the Abrogation and Cessation of Circumcision with the Law , as now become a Part of it , cannot be understood to be in any Diminution of the Promise ; It not ceasing as it was a Sign and Token of the Promise , but as it was become a Member and Part of the Law. ] And so much in Demonstration of the Third Particular , ( viz. ) That the Duty and Incumbence to which Abraham ( and the same is said of his Seed ) was obliged , as being in Covenant , was , by way of Restipulation , to dedicate and give Himself , and all His to God ; and , in token of that Dedication of himself , and of all his , to put the Sign and Token of the Covenant , as the Cognizance , and Mark , and Badge of God upon all his , as well as to wear it himself . It now remaineth , that I manifest what I promised to do in the Last place , ( viz. ) That from Abraham's Gift and Dedication of Himself and His to God , there arises a Distinction of Holiness into Internal and External ; the Former positive and absolute , the Latter relative : And that this Distinction is Evangelical , and as applicable unto our Times since the Law , as to the Times before it , and under it . That from the Double Dedication the Covenant of Promise obliges to , and which Abraham practised , there arises such a Distinction of Holiness , is evident ; for to be Holy , being to be Separated or Dedicated to God , as He is a God in Covenant : [ For whether it be a Person , or it be a People , that is Holy , still to be Holy is to be Dedicated , to be Separated , it is to Be to the Lord their God ; Deut. 14. 21. Thou art an Holy People unto the Lord thy God : For a People to be Vnto the Lord their God , is to be Holy ; for as to be Blessed or Happy , the Lord must be a People's ; so to be Holy , they must be the Lord's . ] And Seeing also , that a Person may be Separated and Dedicated to the Lord , and so become His as He is a God in Covenant , either by a Separation and Dedication , which is the Persons Own Act ; as when Abraham or any other doth devote and give himself unfeignedly and cordially to God ; or else he may be so By a Dedication and Separation proceeding from Another's Act , and not his own ; he being another's , and consequently capable of being given and devoted by him . This being so , What can be clearer than that there are Two Kinds of Holiness ; of which , the Former ( wherein the Person himself is Active , and doth dedicate and give himself ) is Positive : Internal , and Saving : the Latter , ( in which he is Passive , and is but dedicated , assigned , and given by another , whose he is ) is External and Relative ; not a Holiness in the Person , but a Holiness upon him . With the Former kind of Holiness , Abraham himself was Holy ; but with the Latter , his Infant Children and Servants : Who , to shew that they were Gods , had the Mark of God upon them ; as ours , to shew that they are So , have his Name . And that this Distinction of Holiness into External and Internal , Positive and Relative , a Holiness that is saving , and a Holiness that is not , hath Place in Gospel-times , is as evident as that it had One under the Law , and before the Law : To manifest which , I will remind you of a Text that hath been much in discourse , and on which , for obvious Reasons , I will a little insist : It is 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by or in the Wife , and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by or in the Husband . Where note , One Person being Sanctified , but not being Saved by the relation which it hath to another , it can only be So Externally : The Believer is a Saint , and so Internally holy ; but the Unbeliever is but Sanctified or Sacred , ( and that not as a Person , a Man or a Woman , but as a Person in such a Relation , as a Husband or Wife ) by the relation which he hath to that : So Athanasius makes , or rather notes the Distinction . The Design and Scope of the Apostle in the Text , is to satisfie a Case of Conscience , which , it seemeth , had been proposed to him ; and was , Whether the Bond of Marriage contracted between Persons , both at the Time of that Contraction , in a state of Infidelity , were obliging afterward , if one of them became a Convert ? Or , Whether the believing Husband were not obliged to put away the unbelieving Wife , and the believing Wife to leave her Husband that believed not ; seeing the Apostle ( for this likely was the Occasion ) had advised them in a former Epistle , not to keep company with Idolaters and prophane Persons ; and they comprehended not how Then a Believer , a Holy Person , could hold Communion in the Matrimonial State with an Unbeliever , who is an Idolater and unholy . This was the Case ; and to this the Apostle gives a plain and positive Resolution , Vers. 12 , 13. But to the rest speak I , not the Lord ; If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not , and she be pleased to dwell with him , let him not put her away ; and the Woman which hath an Husband that believeth not , if he be pleased to dwell with her , let her not leave him . Then he seconds the Resolution and Decision which he had made , with a Reason that doth expresly obviate the Ground and Foundation of their Scruple , and that in the former Part of the 14th Vers. For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in or by the Wife , and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified in or by the Husband . In fine , he Fortifies that Reason by a further Consideration , taken from the Inconvenience and Absurdity that else would follow , if it should not be as he affirmed ; and that in the latter Part of the 14th Vers. Else your Children are ( or would be ) unclean ; but now ( or whereas ) they are holy . The Sense You give of the Apostles Reason , ( for of his Resolution and Decision I know no Controversie ) is ; That the Bond of Matrimony still remains : Religion makes no Alteration in Civil Bonds and Contracts . The unbelieving Husband is as much clean or lawful , that is ( say you ) sanctified to the Use of the believing Wife ; so that she may now as freely admit his Conversation in a Conjugal way , as ever before : And the like of the unbelieving Wife to the believing Husband . For were it otherwise , your Children must be Illegitimate , and Bastards ; whereas they are not so , but Lawfully Begotten , and of clean Blood. For this Sense , you argue from divers Considerations : One is , That the Holiness of the unbelieving Parents must be of the same Kind with that of the Children , and that of the Children the same with that of the unbelieving Parents ; and therefore , can be only Civil . Another ; That the Apostle , when he saith , The unbelieving Husband is sanctified , doth not say by the Believing Wife , but only by the Wife ; and when the unbelieving Wife is sanctified , he saith not by the Believing Husband , but only by the Husband : Which sheweth , that the Holiness is only by the Conjugal Relation , as one is a Husband , the other a Wife ; not as a believing Husband , or believing Wife . And the Third is , That in Mal. 2. 15. the word Holy is taken for Legitimate and Lawful . But for all this , the Sense you give of the Apostle's Reason , can never be His , as being altogether incongruous , and improper ●o the words he uses : For whereas the Apostle says , The unbelieving Husband is sanctified in or by the Wife , and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified in or by the Husband ; instead of sanctified In or By , you render it sanctified To ; both Against the common use of the Particle , and Without Example . For Gal. 1. 16. the Text you cite as Parallel , must be rendred ( as it is in our Translation ) In me : It had been a Solaecisme , to have said there , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for To me ; it must have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , answerably to that Matth 16. 17. Flesh and Blood hath not revealed it to thee , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And for Acts 4. 12. the other ( non Parel ) Parallel you cite , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there , is not To Men , but Among Men ; No other Name is given among Men : No other Name , no other Person among the Sons of Men ; No Name among all their Names ; not Moses , not Herod , &c. is the Name or Person given of God , in and by which they can be saved ; and yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were used in construction with Any other word for To , ( as indeed I find it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 2 Pet. 1. 5. of which see Beza ad Loc. ) it would not follow , that it might be used in that Sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , if you do not bring ( as you do not ) an Example of it . In the Sense you carry it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text , should have been construed with either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) as it is Heb. 9. 13. Again , How is the Unbeliever Legitimated in or by the Believer ? Both are equal in respect of Conjugal Relation ; one doth not legitimate another , but the Law of Nature or Nations legitimates them both to one another . But here , the Apostle saith , The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife , and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband ; and therefore , to be Sanctified , is not to be Legitimated . And observe , It is the Vnbeliever is sanctified by the Believer : He saith not , The Believer is sanctified by the Unbeliever ; whereas , if to be Sanctified be to be Legitimated , both are equally Sanctified by , or rather to one another . But say you ; It is not said by the Apostle , That the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Believing Wife , nor that the unbelieving Wife is so by the Believing Husband : He saith , barely , By the Wife , and by the Husband ; not by the believing Wife , and by the believing Husband . As if it were not plainly understood , when he saith of a Husband and Wife , of which it is supposed one is a Christian , a Believer ; the other not : That the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife , and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband . Certainly , it is the Unbeliever is sanctified by the Believer ; especially seeing this Wife , and this Husband , Vers. 15. is called the one a Sister , the other a Brother : And also , that in some Copies , particularly that of Claremont , Believing is added , as Beza assures ; and so Tertullian also , and Athanasius , read it . Again , in all the Scripture , the term Sanctified is never put for Civilly Legitimated ; and you might as well have said , it signifieth Nothing , as that it signifies but That : For as for Mal. 2. 15. the term Holy is not in the Text ; for it is not there a Holy Seed ▪ but a Seed of God , and that according to the Usage of the Hebrews , who put the Name of God to what excels ; as a Mountain of God for a High Mountain , an Army of God for a Great Army , a Lyon of God for a Lyon that excels in Strength or Stature ; and so a Seed of God for an honourable excellent Seed ; a Seed not basely , promiscuously or adulterously begotten ; but according to the Law and Institution of God , in lawful and orderly Matrimony : And if the Seed of God be an Honourable , Excellent , and Legitimate Seed , will it therefore follow , that the word Holy ( a word the Prophet uses not ) doth signifie Lawful or Legitimate ? And whereas you say , [ The Seed of God can be understood in no other Sense , but that of a Lawful Seed , in opposition to That born in Poligamy ; and so conclude against Poligamy from that Text : ) I cannot but observe , that you will take for sufficient Evidence , in some Points , That which is not currant even with you in others . For is not this an Old-Testament Text , as well as Gen. 17 ? and yet suffices to conclude against Poligamy , Though the latter must not for Baptism . And tho' more is to be said against the Illation you make from the One , than can against That I make from the Other . For the Seed of God , in the Text , is not literally and directly opposed to the Issue born in Any Poligamy , but in Adulterous Poligamy ; for words must be interpreted according to the Scope and Subject-matter : and the Design and Scope of the Prophet , is not to argue against Poligamy as such , in which there may be no Treachery ; but against Adulterous Poligamy , in which there always Is ; it being founded in Treacherous putting away : Which is evident , in that the Prophet concludeth not against the Former , but the Latter ; Therefore , take heed to your Spirit ; let none deal treacherously against the Wife of his Youth . Deal treacherously ! Wherein ▪ In Poligamy as such ? No ; but in the Divorce , then , commonly in Practice ; which was , to put away one Wife to take another : or in ( as I called it ) Adulterous Poligamy , Poligamy founded on unjust Divorce : For saith he , The Lord the God of Israel , he hateth putting away . Plainly , the Treachery lay not barely in Poligamy , or the having many Wives ▪ for to say it did , is great Impiety against the Father of the Faithful , and against the Generation of the Just : For did Abraham deal treacherously ? or did Jacob ? or did David , but in the Matter of Vriah ? &c. Was the Church , the true Off-spring of God , founded in an Ungodly Seed ? Were not the Patriarchs the Issue of Poligamy ? Or can it be imagined , that the Father of the Faithful , the Man after God's own Heart , and the Father of the Twelve Patriarchs , should live and die in Treachery , Perjury , Adultery ? And yet they did in Poligamy : No , the Treachery lay not simply in Poligamy , or having many Wives ; but , as I said , in Adulterous Poligamy , or the Divorce then in Practice , which was , the Cruel putting away of one Wife , to take another : For this , as Christ explains it , is Adultery ; and consequently , Treachery against the Divorced . And if the Conclusion be against Divorce , that Divorce which was in Practice in that time , the Medium or Argument by which he doth deduce it , must be understood Accordingly : And what is the Medium ? God made One , when the Remainder of the Spirit was with Him , and He could have made more : And why then but One , but that He might have an Excellent Seed ; which , in direct and literal Correspondence to the Conclusion , [ Therefore deal not treacherously , in putting away , ] must be Thus Interpreted : He made One ; but One , that He might have an excellent Seed ; not a base , dishonourable Seed , the Issue of Adultery and treacherous Divorce ; but an honourable , orderly Seed , according to his own Ordinance and Institution of Marriage : And therefore , He made One ; but One , that there being but One ( All , ) Adam might have no Choice of more , and consequently might be uncapable of committing Treachery against That One he had , in putting her away to take Another . This is plainly the Reasoning of the Prophet . But though from this Medium he but argues , and so doth Jesus Christ too , against Adulterous Divorce ; yet seeing the same Medium may be used to more than one Conclusion , I do not lay any Imputation on your Argument against Poligamy , from the Prophet's , That God made but One ; and consequently , Adam could not have more than One : No , though it may be said , That the Argument would hold as well against Successive , as Contemporal Poligamy ▪ For there being but one Woman ( all ) made , Adam could no more have one after another , than two at once : And though the Holy Patriarchs understood it not to be against Poligamy , which they practised ; but against Adulterous Divorce , which they never practised . I hope , you will not understand me here beside my Intentions , to offer what I Have in favour of Poligamy : I know that from the Beginning it was not so ; it could not be so ; and that the Churches of Christ have no such Custom : I only offer it , to let you see , how Just you are to the Old Testament , and to Consequences and Deductions in Matters in which you have no Prejudice ; and again , how Hard in things in which you have Any : Seeing a Well-laid Consequence and Deduction , from an Old-Testament Text , shall render you Impregnable in One Case , against the Battery of many not unworthy Considerations ; But shall not signifie a Button in Another , though the Considerations against It are in no Degree so numerous , or so weighty : As if For you , any Probability and Appearance must be Demonstration ; but Against you , even Demonstrations as good as the Nature of the thing will bear , must not have the Reputation of being bare Probabilities . But This by the way . To return . The Sense I have of the Apostle's Resolution , and of the Reason with which he enforces it , is , That notwithstanding the Infidelity and Unbelief of one of the Conjugal Pair ; ( yet ) the other might still cohabit , and Conjugally converse with him , or with her : For though the Person of the Unbeliever be not sanctified ; yet the Relation is , and the Matrimonial use is , and that in and by the Faith of the Believer ; who , by a Dedication of himself , or of her self , and of all he doth , and all he useth , in receiving all , and doing all with giving of Thanks , and with a Superior Reference , doth thereby sanctify , make different and holy , ( namely , Relatively and Externally ) what without that Dedication and Superiour Reference , was in it self but Common , Indifferent , and Unclean : As 1 Tim. 4. 3 , 4 , 5. where mark the Limitation ; To him that Believeth : and also the Manner how sanctified ; By the Word and Prayer . And the Apostle enforceth this Reason ; namely , the Sanctification of the Vnbeliever in and by the Believer , as to Conjugal Acts and Uses , by a further Consideration , viz. That ( there being the same Reason for the Unbelieving Parent , as for the Children that do not Actually believe ) if it were not So , [ If the Unbelieving Husband , as a Husband , were not sanctified by the believing Wife , but remained Common , &c. ] then their Children ( which they would not easily grant ) must be also common , and unclean , and as unholy as the Children of the meer Heathen ; who , being Aliens to the Common-Wealth of Israel , Strangers to the Covenant of Promise , and so without God as in Covenant , Can do no Act in reference to him ; that is , no Holy Action ; and consequently , tho' they might Lawfully ( both by the Law of Nature , and the Law of Nations ) beget Children , which therefore would be Legitimate ; yet they could not do it Holily , and therefore their Children could , not be Holy. A Heathen may do a thing Lawfully ; but only a Christian can do a thing Holily : That is Lawfully done , which is done according to Law , Civil or Divine , Natural or Positive ; but that only is Holily done , which being Lawful , is done with Reference to God in Covenant , and for his Glory . And as Children are called Legitimate , as they are lawfully begotten ; so they are called Holy , as being Holily begotten . Thus it is , as if the Apostle had said , If the Unbelieving Husband be not Sanctified by the Believing Wife , and the Unbelieving Wife by the Husband that believeth ; then are your Children still Unholy , still Unsanctified , and but as the Children of meer Heathens : For if your Children are Holy and Sanctified , ( as you do acknowledge them ) they be So but by the Dedication of the believing Parent by Word and Prayer , with a Relative and External Sanctity . And Thus the unbelieving Wife May be sanctified , and Is by the Husband that believeth ; and Thus the unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife , as well as your Children : every Believer Sanctifying , Dedicating , and Consecrating all he hath Concern in or with , by Prayer applying the Word : Else were your Children common and unclean ; whereas now they are Holy. Designati Sanctitatis , saith Tertullian , the Candidates of Holiness . And thus the unbelieving Husband and Wife ( as Husband and Wife ) are holy , as the Children are holy , with a Relative and External Holiness , one and the same sort of Holiness . And whereas you think , That in the Gospel-Administration there is no such thing as a Relative and External Holiness ; ] I on the contrary am apt to think , there was never More ; and that the Ceremonial Holiness under the Law , did in a great degree but signifie the Latitude of This in the Gospel : For what is the Holiness of our Actions , Natural or Civil , and of the Members of our Bodies , and That which is on Creatures by craving a Blessing on them , Other than a Reference ( in the doing of the Former , and in the using of the Latter ) to the Glory of God ? In this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this Reference to God in Actions ▪ in the use of Creatures , and the use of our Members , consists the Sanctification of Them , to Which in all things a Believer is obliged : For Whether we do eat , or do drink , or what-ever we do , all must be done ( with this Reference to God , ] for the Glory of God. Thus a Christian is a Person that is Entirely to God ; that in all he Is , and Hath , and Doth , is To , and For God : He is a Priest , and he is an Offering , and he is a Temple too : So that , now , Holiness is on the Bells of the Horses , and the Pots ( Vessels of common Use ) are as the Bowls before the Altar ; all Holy and Consecrated . No Action of a Believer , much less his Marrying , and giving in Marriage , and the consequent Actions of that State , must be common , but holy ; and every Action of an Unbeliever , is common and unholy : To the Pure all things are Pure , but to the Vnbeliever nothing so : Even the Lawful Actions of the Unbeliever , who is without God in the World , are unholy . Holy Christian Matrimony , and holy Christian Use of one another , differs much from Unholy and Unchristian . Infidels do Lawfully come together ; but they do not Holily : They never think on God in Covenant in it . Now , in your second Thoughts , I pray consider , which of the given Senses is the most probable , either That which agreeth not to the Text , so much as in the Grammar ; but is far fetcht , violent , and forced : or That which is not only Natural and Genuine , without Constraint and Violence to the words ; but also agreeth both to the Analogy of Faith , and to the Design of the Apostle : As which not only resolves the Case proposed ; but , by obviating the Ground of the Scruple , doth fully satisfie the Conscience : A Sense not mean and low , as that is which makes the Holiness to be but Civil , ( to be ) a meer Lawfulness ; but a High , Lofty , Spiritual , Evangelical Sense : a Sense truly worthy of our great Apostle , who breatheth nothing but Sanctity , nothing but Holiness . Thus having fortified my Premises , I should immediately proceed to deduce my Conclusion ; but ( that ) before I do so , it may not be amiss to consider one Question ; which is : [ Why , Seeing the Sign and Token of the Covenant of Promise , was the Sign and Token of it not only on Abraham's Part , to whom it was made ; but on God's , who made it : Why , since it signified , that God did convey , and make Himself and all His to Abraham , as well as that Abraham ought to restipulate , and surrender , and make himself , and all his again to God : That all along I do mention but This , and not the Other ? ] To This I answer , That I insist not on the Latter , to exclude the Former . I well know the Sign and Token of the Covenant , to be a Sign and Token between God and Abraham ; and ●o as much signifie what God hath promised to Abraham , as what Abraham was obliged to answer . But the Reason I insist mainly on the Latter , is , That It seemeth mostly ( to be ) imported in Putting of the Sign upon Abraham : For any other Sign that God had pleased to have given him , either in the Heavens above , or in the Earth below , might have been ( as the Bow in the Clouds ) a Confirmation of the Truth of God , as Covenanting : But it Would not , with so much Clearness and Significancy , have represented Abraham's Stipulation , and his assigning and giving of himself and his again to God , as Now it doth ; seeing ( that ) That in common Sense is God's , which hath his Sign upon it , and wears his Mark. And 't is as observable , that as Circumcision was upon Abraham , and on all his , in token of his Answer and Restipulation to God , ( That he did dedicate and assign himself , and all he had , to him ) ; so Baptism [ the Evangelical , initiating Token ] is on the Person too to whom God is a God , and signifieth the same Restipulation and Answer , which Circumcision did : The Which many Learned ( not improbably ) conceive the Apostle means , when he says , 1 Pet. 3. 21. That Baptism is Not the putting away of the Filthiness of the Flesh , but the Answer or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God : And so Beza ( ad loc . ) on second Thoughts doth render it ; and Tertullian happily doth allude to it too , when l. de Resur . Car. he tells us , Anima non Lavatione , sed Responsione sancitur . Besides , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Juridical word , as may be seen in the Glossary : And though ( in Classick Authors ) It primarily , and in the First place , do signifie Interrogation ; yet even thence , it came in the Second to signifie Stipulation , ( the Sense the Jurists take it in : ) And the Reason is evident ; for in Spigelius , Stipulatio est firma verborum conceptio , quâ quis Aliquid se facturum daturumve promittit Alteri super hoc Ipsum Interroganti ; utpote , promittis mihi te daturum xx Philippeos ? Alter Respondebat , promitto . And Thus also Surrenders and Deditions were antiently made , as is to be seen ( in Livy , l. 1. c. 36. and in Calepine , ad voc . ded . out of him ) in the Dedition of the Collatines to the Romans . But yet my Argument doth not stand and fall with the Sense of this Text , no more than with that in the 1 Cor. 7. Well then , I have evinced , That the Covenant of Promise , which is the Blessing of Abraham , is the Covenant of Grace , and That it doth descend upon the ( true ) Believing Gentiles , I have also evinced . That all who have the Benefit and Advantage of the Blessing of Abraham , and are the Seed on whom it doth descend , are equally obliged to the Duty , Office , and Incumbence arising from the Nature of that Blessing , or annexed to it , as Abraham himself : And I have evinced , That the Duty , Office , and Incumbence arising from the Blessing of Abraham , in the Covenant of Promise , was , in Restipulation and Answer to God , to dedicate , assign , and give himself , and all he owned , to Him ; and , in token of that Dedication , Gift , and Assignment , to put the Sign and Token of the Covenant [ the Mark and Cognizance of God ] both on himself , and on them . And now take my Argument , which is this : That Seeing the Believing Gentiles are the Seed of Abraham , and consequently are Partakers of his Blessing in that Covenant of Promise confirmed afore in Christ ; as is evident in the first Particular : And Seeing the Seed of Abraham , who are Partakers of his Blessing , are under equal Obligation to the Duty , Office , and Incumbence of that Blessing , as Abraham himself was ; which is the Second Particular : And Seeing also , That the Duty , Office , and Incumbence lying on Abraham , as he had the Blessing , was , that he should both dedicate , and assign , and give himself , and all his to God ; and , in token of it , take himself , and put on them the Sign of the Covenant , ( which is called to keep the Covenant , viz. in the Sign of it ; ) which is the Third . It Follows , That the true Believing Gentiles , who are the Seed of Abraham , and as much Partakers of the Blessing in the Covenant of Promise , as Abraham himself , are as much obliged to observe and keep that Covenant of Promise , in the Sign and Token of it , ( be it what it will ) as he himself , and his Natural Seed : That is , in plain words , Seeing God is as much a God to the Believing Gentiles , as he was to Abraham , and doth as much give and make himself , and all he hath to them , as he did to him ; It follows , That they are as much obliged , by way of Answer , to dedicate and give themselves , and all they have , to him ; and , in token of it , to take the Sign of the Covenant between God and Them , or the Cognizance and Token of being God's , ( which Now is Baptism ) upon Themselves , and to put it upon all Theirs , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( and to be sure , their Children are Theirs ) as Abraham was Himself to take Circumcision , ( the Sign and Token of the Covenant Then ) and to put it also on His. The same Reason for both : The Seed is as well to keep the Covenant ( in the Sign , ) as Abraham . If it could be denied , that Baptism is now the Sign and Token of the Covenant of Grace , as Circumcision was heretofore ; I should think it easie to be evinced : But I assume it as granted , and that both Because Baptism is the Restipulation and Answer of a good Conscience to God ; and Because it hath the same Use now , that Circumcision had before , ( viz. ) To be the Rite of Matriculation , and of Assignation : And Because else ( which is hard to think ) there is now no such Sign and Token at all of the Covenant : Whereas if in Circumcision , ( God's Sign ) ; in Baptism , the Name of God is put upon us , to mark us for His. And taking it for granted , and allowing the Grounds that I have laid , you may see the Reason , why in the Primitive Times , Whole Houses were Baptized : It is on the same Account , and for the same Reason , that Abraham's Whole House was Circumcized . Thus it is said , Act. 11. 14. That Peter should tell Cornelius words , by which he and all his House should be saved : And Act. 16. 15. it is said but of Lydia , that she believed ; but of Her , and of her Houshold , that they were Baptized : And in Act. 16. 31. it is promised to the Goaler , that on his Faith not only himself , but his Houshold should be saved : Believe thou on the Lord Jesus Christ , and thou shalt be saved , and thy House . And 1 Cor. 1. 16. Paul Baptized the Houshold of Stephanas : And Christ himself tells Zacheus , on his believing , That Salvation is come not to his Person only , but his House . I say not , this is Demonstration ; but it seemeth something , that ( ordinarily ) when the Master , on his believing , hath a Blessing given him , his House or Family should be joyned with him . Certainly , the Families of the Seed have the same Relation to them , that the Family and Houshold of Abraham had to him ; and the Incumbence on the Seed , is the same as on Abraham ; and the Priviledge the same . And it seems to me , to answer exactly to the Sentiments of Some , concerning the Promise given to the Church under the Messiah , that Magnificent One ; for so Jer. 30. 21. should be rendred , and not in the Plural , as we do read it : To the Letter , it is not their Nobles , as in our Translation ; but their Magnificent One , or their Noble One shall be of themselves , and their Governour shall proceed from the midst of them . Now say They , the Promise is , That when this Noble and Magnificent One , the Shiloe should come out of the Loyns of Juda , and take the Soveraign Government and Power , and have the chief Administration of things in his own Hand ; Then , in that Glorious and Evangelical Dispensation , their Children should be as afore-time ; or to the Letter , As of Old : Their Children should be solemnly dedicated , and given up to God , and put into his Protection and Care ; and , in token of it , be Baptized , as of old , in afore-time , they were Circumcized : Which , though it be not the proper Sense of that Text , ( for of Old may look but to the Time of David and Solomon , as I am apt to think it doth , because the same word is Neh. 12. 46. used in Reference to It ; ) yet it is consonant enough to the Analogy of Faith. For indeed , well may Children in the Gospel-Dispensation be said , in this Sense , to be as afore-time , and as of old ; since though the Jews are cut off , the Gentiles ( which believe ) are grafted in upon the same Stock ; not indeed upon the Legal Branch , but upon the Root Olive ; which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had , or the Gentiles have : Which Root-Olive is the Covenant of Promise ; that Covenant , that Promise , that was above Four hundred Years before the Law. Now , into that State of things , as the Covenant of Promise Then held it so long before the Law , we believing Gentiles , the true Seed , are put : Christ himself affirming , That Many shall come from the East , and from the West , the North , and the South , [ and those are the believing Gentiles from all Quarters , ] and shall sit down with Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob : He saith not with Moses , and with Elias , by whom the Law came , and was explained ; but with the Fathers , who received the Promise : They shall sit with these in the Kingdom of Heaven , or Gospel-Church , And in That State of things , when not the Law , but the Gospel preached unto Abraham , did obtain ; God was a God not only to the Father , but in and through the Father , and for his Sake to the Children , yea , to all the Family ; and the Father of the Family did not only dedicate and give himself , but all His , his Children , and even his Servants , all his to God. And so it is Now : Our Children are Thus , as they were afore-time , or of old ; else indeed our Children were unclean , but now are they Holy ; they are God's . The great Mistake of Antipedo-baptists , is , That they look not back but to the Law , when they should ( look back ) a little further , even to the Time of the Promise , before the Law ; a State of things for the long space of four hundred and thirty Years : For observe , in Jer. 31. from Vers. 31 to 34. when God is pleased to promise to make a New Covenant , and consequently to abolish and abrogate the Old , he maketh old not that Covenant made with Abraham four hundred and thirty Years before the Law ; but that which was made with their Fathers , In the Day he took them by the Hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt ; which was the Legal Covenant made on Mount Sinai Certainly , the New Covenant , as stated in Jeremy , is a Renovation of Abraham's , or of the Promise of the Spirit ; I will he their God , they shall be my People ; I will be thy God , and the God of thy Seed ; and Thou and thy Seed shalt keep my Covenant : To keep God's Covenant , is to be God's . As for Ishmael and Isaac , those two Figures , taking them as Figures , and as in the Allegory , so they represent not primarily and immediately , ( as you apprehend them ) the State of single Persons ; as if the Latter should represent the Persons that truly , and to all intents and purposes , are Spiritual Heirs of the Promise ; and the Former , those that are only so Externally , and as they did descend ( according to the Flesh ) from Abraham : For , if you mind it , this Distinction of Seeds did take no place , in the Antitype and Truth , before the Law , for all that long space of above four hundred Years that did precede it . So that firstly , they do not signifie single Persons , but Peoples : I say , Ishmael and Isaac are not primarily and immediately the Elect and Reprobate , ( as Elect and Reprobate are commonly taken ) but are Jew and Gentile : The Seed which is of the Law , and the Seed which is of the Faith of Abraham : According to Rom. 4. 16. there are Elect and Reprobate among both Seeds . Yes , Ishmael and Isaac do signifie but Peoples ; ( namely , ) Ishmael signifies the Jews ; who , being Descendants of Abraham according to the Flesh , were under the Bondage of the Law ; and so , in the Mystery , were Children of Hagar the Bond-Woman , as Ishmael was in the Letter : For Hagar answereth unto Sinai , where the Law was given : And Isaac represents the believing Gentiles ; who are no longer under the Bondage of the Law , but under the Grace of the Promise ; and so , in the Mystery , are the Children of Sarah or of the Free Woman ; as being the Children of the Faith of Abraham , as Others were of his Body . Hagar and Sarah are the Two Covenants and Dispensations , [ Sinai and Sion ; ] and the Jews under the Law , and Gentiles under the Gospel , are the Children of Them , or Ishmael and Isaac . So that before the Law , no Distinction in the Antitype or Mystery of those Two ; for the Children could not be , before the Mothers were : And therefore , what is this to the State of the Promise four hundred and thirty Years before ? Now , in the Gospel being freed from the Law , we are put again into the State of the Promise , which was before ; Christ the Seed , the Principal Object of the Promise , being now come . I 'le be a God to Thee , and thy Seed . Thus I have finished my Argument : But happily , in Evasion of it , ( for it cannot be in Solution of , or Satisfaction to it ) you will persist to say , as you have already ; That the External Administration of the Covenant now being vastly different from what it was in Abraham's Time ; therefore the Incumbence is so also : And that therefore , though believing Gentiles , who have the Benefit of Abraham's Covenant , and to whom it is made , are under equal Obligation to that Proper Duty and Service , which is Now required of them , as Abraham was to His ; yet it follows not , that their Infant-Seed are under the same Obligation , according to the Gospel-Institution , till put into the same Capacity ( by believing ) with themselves . But how pertinently this is said , I do not see : For to what Proposition in my Argument can this your Answer be adjusted and applied ? Besides , it goes upon a Mistake much vaster than the Difference between the External Administration of the Covenant in Abraham's Time , and that in Ours : For I know no other Difference in respect of the Sign of it , but that Circumcision then Was that Sign , and that Baptism Is now . Nor will any Difference in the External Administration , if it should be much greater , make Any as to the Argument , from the Duty and Incumbence which I insisted upon , ( which is , To keep the Covenant in the Sign of it , as Abraham did ) for this Incumbence and Duty is not bottomed and grounded on the Administration of the Covenant , which is mutable , and doth differ ; but on the Substance and Nature of it , which is immutable and everlastingly the same ; [ I will be a God to Thee , and to thy Seed : ] And God being as much a God to the Seed of Abraham , as he was to Abraham himself ; the Seed are as much obliged to the Duty , Office , and Incumbence arising and resulting from his being so ▪ as ever Abraham was . Ay , you will say ; The believing Gentiles , on whom the Blessing and Covenant of Abraham doth descend , are as much obliged to that Proper Duty and Service , which is Now required of them , as Abraham was to His Then ; Yet it follows not , ( I use your own words ) that [ Their Infant-Seed are under the same Obligation , according to the Gospel-Institution , till put into the same Capacity ( by be ieving ) with themselves . ] And indeed , it follows not , that the Infant-Children are under the same Obligation ; for They are under None : The Obligation is not on the Children , which are but passive : But it follows well enough for the Parents that believe , that the same Obligation lies on Them , they being the true Seed , to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it , both by taking of it upon themselves , and by putting of it on their Children , that did of old upon Abraham for himself and his . And This is the Proper Duty and Service required of them , as they are Partakers of the Blessing of Abraham . Nor are we to expect any New Commands in the Gospel Dispensation , for Duties settled of Old on lasting and immutable Reasons : The Obligation abides , if the Reason of the Precept abides ; a Principle that is the Ground of the Apostle's Reasoning , 1 Cor. 9. 8 , 9 , 10. And shall the Promise indeed abide , and not the Duty which arises from it ? The Covenant abide , and not the Restipulation , without which it is not a Covenant ? This you dare not say . Ay , but you will tell me again ; Tho' you do acknowledge , that the Proper Duty and Incumbence arising from the Covenant , hath an Eternal Obligation upon all the true Heirs of Promise ; and in particular , That such are bound by way of Restipulation , not only to assign , dedicate , and give themselves to God ; but also , all that is Theirs : Yet that you do mean , that it Must only be in the way that he himself hath appointed , ( and who , I pray , ever meant otherwise ? ) and that is ( say you ) but by Prayer and Supplication for them , and by Educating of them ( as far as they are capable ) in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord ; and Not by the Parent 's putting on them any Sign of the Covenant , as a Badge , and Cognizance of God , in Recognition and Testimony of his Right and Title to them . But all this is but to deny the Conclusion , after Concession of the Premises ; for I have evinced , that the Proper Obligation of the Covenant , and in the way that God himself hath appointed , is , That those with whom it is immediately made , and who are first Partakers of the Benefits of it , to whom God is firstly and immediately a God , are not only to dedicate and give themselves , and all they have to Him ; but to do it in this Particular way & manner , by keeping of the Covenant in the Sign of it ; [ I will be a God to Thee , and thy Seed ; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , Thou and thy Seed : ] So that , to dedicate and give our Infant-Children to God by Prayer and Supplication , and to educate and bring them up in the Fear and Admonition of the Lord , ( which also must be done , and which Abraham also did ) is not to answer the Obligation and Incumbence of the Covenant , if we do not do it also Solemnly , by keeping of the Covenant in the Sign thereof our selves , and by putting of it also on Them. God loves Solemnity ; it makes for his External Glory : He will be Owned to be our Lord and Owner , and the Lord and Owner of our Children , by our taking of his Name upon us our selves , and by putting of it on them . And whereas you have said , with a Modesty as great as the Truth of what you say ; That , if my Argument be truly stated , and as ( without wresting ) it ought , the proper Language of it will be this ; That Abraham being in Covenant , was to be Circumcized both himself and Half his Family ; the same Covenant descends on believing Gentiles : Therefore , they are to be signed , and the Whole of theirs . But whether such an Argument as this , ( This being , you say , the True State of the Case ) be convincing or no , you refer to my Second Thoughts . ] I answer : That I have Reason to be at the utmost Degree of Despair , of ever receiving of any good Answers from You , as long as ( from what Cause I now enquire not ) you understand an Argument no better : For Mine ( even in Your Terms of Half and Whole ) would run thus : If Abraham , and all his Seed , must keep the Covenant in the Sign of it , by taking it themselves , and putting it on all theirs that are capable of it ; Then , though Abraham , and but Half his Family , ( for so you compute it ) did keep it in the Sign thereof , as long as Circumcision was that Sign ; yet the Seed of Abraham , the true Believing Gentile , and the Whole of theirs , must keep it now . Now , that Baptism is the Sign , the Sequel is evident : For as but Half of Abraham's Family was capable of Circumcision , the Sign of the Covenant Then ; All the Off-spring of the Believing Seed of Abraham , are Capable of Baptism , which is the Sign of it Now. And observe it ; I argue not from Circumcision , as it is Circumcision , to Baptism ; but I argue , that because the Children of Abraham , by vertue of the Covenant , were signed with the Sign of it ; which then was Circumcision : Therefore , the Children of the Seed , by vertue of the same Covenant , must be signed with the Sign of it too ; which now is Baptism : For the Immediate Obligation is not to keep the Covenant either in Baptism , or in Circumcision ; but in the Sign of it : Now the Sign of Old was Circumcision , and the Sign Now is Baptism . It is true , had it pleased God to have abolished Circumcision , the Sign before , and not to have instituted Baptism , which is the Sign now ; it would have been a high Presumption in any Person , to go about to make One : But when the Covenant remains , and the Proper Obligation of the Covenant , is to keep it in the Sign thereof ; and God , though he hath taken away One Sign , yet hath pleased to Institute Another ; What can be plainer , than that as to be in Covenant is our Priviledge , so that to observe and keep it in the present Sign thereof is our Duty ? Thus you have my Second Thoughts , and make the most of them . So much by way of Obviation to what you do object to my Argument . I am now to reply to Yours ; and it is ad Hominem : ( viz. ) Either the Children of Believers are in Covenant with their Parents , or they are not : If they are in Covenant , as you say I affirm they are , because I said the Children of Believers are Holy , not without God in Covenant , but given to God in Covenant ; then say you , They are the Spiritual Seed , and as such entituled to the Covenant and Blessing of Abraham , which I formerly denied , and which cannot be for fifteen Reasons . But on the contrary , if I say the Children of Believers are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham , and consequently such as are not ( You should have added , On that Account , ) any wise intituled unto Abraham's Covenant and Blessing ; then neither can they justly pretend to any Covenant Holiness by Vertue of their Birth Priviledge ; which yet [ You say , but Mistakingly ] I make the Ground of their Admission to Baptism , when I say , That God becometh not related unto any ; nor is any related unto God in Scripture , so as to be stiled Holy , but in and through the Covenant . ] Thus I am in a Dilemma , and driven from Corner to Corner ; but safe in none . But pray consider , that I never said , either directly or in consequence , That the Children of Believers are Immediately and firstly in the Covenant of Promise , and as their Parents ( are : ) I only said , and still do , that they are dedicated and given by their Parents to God , ( who is ) in Covenant ( with those Parents : ) And yet for all this , even in my Opinion , They may pretend [ if that must be the word ] to Some Holiness by vertue of the Covenant of Promise ; and This too , though they be not Abraham's Spiritual Seed : For though they be not themselves the Spiritual Seed of Abraham ; yet being the Children of those that are , they become , thereby , intituled to the Priviledge of being Dedicated and Sacred to God , by vertue of the Covenant ; in the Same Right , and all , as much as the Slaves and Natural Children of Abraham were . Abraham's Natural Children and Slaves were intituled on His Account ; and the Children of Believers are intituled on Theirs . The true Spiritual Seed of Abraham are obliged to dedicate their Children , not as His , but as Theirs ; they give Theirs , as he gave His. I pray , were not the Natural Seed of Abraham , and his Slaves also , some way Holy in and through the Covenant , by vertue of the Dedication and Signing which That obliged to ? And as His Children and Slaves were some way Holy , so are Ours also . And in this Sense of Federal Holiness , as it is a Relative and External Holiness , do I ascribe it to our Children , in and through the Covenant ; namely , as This obliges the Parent to assign and dedicate them , and they accordingly are dedicated : And to be Federally Holy in this Sense , they need not sure be the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham , seeing All , even the Natural Children of Abraham , [ though so Holy ] were not all accounted for Seed . In fine ; Observe , that if by vertue of the Dedication required of Abraham by the Covenant made with him , his Children were Members of the Church Then , [ Old-Testament-Church , you call it ] it will follow , that by vertue of the same Covenant , making the same Obligation and Incumbence of Dedication , ( if It be still in force , as I have evinced it to be ) the Children of the Seed continue Members still , even in the New-Testament-Church : And well they may , not only for that the Church is One , and the same , though the Testaments be not ; but for that Children were not only Members of the Jewish or Legal Church , but of the Gospel-Church , for above four hundred Years before the Law : For it was Gospel that was Preached to Abraham , Gal. 3. 8. And therefore Circumcision was , at first , a Gospel-Sign . And remember , I make not the Childrens being in Covenant , the Ground of their Baptism ; but the Parents being in Covenant , the Ground of Their Holiness . To be Baptized is the Children's Priviledge ; but it is the Parent 's Duty to Baptize them , and to put the Name of God upon them , in token that by their Assignment they are His. Well ; But you find not any Mention of Infants-Baptism in the Apostolical and Primitive Times ; nor any positive and literal Precept for it . ] But do you find any mention , that the Apostles themselves , All of them were Baptized with Any , or Any of them with the Baptism of Christ ? Or that Women were admitted to the Supper of the Lord ? Or any positive literal Precept for either ? And yet , I hope , you believe , both that the Apostles were Baptized , and that Women were not excluded from the Holy Communion . And if you do not find in so many literal Expressions , that Infants were then Baptized , you may find it in sufficient Implication ; for you may find Whole Houses ( of which Ordinarily Infants are Constituent Parts ) affirmed to be so , and that frequently , and without any Exception of Infants ; which yet ought to have been made , if it had been but for Caution , on supposal that it were so dangerous a thing as you would have it be thought , to understand them included . Besides , the Churches of Christ universally have had such a Custom , and for ought appears , Perpetually : Sure we are from Immemorial Time , which is enough to prescribe from ; and you cannot but know what Austin says in the Case . Now , Sir , upon the whole I pray consider , that in all the Scripture , as there is no express and positive Text , that Children must be Baptized ; so there is no express and positive Text , that doth forbid their Baptizing : And therefore , it can be only consequence to Evidence , either that they ought to be Baptized , or that they ought not . And let be weighed , That Antipedo-baptism makes the Church of Christ but a Church Vnius Aetatis : That it robs the Parent of a sensible Ground of Hope for his Child , in case of Decease in Infancy ; which is , That he hath solemnly given him to God , and made him his Care : And It deprives the Child of a solemn and powerful Motive , when he is of Age , to dedicate and give himself : For this is a great One , [ and this it deprives him of : ] I am already solemnly given to God in Baptism by my Parents , who had Right to give me : I am His by their Dedication , and that publickly made and attested ; and therefore , I have Reason to become so by my Own. I am not mine Own ; the Name of God is upon me ; I am marked for His ; and I must rob God of what is His own Already by many Rights , and particularly by a Solemn Act of my Parents , if I now refuse my Consent , and do not also assign , and dedicate , and give my self to Him. And let it also be weighed , That Children are no more uncapable of Baptism , than they were of Circumcision : For if Baptism be the Sign and Seal of the Righteousness by Faith ; so was Circumcision : If Then all were not Israel , that were of Israel ; so it is Now , all in Christ are not Christ : If Then Circumcision , which was of the Fathers , or a Sign and Token of the Promise made to Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob , were taken and put unto the Law ; Baptism , which was of John , the last Prophet , and in use before John , as a Rite of Initiating Proselytes , and administred both to Male and Female , Is taken by Christ , and put to the Gospel : And if Faith be made in the Gospel , the Ground and Foundation of Baptism , Believe and be Baptized ; It was at first the Ground and Foundation of Circumcision : For Abraham believed God , and it was accounted to him for Righteousness ; and he received the Sign of Circumcision , the Seal of the Righteousness by Faith ; which he had , being yet Vncircumcized . And if the Children of Abraham were Holy , Ours are not Unclean . In a word : As heretofore there were Jews outwardly , and but visibly , as well as inwardly and really ; so now there are Christians outwardly , and but visibly , as well as inwardly and really . And is not Baptism it self , as external and visible a Thing as Circumcision ? Yes , there is a Baptism and Regeneration of Water , which is external and visible , to make Christians visibly and externally , as well as one of the Spirit , which is Internal and Invisible , to make real and true Christians : The Former , that initiates into the External and Visible Church : The Latter , into the true Assembly of the First Born : And the Subjects of the Two Baptisms are no more to be confounded , than the Baptisms themselves . Thus I have given you all the Satisfaction , that under a great variety of distractive and surprizing Accidents , I was capable of giving ; and I have done it with the Temper and Moderation that becomes a Seeker of Truth ; without the Common Pomp of Figures , Insolence , and Triumph : a Thing searce pardonable in the Heat and Fervency of a Dispute ; but which doth very ill become a Writer . And yet , if I had used any Warmness in the Argument , seeing it is in the Case of Infants , that cannot speak for themselves , it had been somewhat Excusable ; and the rather , for that our Saviour was so Zealous for them Himself , that when some ( it may be of your Perswasion ) would not have had them brought unto Him to be Blessed , it is said , He was much Displeased with Them. But I am not so with You , for that Occasion you have given of searching out the Truth to , Bowdon , Septemb. 19. 81. Ian. 27. 81. Dear Sir , Your Affectionate Friend and Servant , R. B. The Second Letter . Dear Sir , YOurs of March 16th , came to hand the 20th ; in which the Declaration you begin with , That notwithstanding all that I have said , your Apprehensions concerning the Matter in dispute between us , are the same they were , and That rather you are the more confirmed ; doth no whit surprize me . I assure you , I never had the vanity to hope , to convince a Man of your Perswasion . I was not the first Aggressor : I well knew the Confidence , that goes along with Conceits of higher Administrations ; and I also knew , that some Dyes and Tinctures of Mind , ( of which I took , and do take That of Yours to be One ) are as uncapable of being washed out , as Those in the Skins of Leopards and Blackamoors . After a Smoothing Preface , you proceed to ( as you call them ) Sober , and ( you hope ) Inoffensive Reflections ; which yet , to deserve the Epithetes you give them , must have been composed of Ethicks , as well as of Logick ; must have been Reflections on Arguments only , without any squinting on Persons ; and must have consisted of something else , than of Ambuscadoes of words , of bold Assertions without Proof , of Evasions in stead of direct Answers , of Partial Repetitions , and of Triumphs before the Victory . These are the Arts and Methods of Imposture , used to deceive the Vulgar ; but very improper in Inquiries after Truth ; and of no Influence , no Operation , in the least , on prudent and more Judicious Discerners . Your First Reflection is on the Caution which I gave you , about mis-improving my Concession : And here , after all the Evasion , Circumlocution , and Wood of Words , in which you think to hide ; it is certain still , that either those Pious and Learned Men , who prove the Baptism of Infants from their being the Seed of Abraham , do by the Seed of Abraham mean as you and I do , or they do not ; and if they do not , as you do not , you dare not say but they do not ; especially your Presbyterian Opponents , ( of which I would be principally understood ; ) Then should you raise a thousand times more Cloud and Dust than you have ; yet still it would be visible , that all your Fifteen Arguments against Infants being the Spiritual Seed of Abraham in your Sense , and my Concession that they are not so in that Sense , do in no degree affect those Excellent and Worthy Persons : For They taking Spiritual Seed in one Sense , and You and I in another ; They for Persons of a Religious Consideration , and some way Holy , and You and I for Actual Believers ; though you may think you do oppose them , and also that I do ; yet indeed you do not ; nor I neither : for Opposition must be Secundum Idem . Ay! But ( say you ) the Sense in which They call Infants the Spiritual Seed of Abraham , is a Sense the Scripture knows nothing of . But , say I , Whether that be so or no , is still in question between You ; and were it out of question , as you would have it , what were that to me , who neither did , nor do insist on that Argument ? But in question it is , and like to be so for all that You , or any of Yours have hitherto said ; nor are They without Scriptural Grounds . For are not the Children of Believing Parents some ways Christ's ? And can they be so , and no ways Abraham's Seed ? Can they be Relatively Holy , and Persons of a Religious Consideration , or Church-Members in the Gospel-Dispensation , ( as the Reverend , most Acute , Learned , and Pious Mr. Baxter hath abundantly proved them , ) can they be so , and no ways Christ's ? Are not the Children of Christians , as much Christians Externally ; as the Children of the Jews , were Jews Externally ? And are there not in Christ , Branches that do not bring forth Fruit ? That is , Are there not Reputed Christians , which are so but by External Profession , and not by Actual Faith , and Internal , True , Spiritual Regeneration ? Surely , all are not Israel , that are of Israel ; All are not Christ , that are in Christ. I say not This , as willing to insist on that Argument ; but to evidence , with how much Justice , as well as with how great Civility , you speak by occasion of It , of my Darkning Counsel without Knowledge : And , with a Candour truly yours , and much to the purpose , add ; That a Man may make a Shift , 't is true , by means of such a Distinction , to avoid the Dint of his Adversaries Argument , in his own Conceit at least ; but unless the Distinction be a well-grounded Distinction he cannot pretend so much to subserve the Truth , as his own Credit thereby . A Very Sober and Inoffensive Reflection ! In your next , instead of Admiration how Capable comes in , you are greatly concerned that it should be thought you said , It must not be in in the Major ; and therefore tell me , with some Emotion ; That you shall only need to say , and which I my self do know to be true , That you did not at all Admire how Capable came into my Major Proposition , &c. but how into the Conclusion . ] As if , had it been so indeed , it had been a Prodigy in Logick , to have a Term in the Conclusion , that had been in one of the Premises . But to answer in your own Figure of speaking : You cannot but know , that in the Place you Animadvert upon , and where I used the term Capable , I made no Syllogism at all ; and so distinguished not the Major , the Minor , and the Conclusion ; but only interpreted a Text , Gen. 17. 9 , 10. Nor is the Argument I make , to be disposed into but One ; it doth consist of Many Syllogisms : and what is a Conclusion in one Syllogism , may ( I hope ) be a Major Proposition in another . But you proceed : Whereas you tell me , ( say you ) That my Admiration is more the Object of Yours ; after I have granted , that God commanded Abraham , Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed , in General Terms , wherein Both Sexes may seem to be comprehended ; you should have added , to have done well , [ As if I had not ] that which follows also , That yet it is evident , that the Males only were to be Actually signed : And therefore to say , That the Females were Vertually and Reputatively signed , in the Circumcision of the Males , is not to the purpose ; for according to that Rule , the Females should be only Virtually and Reputatively , not Actually Baptized . And in this Respect therefore , to say as you now do , That the putting of the Sign on all those in Abraham's Family , that were capable of it ; and the wearing of it by those , may be [ I said , must be ] interpreted the putting of it on all ; can be of no Advantage at all , in the present Dispute . In this Paragraph , I have again an ordinary Instance of your great Candour , and Sincerity , which will be very Manifest , when I have told you , That notwithstanding a Sly Insinuation to the contrary , I did add , and that in Terms sufficiently expressive , more than once , that the Males only were Actually signed , with Circumcision ; or else , how could I argue as I did , and you grant I did , That the Females must be understood to be so Reputatively ; For if the Females were signed but in Reputation , and Interpretation , the Males only could be Actually signed . And to confirm all I have now said , I need but Repeat the Argument I made before , which was as follows . [ But your Admiration is more the Object of mine : After you have granted , that God commanded Abraham , ( Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed ) in General Terms ; wherein , say you , Both Sexes may seem to be comprehended , ( and indeed , I say , are so : ) For if he did command in General Terms , that Abraham and All his ( Seed , you say ) should keep the Covenant , in the Sign and Token of it ; and yet , afterward , did Institute Circumcision to be that Sign and Token , which [ Mark this ] was not competent to All. How can the Generality of the Precept , ( Thou shalt put the Sign on All Thine , when Circumcision , that is not competible to All , [ Mark that again ] is that Sign ) be understood Accommodously and conveniently , as it must be , but thus ; Thou shalt put the Sign on All thine that are Capable of it ; and the wearing of it by These , shall be interpreted and understood the putting of it on All. ] Thus , as Now , the Gentiles are Counted for Seed ; so Then , the Females were Counted for signed . This was the Sense I gave , and This the Argument with which I urged it : If you approved not the Sense , why did you not reply to the Argument , and give a Sense more congruous ? But if you do approve It , why , in your Answer , do you cloud and darken it with words , and make as if you disowned it as a False One ? But a true Sense it is , you do not , you dare not deny it . Ay , but if true , you say , It is not to the Purpose . That , I grant , may be ; not to Your Purpose , but sufficiently to Mine . No , ( say you ) not to That neither ; for then the Females should only be reputatively Baptized , because they were only reputatively Circumcized . ] As if Females were not Actually to wear a Sign they are equally capable of with the Males , because they were but Interpretatively to wear a Sign they were not capable of but so . Thus far I have followed you step by step , and written in a Fashion not mine own , but yours ; both to make you sensible of the great Provokativeness , and of the as great Unfitness and Undecency of it . But I am weary of this Drudgery ; and therefore , in what remains , resolve to content my self with summing up the Substance of what you offer ; and that as well without improper Reflections , as with all the Clearness and Fulness I can ; and so return my Answers . The first thing offered by you of any moment , is to This Sense ; That the Immediate Obligation which was laid upon Abraham , and his Seed after him in their Generations , was not to keep the Covenant in the Sign of It in General Terms , as I would have it ; but only to keep the Covenant in that Particular Sign of Circumcision ; there being ( say you ) no other Sign mentioned or implied , but that Gen. 17. 9 , 10 , in which the latter words are only Exegetical of the former , Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , &c. in the 9th . Verse ; and how the 10th . explains , namely in Circumcision . And seeing this Objection hath something in it very pertinent , ( for I will do you all the Right imaginable ) I hold my self obliged in order to the removing of it , and consequently to the further illustrating and clearing of my Argument , to shew ; First , That the Immediate Obligation and Incumbence mentioned in the 9th Verse , cannot be to keep the Covenant in , but Circumcision ; and consequently , that what is said Verse the 10th , is not meerly Exegetical of the Obligation in the 9th . Secondly , That the Immediate Obligation and Incumbence in the 9th . Verse , is to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it : this is Primary : And then , that that which is added in the 10th . Verse , is but a Secondary Institution of a Particular Sign , for that time . And , Thirdly , I will shew , That there is a plain Intimation , and consequently more than a meer hint , that some other Sign must be observed by the Seed , than that of Circumcision . As for the First ; That the Immediate , Primary Obligation and Incumbence , mentioned in the 9th . Verse , cannot be to keep the Covenant in Circumcision only ; and consequently , that the 10th . is not meerly Exegetical of the 9th . is evident : For if the Primary and Immediate Obligation in the 9th . Verse , were to keep the Covenant in Circumcision , then the believing Gentile shou'd be as much obliged to keep the Covenant so , as the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham ; seeing Those are equally at least , if not more principally comprehended in the Seed , than These . This is evident ; for the Subject of the Obligation is , in all respects , the same with That of the Promise . [ In the Promise it is , I will establish my Covenant between Me and Thee , and thy Seed after Thee , in their Generations : and in the Obligation it is ; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , Thou and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations : The same Subject in all respects in Both. ] And therefore , seeing the Subject of the Promise is , at least , as Comprehensive of the Spiritual , as of the Carnal Seed , of the Gentile that believeth , as well as of the Hebrews ; the One is no more to be exempted and discharged from the Duty and Obligation , than the Other : and if Circumcision be that Duty and Obligation , Both are equally bound to submit to That . All the Seed is in the Obligation , as much as in the Promise , the same words to express it ; and , I hope , you will not distinguish , nor limit , where the Scripture doth not . And if the Primary and Immediate Obligation of the Covenant cannot be ( as you may see it cannot ) to keep it in , but Circumcision ; it follows , that It is to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it , in general Terms ; and then , afterward , in Circumcision , to begin with , as the first Sign : So that , This must be the Sense of the Text : I will Establish my Covenant between Me and Thee , and thy Seed ; and therefore , Thou and thy Seed shall keep my Covenant , in the Sign of it : and that Sign at first , and for the time being , the present Dispensation among Those that shall descend from Th●● according to the Flesh , or be adjoyned to ●hem shall be Circumcision . This is a fair , a plain , and easie , and natural Sense ; a Sense , which no Exception from the Words themselves can lie against : and therefore , a Sense as much to be preferred before Yours , as that which is Convenient , ought to be before that which is Not. And This I evidenced in my former Letter , from the very Grammar of the Text. But besides what I have said in my former Letter , in demonstration of the Sense given ; that which doth abundantly confirm it to be the True , is , That the Limitation of the Subjects in the Particular Obligation to Circumcision , ver . 10 , 11. is very different from That in the General Obligation , ver . 9. For whereas it was said Vers. the 9th ; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , Thou and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations ; when he comes in the 10th . to institute Circumcision , he saith not , This is my Covenant , which thou shalt keep , Thou and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations : But , This is my Covenant , which you ( You ) shall keep between Me and You , and thy Seed after thee : And the being of it a Sign and Token , is restrained also ; And it shall be a Token or Sign of the Covenant between Me and You : A Sign for this Time , and People , and Administration . He saith not , for You , and for thy Seed after thee . If you say , I am too Critical ; I say , This is a Text that must be understood Critically : The Apostle was as Critical upon it as I , or any Man can be , when he observed , it is said Seed , as speaking of one , and not Seeds : and what he saith , is the proper Key to unlock the Text. And yet , in regard the Text hath been Interpreted by very few in this manner , to add some more Illumination to the Sense I make of It , I propose to be considered , that not only other Scriptures , but even this Scripture doth make Distinction between the Family of Abraham that then was which in the Mistery represented all his Carnal Descendants , ( between that ) and the Children of the Promise , which were afterwards to be ; which were signified by the Seed , and afterward were typed in Isaac the Son of the Promise ; it being said , In Isaac ( not in Ishmael , who then was ) shall thy Seed be called . Now , though God had said in the 9th . Verse , Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore ; that is , thou shalt keep the Sign of my Covenant ; Thou and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations ; to signifie , that the Children of the Promise were obliged to that Duty and Incumbence arising from the Covenant , as well as the Children of the Flesh : Yet , when he comes to institute Circumcision in Particular , he saith of it indeed , This is my Covenant : or , This is the Sign of my Covenant : But he saith not , This is my Covenant , which Thou , Thou and Thy Seed after thee , in their Generations , shall keep ; but which You ( You ) shall keep : You to whom I speak . Thou Abraham , and thy Natural Houshold and Family Here ; it is You , ( You ) and not the Seed , the Spiritual Seed : for Isaac , in whom the Seed is called , was not there , he was yet unborn . It is You , ( He speaks to those present ; ) Thou Abraham , and thy Natural Houshold and Family ; this is the Sign of my Covenant , which You ( You ) shall keep , as a Sign of that Covenant which I have made between Me and You , and thy Seed after thee . Me and You ; thee Abraham , and thy Natural Houshold and Family here , between Me and You , and thy Seed after thee ; that Seed , which shall be called in Isaac , thy Spiritual Houshold and Seed . And what was the Covenant , or Sign of the Covenant , which They ( and not the Seed ) were to keep then ? What ? No other Covenant or Sign , than that of Circumcision ? This is my Covenant , which you shall keep , Every Man-Child among you ( not among the Seed , but among You ) shall be Circumcized ; and you shall Circumcize the Flesh of your Fore-skin : [ You still , not the Seed . ] And what was Circumcision for ? It was for a Sign and Token of the Covenant ; and to Whom it was to be so , is clearly implied in the Limitation : It shall be a Token , a Sign of the Covenant between Me and You. Not Me and You , and thy Seed after thee . It shall be a Sign and Token of the Covenant , in the Dispensation of it , which now is between Me and You ; not in the Dispensation of it , which shall be between Me and thy Seed : It shall be a Token of my Covenant , as it is between Me and You ; thee Abraham , and thy Natural Houshold and Family : But not as it is to be transacted between Me , and thy Spiritual Seed . If you say , ( for I will say for you all I can imagine possible to be said , with any Colour ) That the Sense should rather be this ; This is my Covenant , which you shall keep : That is , which Thou Abraham , and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations , shall keep : And this shall be a Sign-and Token between Me and You ; that is , between Me and Thee , and Thy Seed after Thee , in their Generations . ] If you say , This is the Sense of the Text , I must be plain to tell you , It cannot be so ; and that because he doth so plainly distinguish in It , between You and the Seed : This is the Covenant , which you shall keep between Me and You , and thy Seed after thee . So that You , which is so plainly Contradistinguished and opposed to the Seed , cannot possibly be understood to comprehend It. And it is also considerable , that he saith , This is my Covenant , which you shall keep between Me and You , thy Seed ; not Between Me and Thee , and thy Seed : And yet it doth refer to Verse the 9th . where it is said , Thou shalt keep my Covenant , Thou and thy Seed . But here , You is put instead of Thou , to signifie that Thou in the 9th . Verse , must be understood of Abraham not Personally only , but Collectively ; Abraham standing there for Himself , and his Natural Family : Thou , and thy Seed , is Abraham and Christ ; Both in the Mystery . This last Consideration minds me of the Third Particular to be demonstrated ; which is , That Another Sign besides that of Circumcision , is clearly intimated in the Text we discourse on , as a thing that should be afterwards . And this is manifest ; for whereas he had said , That the Seed , as well as Abraham , ( and under Abraham I have proved the Natural Off-spring and Family of Abraham comprehended , ) was to keep the Covenant in the Sign , or to keep the Sign of the Covenant , in the 9th . Verse ; and he instituted Circumcision , but to be a Sign between Him and Abraham , and Abraham's Natural Off-spring and Family ; and to be kept but by Them , and not by the Spiritual Seed : [ This is the Sign of the Covenant , which you ( not which Thou and thy Seed ) shall keep ; and it shall be a Token of my Covenant , [ as ] between Me and You ; not [ as ] between Me and Thee , and thy Seed after thee . ] What remaineth , I say , seeing the Seed is equally obliged as well as Abraham , to keep the Covenant in some Sign , as was proved before ; and that it was not to keep it in the Sign of Circumcision , as is evident Now ; what remaineth , but that there is some other Sign , in which It was to keep it , that should be a Token of the Covenant in that Administration of it , which should be afterward between God and the Seed ; as Circumcision was of the same Covenant , but in the Dispensation and Transaction of it , then , between God and Abraham's Person , and Natural Houshold ? Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant , as administred between God and Abraham ; and Baptism the Token of the same Covenant , as administred between God and the Seed : If Abraham was Circumcized , Christ was Baptized . Upon the whole ; Let us now review the Text , and see it in the entire Sense : And thus I Paraphrase it . I will Establish my Covenant between Me and Thee , and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations , for an Everlasting Covenant , &c. And therefore Thou , Thou and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations , shall keep the Sign of my Covenant : And This is the Sign of my Covenant , [ That my Covenant , which is between Me , on the One Part , and YOU , thou Abraham , and thy Natural Family and Houshold , on the Other Part ; and thy Seed after thee , on the Third Part. ] I say , This is the Sign that YOU , for your part , shall keep as a Sign of this Covenant , which is between Me and YOU , and thy Seed after thee ; Every Man-Child among You shall be Circumcized ; and You shall Circumcize the Flesh of Your Fore-skin . And this Circumcision shall be a Special and Particular Sign and Token of the Covenant , as it is between Me and YOU ; between Me and Thee , Abraham , and thy Natural Houshold . But as for the Seed , no mention of It , when he saith , This shall be a Sign of the Covenant , &c. which sufficiently implieth another Administration to be with That afterward . And I pray you mark , that where he calleth Circumcision the Covenant , Vers. 10. he saith , You shall keep it between Me and You , and thy Seed ; because the Covenant ( of which Circumcision was a Sign ) was a Covenant between God , and the Seed too , as well as between God and Abraham , and his Natural Family . But when he saith expresly , It shall be a Sign and Token , then he restrains it ; It shall be a Sign of the Covenant between Me and You : Implying , that though the Covenant be also with the Seed , and Circumcision was a Sign of that Covenant ; yet it was specially and particularly a Sign of it , as transacted between God and Abraham's Natural Person and Family ; and so a special and particular Sign of that Oeconomy in the Natural Houshold . It shall be a Sign between Me and You ; [ and not between Me and You , and thy Seed . ] And so much for the First Objection . What you next offer in Objection to my Argument , is ; That it follows not , that because the Substance of the Covenant on God's Part , is Immutably and Vnchangeably the same , ( that ) therefore the Duty and Incumbence is also so on ours : For seeing God hath Absolute Soveraignty in and over all his Creatures , and hath unlimited and boundless Right , as to command , so to suspend and alter the Instances and Duties of their Obedience , both as and when he pleases ; that may be the Duty of his People at one time , [ You should have added , to make it pertinent ; By vertue of the same Covenant and Edict , and in the same Respect , ] which is not so at another . This you Confirm ; because else , you see not how it should come to pass , that for at least two thousand Years before the Time of Abraham , no such Duty or Incumbence did lie on the Patriarchs ; particularly , not on Adam , on Abel , on Enoch , on Noah , or on the other Antediluvian Fathers ; of whom we do not read , that any of them were Signed , or that they were obliged to any Sign ; though you say , It cannot be denied , that they were in the Covenant of Grace , and saved by It as much as Abraham himself , or any of His. So that here is an Objection , and an Enforcement and Confirmation of that Objection . As to the Objection , ( viz. ) That it will not follow , ( that ) because the Substance of the Covenant , on God 's Part , is immutably and everlastingly the same ; therefore the Duty and Incumbence on ours , is also such : I answer . It will follow well enough , if the Duty and Incumbence on our Part , be founded on the Substance of the Covenant , which is on God's ( Part , ) as the Duty and Incumbence in dispute between us is : It being , I will Establish my Covenant between Me and Thee , and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations , for an Everlasting Covenant , to be a God to thee , and to thy Seed after thee , &c. And God said unto Abraham , Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations . For though Almighty God be absolute Soveraign over all our Persons , and also over all his own Transactions and Methods , so as he may make at one time to be our Duty , that which he doth not another ; and may transact and deal in way of Covenant with some , when yet he hath not pleas'd to do so with others : Yet if at any time , or with any Persons , he pleases to transact in way of Covenant , and to confirm that Transaction by his Word and Oath , the two immutable things in which it is impossible that he should Lye , and also to bottom the Duty and Incumbence to which he doth oblige by vertue of that Covenant , on that which is unchangably and immutably confirmed in it ; We can no more , without a Blasphemous Imputation to him of Inconstancy and Weakness , introduce him making an Alteration in the Duty , than in the Promise it self , seeing the Obligation to the Duty , is a necessary result and emanation of the Reason of it , and consequently , is uncapable of being changed without a change of the Covenant , the unchangable Promise of God to Abraham , and to his Seed , is the Foundation of the Duty lying on Abraham and on his Seed ; and the same Covenant as the same , must alwayes have the same effects , and make the same Duties . Ay ? but then how came it to pass that Adam , Abel , Enoch , and others the most Antient Fathers , who were under the Covenant of Grace as well as Abraham and his descendants , God being a God to them as well as to him , did not keep the Covenant in the sign thereof , if the Duty to keep the Covenant in the sign thereof be Everlastingly the same , and of an unchangable nature ? This is your Confirmation . But to manifest the Invalidity of all is said by way of Confirmation , I need but to demonstrate , First ; That though all the Fathers were saved on the account of Iesus Christ , and by vertue of the Eternal Compact and Agreement between God and him , he being the Everlasting Father ; yet ( contrary to what you do suppose ) it did not please God , at least not in the Account of the Scripture , to Transact with all , or any of them , in way of Covenant for Grace , Eternal Life and Salvation , before he did so with Abraham . Secondly , That if he had been pleased to transact , with all or any of them in way of Covenant for those ends ; yet that Transaction could not be the Covenant of Abraham ; and therefore seeing the believing Gentiles do not claim the Inheritance , Eternal Life and Salvation from by and under Adam , Abel , Enoch , Noah , or any other Covenanted Person or Persons before Abraham ( if there were any such ) but only from , by , and under Abraham , nor by vertue of any other Covenant whatever , made with all or any of them , but only by vertue of Abrahams ; It is certain that the Termes , which it pleased God to go upon with them in any transaction he had with them ( be they what they will ) are , in account of Scripture , as Little to us , as those he went upon with Abraham are much . And Thirdly , That the Obligation to keep the Covenant , Gen. 17. in the sign thereof , though it were not , and indeed could not be observed by all or any of the Antients before Abraham , yet notwithstanding , that it is in a Scriptural sence , and consequently , properly enough , called a Duty and Obligation of immutable and unchangable nature , and Everlastingly the same . The first Proposition , ( viz. ) That though all that ever were saved , were saved by vertue of the Atonement and Propitiation made by the Blessed Jesus , He being in the efficacy and vertue of his Merits and Passion , the Lamb slain even from the Foundation of the World ; yet , that , at least in the Account of Holy Scripture , it did not please God to transact with all , or any of the antient , either the Antediluvian or Postdiluvian Fathers , in way of Covenant for Grace , Eternal Life and Salvation before Abraham , is a manifest Verity . For though all the Fathers that were saved , were so by some degree and kind of Faith ; and were so by Jesus Christ , and through the Eternal Covenant ( as Divines call it ) of Redemption between God and him ; and though they all did worship and honour God in way of Sacrifices , in all which the Blessed Jesus , the true Lamb of God , was figured and represented ; and though Jesus Christ himself saith , before Abraham was , I am , yet , that it pleased God to transact with all , or any , or either of them , before Abraham in way of Covenant or Promise for Eternal Life , and Salvation , or , that Jesus Christ was Preached to them , or otherwise exhibited then in Types and Figures , ( which we are not told they understood ) is no where said or recorded , or so much as hinted in the whole Scripture . Our Saviour saith indeed , that Abraham did see his day , but he saith not , nor do the Scriptures say that Adam , Abel , Enoch , Noah , &c. saw it . What might be Preached by the Spirit , further then the Scriptures tell us , and then the Holy Ghost is pleased in them to Reveal to us , is no proper subject for our now Inquiry ; We are now to mind but what is Preached by the Scriptures , and Recorded in them ; Remembring , that the very silence of the Scriptures is Mystical , as is evident in the case of Melchizedeck , who though ( whatever Learned Cunaeus thought ) he were a Man , and consequently was not , really , without Father , without Mother , without Genealogy , without beginning of dayes or end of Life ; yet for great ends , ( he ) is taken and expresly said to be so ; and that , because nothing , in the Least , is written and recorded in the Holy Scriptures touching him , as to these particulars . And shew me any Scripture that but hints a Covenant made with Adam , Abel , Enoch , with all , or any of the Antient Fathers before Abraham , or Promise made to them , or any of them , of Grace , Eternal Life and Salvation , wherein Almighty God did pass his word to be a God to them , or either of them , and their , or either of their Seed after them . I do not doubt but God was a God to them all , as I doubt not that Melchisedeck had a Father , Mother , Genealogy , beginning of dayes , and end of Life , but as the Holy Scriptures do no where mention any of these in Relation to Melchisedeck , so they no where intimate that God before Abraham , was a God to any of the Antient Fathers , in a way of Covenant or promise for Grace , Eternal Life or Salvation , and therefore , the least that can be said , if we should be prevailed to acknowledge any such transaction , must be ( seeing the Scripture is so deeply silent in it ) that as there is a mistery in the silence of the Scripture touching Melchisedeck , so there is a Mystery in the silence of it touching any such Covenant or Promise ( if any such were ) to the Fathers ; and that as Melchisedeck , to be a figure of the Eternal Priest , must be brought in in Scripture as a man dropt out of the Clouds , without any mention of Father , Mother , &c. So likewise , to the end that Abraham might be according to the Scriptures , what in the Divine Council he was appointed and set up to be , namely , the Father of all the faithful , or express Believers in Christ , there must be no record in the Sacred Scriptures of any Promise of Christ before , as made to any other ; or of any Explicit belief and Faith in him before for had there been either , how could Abraham possibly be understood , in the account of the Scriptures , to have been the Father , and so the first of all the faithful , of all Believers in Christ ? He only is first before whom no other is . Christ ( I deny not ) may have been Preached before Abraham , and also promised by the Spirit , but he is not Revealed in the Scriptures so to have been either Preached , or Promised : The Scripture is entirely silent as to any such Transaction ; If any such Covenant or Promise were of Christ before , certainly in the account of Scripture it is as none , and so must be looked on of us as none ; not the least impression or footstep of any such concern appearing . I acknowledge the old Fathers to be said to have had faith in God , but they are not said to have had any in Christ , and these Faiths are so distinguished , that they may be Actually divided ; you believe in God , sayes Christ , believe also in me ; The Old Fathers did believe in God , they believed both that God was , and that he was a Rewarder , but Abraham did not only believe ( as they did ) in God , but he also believed in Christ. If you ask me , but is not God 〈◊〉 a Rewarder in and through Christ , and not otherwise ? I answer yes , and yet it is possible , they might believe in God , and not believe in Christ ; They might believe God to be a Rewarder ( as some Heathen do ) though they did not know him , and therefore could not believe him to be so but in Christ : That God is , and is a Rewarder , are Points of Natural Religion ; But that Christ is , and God a Rewarder in Him , are Points of Revelation . I acknowledge that what you say is commonly taken for granted , ( viz. ) That the Promise of Christ the Seed of the Woman , was made to Adam ; ] And so much is true , that Jesus Christ is introduced by the Psalmist , as speaking of himself , and saying , that in the Volume of the Book , or ( as some do render it ) in the Head of the book it is written of him , and so ( though happily the Psalmist may have Aspect upon something else ) I grant it is , Gen. 3. 15. for when it is there said , that the Seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents head , &c. It must I confess be understood of Christ , at least in the Mystery , thus it is written of him , but that Christ was promised to Adam , is not written ; For what is written in the Volume , or in the head of the Book concerning Christ , is not written there , as spoken by way of Promise to Adam , but by way of denunciation to the Serpent , and is part of the Sentence pronounced on him ; which if indeed it were within the hearing of Adam , yet the Scripture doth not say it was so ; So little doth the Scripture concern Adam in that Transaction , how great concern soever , in reality , he was to have in it . So the Text , Gen. 3. 14 , 15. And the Lord God said to the Serpent , &c. What he sayes to Adam is verse 17. 18 , 19. and of a very different nature . Adeclaration , I acknowledge , there is of Christ , from the beginning ; but in the Record of the Scripture , that declaration is not noted as a transaction between God and Adam , by way of Covenant or Promise ; All is said concerning it , is in what did pass between God and the Serpent , and some ad loc chuse to call it a Prophecy , not a Promise of Christ. And it adds no little confirmation to the truth of what I have now discoursed , that after the Revelation of Jesus Christ in what passed between God and the Serpent ; we have not for the long space of above Two Thousand Years the least Intimation in all the Scriptures , that any of the Fathers of that time had heard of that Revelation ; ( I do not say they had not heard , but I say the Scriptures do not so much as hint they had ; ) and though the Scriptures tell us , that in that time Righteousness was preached by the Spirit , yet they do not in the least tell us , that Christ was preached by it . And surely , had the declaration made concerning Christ in the Third Gene●●●… been , in the Account of the Scriptures , a Covenant or Promise of him to Adam , &c. I should much admire that the Apostle would insist so highly ( as he doth ) on the being of the Promise of Salvation by Christ for but some hundreds of years before the Law , when had this been so , he might have insisted on thousands ; and the Apostle Peter dates the Covenant of Grace from Abraham , Act. 2. 25 , 26. and before him , the Psalmist , Psal 105. 8 , 9 , 42. But secondly , on supposal that it had pleased God to transact with Adam , or any of the old Fathers before Abraham , in way of Covenant and Promise for grace , Eternal Life and Salvation ; yet that Covenant and Promise could not be the Covenant of Abraham , in which it pleased God to Promise to be a God to him particularly , and to his Seed after him ; For the Covenant of Abraham could not be before Abraham himself existed : And therefore , seeing the believing Gentiles do not claim Eternal Life and Salvation from , by , and under Adam , or any other of the Antient Fathers before Abraham ; nor by vertue of any Covenant Transaction that hath passed between God and them , or any of them , but only from , by , and under Abraham , by vertue of the Covenant of Promise made with him ; It is as clear that the Termes , Conditions and Methods on and in which it pleased God to transact with all , or any of those old Fathers , ( be those termes and methods any whatever ) ( they ) are nothing to us , as that the Termes , Conditions and Methods he is pleased to transact upon with Abraham in the Covenant of Promise , are all in all to us . That is , in plain English , That it is nothing in the least to us believing Gentiles , whether the Fathers before the Flood , or after the Flood before Abraham , were in Covenant or not in Covenant , were signed or not signed , seeing we claim not from , by , and under them , as Heirs to them , but it is much to us , on what Termes it pleased God to transact and deal with Abraham , and under what Conditions , and with what duties Abraham did receive the Covenant and Promise , whether himself and his must be signed or not signed ; seeing it is from , by , and under him , and by vertue of the Covenant of Promise made with him , that we do claim , and hold . And surely , if we do claim , and hold in , by and under Abraham , by the Deed and Charter made to him , we must also claim and hold as he did , under the Duties and Conditions in that Deed and Charter , and now , is it not to deny the Conclusion after Concession of the Premises , for you to deny Believers and their Children must be signed , when yet you do acknowledge they are under Abrahams Covenant , which ( as I have proved ) requires such signing . Ay! but you will say , the Patriarchs were in the Covenant of Grace before Abraham , all as much as we , and yet signing had no use among them ; and therefore the Incumbence and Obligation to sign and to be signed by vertue of the Covenant , being founded not on the substance of it , but on the Administration , cannot be Immutably and everlastingly the same . ] And , indeed , it must be acknowledged ( that ) signing was not in use among the Fathers before Abraham , at least not in the Account of the Scriptures , the Scriptures being deeply silent touching any such thing ; but then the Scripture is as silent touching any Covenant ; transaction made with those Fathers , as it is touching signing by vertue of such a Covenant ; So that , you are too positive Sir , and without Book , to affirm them as much in Covenant as we , and their Children as Holy by vertue of a Covenant transaction as ours . But supposing though not granting a Covenant transaction to have passed between God and the Fathers before Abraham , for Grace , Eternal Life and Salvation through the Messiah , and supposing also , no signing by vertue of that Covenant , for all that space of time , ( which however , on supposal there was such a Covenant is a hardness to think ; ) yet , ( in regard that Covenant could not be the Covenant of Abraham ) though there was no signing then , the Obligation to sign and to be signed by vertue of the Covenant of Abraham , ( which as I have shewed doth indispensibly and necessarily require it , ) is as Immutably and Everlastingly the same , and in the same Scriptural Sence , as the very Covenant it self is so ; It is for Everasting , though not from Everlasting ▪ it is Everlasting à Parte Post , though not à Parte ante ; I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee , and thy Seed after thee , in their Generations for an Everlasting Covenant , &c. Everlasting , not a parte ante , as from Everlasting , for before Abraham was , this Covenant could not be between God and Abraham , to be a God to him , and to his Seed after him , and therefore it must be understood a parte post , as a Covenant to Everlasting ; And in this sence , the Obligation and Duty of the Covenant is as capable of being Everlasting as the Covenant it self ; which was the third particular to be demonstrated . What I have discoursed already , might justly supersede any further answer to what you offer in the following Paragraph , about the Church Membership of Infants , on occasion of my saying [ that the Church is one , though the Testaments be not , and that Children were Members not only of the Legal , but of the Gospel Church , and that , for above Four Hundred Years before the Law ; It being Gospel that was Preached to Abraham : ] for you say on that occasion , that the Gospel was Preached too to Adam , at the time that he was told that the Seed of the woman should break the head of the Serpent . But I have proved that it was not told ( as you express it ) to Adam , but to the Serpent , as being spoken not by way of Promise to the one , but of denunciation of a Sentence on the other ; nor , in the Account of the Scriptures , was the Gospel Preached to Abel , Enoch , Noah , &c. nor were they , in the Account of the Scriptures , in and under any Covenant of Grace for Eternal Life and Salvation , much less in and under the same Covenant , with believing Abraham , and his true Seed ; The Covenant of Grace , in the Promise of the Messiah for Salvation and Eternal Life , being in the Account of the Scriptures , first transacted with believing Abraham , and no otherwise . And here , by the way , observe as a matter of no small moment , that Almighty God did no sooner , in the Account of the Scriptures , transact with man in way of Covenant for Eternal Life and Salvation , through the Messiah , but he obliged those in that Covenant , to keep it in the sign , and that from the beginning , as soon as he did institute any sign of the Covenant of Grace for Parents ( which , in the Account of the Scriptures , was as soon as he Established the Covenant , ) he did ordain it should be put on the Children also , and as much commanded the wearing of it by Infants , as by the Adult . So that from the very beginning of a Covenant transaction for Eternal Life and Salvation , or in the first making of the Covenant of Grace according to the Scriptures , ( and we are to begin our accounts where they do , ) the Obligation to keep the sign of the Covenant , or to keep the Covenant in the sign of it , was laid on Abraham for Children and Infants , as well as for himself and others in Age ; and that , by special direction . And now , consider once again if there be no connexion between the substance of the Covenant and the Obligation ( viz. to be signed ; ) Is not the substance of the Covenant on Gods part , the Promise to Abraham to be a God to him , and to his Seed after him in their Generations ? And hath not God said , [ because ] I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed , therefore thou shalt keep my Covenant , thou and thy Seed ? So plainly God hath put together the Promise , which is on his part , and the Duty and Obligation that lyes on ours : and when God hath joyned them , and put them together , what man , or men shall dare to separate , and put them asunder ? Again , whereas you say , it is one and the same Church for substance , that the Old Patriarchs before Abraham , and that we the Believing Gentiles as well as believing Abraham himself , did and do belong unto . ] I answer , it is one and the same Invisible Church ; But if we take a Church visibly and Formally , ( as now we are to take it , when we do speak of Church-Membership : ) Namely , for a Corporation or visible Society of Holy Men , framed , and formed under certain special , external and distinguishing Laws and Institutions , for Spiritual ends ; Then I say , so taking it , we do not read in Holy Scriptures of any Church , any formal Church , any more than of a formal Covenant before Abraham ; It being in his Family that it pleased God to lay the first Foundation of the Common-wealth and Polity of Israel , and to form to himself a special Corporation and Society of Men , under visible and distinguishing Tokens , and this is properly called a Church . For indeed a Church is nothing but a Company of called ones , visibly Associated ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , A Church is termed so from calling ; Now as in the Account of Holy Scripture , Abraham and his Family were the First that God transacted with in way of Covenant , for Grace and Salvation through the Messiah ; So in the same account of Holy Scriptures , the first visible gathered Church , was in Abrahams Family , Abraham being the first that God in the Holy Scriptures is affirmed to have called out from his own Kindred , and his own Countrey to another that he knew not , which calling of him from his own Countrey to another that he knew not , was a figure ( and by our Apostle is interpreted to be so Heb. 11. ) of the true Spiritual calling of a Christian , which is a calling out of , and from the present evil World unto the Heavenly Country , the New Jerusalem that is above . Not but that before Abraham there were Righteous and good men , who in their Lives and Conversations , divided from the Communion of the World ; Men that lived justly and Righteously , and so were truly called out of the World , but yet they did not ( at least the Scripture doth not Intimate they did ) actually divide and separate from others into distinct Societies , under any external and distinguishing Rites before Abraham ; yes there were Righteous and good men before Abraham , divided from the Common in the Piety , Sobriety , and Justice of their lives , there were Sons of God , distinguished by their Piety and Righteousness from the Sons of men before ; The Sons of God took unto them the Daughters of Men ; The Sons of good Men Marryed the Daughters of bad : But they were not Actually divided into distinct Societies and Corporations , under distinguishing Rites and Ceremonies before , and therefore there was not a visible Organical Church before . And if what I now assert be true ( as true it is , for the Holy Scripture no where intimates not in the least any such Formalization , Incorporation , or Distinguishing Association of Righteous good men for Spiritual and Holy ends before Abraham ; ) then certainly no reasonable man hath any cause to admire that before Abraham there should be no signing ; I mean , no use of any Initiating Rite , and Rite of Matriculation , or of entring into the Spiritual Corporation and Society of the Church ; for no Matriculation , no Initiation into any Corporation or Society is to be conceived before the Corporation and Society it self be Constituted and Formed ; Nor can any Rite and Ceremony of Matriculation or Initiation be conceived extant before Matriculation and Initiation it self be so . No wonder then if no signing before Abraham , seeing no Formal Church before Abraham ; But yet assoon as it pleased God in Infinite Wisdom to ordain the Incorporating of Holy Men into a visible Society for Holy and Spiritual ends , by making a Formal Covenant with them , and so distinguishing and dividing of them from others , he was then pleased to assume into that Society , as members of it , Children as well as Parents , Infants as well as Adult ones ; And to ordain , that the Sign of the Covenant , as the Rite and Ceremony of their Initiation and Admission ( visibly and externally ) into the Society of the Righteous , or into the Church , should be put upon them ; and this in deep Council , the better to perpetuate his Church ; So that from the beginning of the constitution of a Church , Infants were admitted unto Membership in it ; and this is the Nursery of the Church . What you next tell me , ( viz. ) that there are other signes of the Covenant besides Baptism ; for instance , as Circumcision of old ( I believe you meant the Passover of old ; ) so the Lords Supper now , of which Infants are not by vertue of the Covenant , or any Administration of it , taken to be proper Subjects ] This , after what is said already , is altogether impertinent ; ● for the Sign we dispute about , is that Initiating Sign only , which is the Rite of admitting persons into the visible Organiz'd Society of the faithful ( a Society afterwards called the Common-wealth of Israel , ) It being of this only that Gen. 17. 9 , 10. ( from which I argued ) can be understood : and this Baptism is , as Circumcision was . Nor was the Passover ever such a Sign , nor is the Lords Supper one now . Ay! but if Infants are capable of being Initiated into the Church of Christ by Baptism , then say you , they cannot justly be denyed the Proper means of nourishment and growth by being admitted to the Supper also . ] But this is a gross non sequitur , For what can be more evident than that the Subjects of the Ordinance of Baptism and of that of the Lords Supper are very different , as different as those of the Ordinance of Circumcision , and that of the Pascal Lamb ( were ; ) For as the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision was above 400 years before that of the Passover , so even Jesus Christ himself ; to intimate the same difference , did institute the Ordinance of Baptism ( for his Disciples Baptized ) long before his Death , whereas that of the Holy Supper ( being but a Commemoration of it ) was not Instituted but just before his Passion . And these considerations lead me to the last thing of any moment which you offer , a thing on which your whole Party do much insist , and is , that as Infants are uncapable of self Examination , of preparation for the Lords Supper , and of discerning of the Lords Body , which are necessary requisites to a due participation of that Holy Ordinance , and therefore are denyed it ; So they are equally uncapable of Faith and of Repentance which are the requisite conditions of Admission to Baptism , and consequently , on equal reason are to be refused both the one , and the other . ] But here you should have proved Faith and Repentance necessary Conditions of all admission to Baptism , or Initiation into the Gospel Church ; I grant them to be so to that of the Adult Heathen ; and so they were before , in some degree , to those of them that would Associate with the Family of Abraham ; And so they were to Abraham himself , for Abraham himself received the Sign of Circumcision , or Circumcision a sign of the Covenant between God and him , as a Seal and full Confirmation of that Righteousness by Faith , which he had while Vncircumcised ; But then , as Abraham was admitted for his own Faith , but his Family in , by and under him , as Dedicated by Him ; So now the Adult Heathen if they be admitted , it must be in a way of Faith and Repentance for themselves ; but for their Families ; Those in them that are not yet Adult and come to Age , and in a Capacity of consenting or refusing for themselves ; They must be admitted as such were in Abrahams Family , viz. in , by and under their Parents and Heads , who Dedicate them . But as to this so much is said by so many others , and so much is hinted also by my self in my Former Letter , that I do not think it worth the while to stay longer upon it ; Only I find in Mr. Cradock in his Harmony of the Evangelists , a Passage so full in this particular , and so convincing , that I should do you some wrong , and my discourse more , to omit it : First , saith he he gives them a Command and Commission to goe and Disciple all Nations , Baptizing them in the name of the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost , beginning at Jerusalem , [ Isa. 2. 3. and 40. 9. Psal. 110. 2. ] and declares that , he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved , and he that believeth not shall be damned . For whereas before he confined them to Preach only to Israel , now they must Preach to every Creature ( namely , that is fit to be Preached to ) that is , to all Nations . And such as were converted by their Ministry from Heathenism to Christianity , they were to Baptize . So that this is not the first Institution of Baptism , but an inlarging of their former Commission . Neither are these words any Direction as to that other matter or receiving or admitting Infants , or those that were not Infants ▪ to Baptism : That , we may suppose was sufficiently notified to them before , both by the common practise of their Ancestors in the Jewish Religion , and by the vulgar notion of Baptism , whilst it was familiarly used among the Jews , both to their own and their Proselite Children , and possibly by Christs special direction also , though not mentioned by any of the Evangelists , who set not down all the words of the First Institution of Baptism , which long preceded this time , as appears plainly from those words , Joh. 4. 1 , 2. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples then John , though Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples . Certainly , Christ Instituted Baptism , and gave his Apostles Commission before they took upon them to Baptize any , which we find they did in great Numbers ; yet the Gospel does not express the words of this First Institution , nor the certain time of it , in the course of Christs Ministry among them ; but certainly it was sometime before that passage of story related in that forementioned place , Joh. 4. &c. ] To that assertion of mine , [ That the Churches of Christ universally have had a custom of Baptizing Infants , and for ought appeares , perpetually ; ] you tell me with a presumption too big for a greater Antiquary , ( so much more easie it is to tell then to do , ) that you could easily give sufficient evidence that the Churches of Christ universally have not had such a custom : ] And I pray you , if it be so easy , oblige the World , and me particularly , by giving it ; for still I think that in the time ( at least ) of St. Austin , the Custom was Vniversal , and that then , it was taken also , to have been perpetually so ; and this , by an Apostolical Tradition . But that is more Extravagant which you add immediately after , and which may serve for a Specimen of your Ability to perform the boast you made before , that we do not find any footsteps of Infants Baptism in the World till some Hundreds of years after Christ , not till the conceit grew and took place of giving Gods Grace by it in Cyprians time . ] But how learnedly and knowingly this is spoken may be seen in Tertullian , who if you know any thing in Antiquity , must be acknowledged to have been , in time before Cyprian , as being the most Antient of the Latine Fathers , and born in the year Two Hundred ; and yet he in his Book de Bapt. c. 18. where for certain Reasons ( but I pray you mark , the Novelty of the practise is not one of them , ) he doth Dehort the Baptizing of Infants ( as he did also advise the deferring of Baptism to the Adult , and in both was singular , ) doth by that very dehortation , plainly intimate the common practise of it . Itaque saith he , pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione , etiam Aetate , Baptismi Cunctatio Vtilior est : praesertim tamen circa Parvulos , quid enim necesse est , si non tam necesse , sponsores etiam periculo ingeri , &c. So Tertullian ; but again , what can you say to Irenaeus who was before Tertullian , and near the times of the Apostles , when he tells us adversus haeres . l. 2. 39. Christus venit omnes per seipsum salvare , omnes Inquam , qui per seipsum Renascuntur in Deum ; Infantes & parvulos & pueros ; and by Renascentia is understood Baptism , as is universally agreed by all learned in the Fathers . And whereas I affirmed [ Antipedobaptisme to make the Church of Christ a Church unius aetatis ; ] you mistook my meaning when you took it to have been that your Opinion was but a Novelty , ( though that be true too ; ) and that seeing the Church of Christ cannot be without a true Baptism , and true Baptism , in your sense of Anabaptism , hath been not much above an Age or Century , particularly since the time of Muncer ( whom Munster calls Monetarius , least he should be thought of Kin to him ; ) and since John of Leyden and Knipperdolling ; That therefore before the arising of these new lights , the true Church for many hundred years , had no existence and being . ] For to do my self right , and you no wrong , I meant it not in using that expression ; I alluded in it to L. Florus , who speaking of the Romans in their Civil Original under Romulus , while yet they had no Women , and so no hope of Posterity ; sayes , Res erat Unius Aetatis , populus virorum : and I intimated by it , that Antipedobaptisme by grubbing up of Infants , and throwing them out of the Church , doth indeed destroy the Nursery of the Church , and so , in one Age , after the Extinction of the old stocks , doth put it in no small hazard of being utterly extirped ; And now having this occasion , I dare , in demonstration of the Justice of the hint , almost appeal unto your own Experience , if of the Children of Persons of your perswasion , within the compass of your own knowledge , that are Adult , and come to years of Discretion , and were not Baptized in their Infancy by some Relation or Friend , one almost in ten is any wise Baptized , and so entred into any Church ( either yours or ours ; ) for growing up , dislike of your Opinion for the most part doth keep them from you ; And Shame of being Baptized in Age , ( a thing disused , and as things of that nature commonly are , a thing that makes talk and gazing , ) keeps them from us ; And thus being in no Church , are visibly in the state of Heathens . In your next remark , [ when I make the denyal of Infants Baptism a robbing Parents of a sensible ground of hope for their Children in case of the decease of any of them in Infancy , ] you do me manifest Injustice to Insinuate a meaning of Opus operatum , a thing as far from my intentions as words . But I have sufficiently expressed my Sentiments in that particular in the Paragraph reflected on , to those that are considerate and candid , and therefore , there remains no more to be said of it now . But as to what you offer in the last place , [ concerning the Powerful Motive to dedicate himself to God , which , I said , Antipedobaptisme depriveth a Child of ; ] namely , that for your part , you are of opinion that nothing can be a greater hinderance to him than Baptism , since he is hereby induced to reckon himself already a good Christian , and in a state of Salvation , as having had the Sign of the Covenant already applyed to him in his Infant State , without looking after the new birth , and being acquainted with the Mystery of Spiritual Regeneration , &c. ] I profess I was astonisht to read it , both for the Scandal and offence it cannot but administer to those of a contrary perswasion ; as also for the ill reflection which , with too much Colour , it may be interpreted to imply upon the Wisdom and Counsel of God , who , both before the Law , and under the Law , was pleased to Institute the Signing of Children with the Sign of the Covenant ; which doubtless , had it been an impediment and hinderance to their Regeneration , and to Salvation , much more if a most powerful one , he , in his infinite goodness and clemency , as well as wisdom and conduct , would never have done . And do you indeed think that the Circumcision of Children , instead of being a furtherance to the work of Regeneration in them , was truly a hinderance to it , and that that which God intended for a meanes of Conservation and Perpetuation of his Church , was really and in effect , a way to destroy it : Where was the Wisdom of Almighty God , if he knew not what means were proper towards the Salvation of his Creatures ? And where his Goodness , if he ordained what he knew improper ? It is certain , if Baptism by being put on Children in their Infancy , in token of their being given to God in Covenant , be in it self a hinderance to their Regeneration ; Circumcision which was put on Children in Infancy , and in token of their being given to God in Covenant , could be no furtherance , and consequently was a means of all others most improper to continue the Church , and so , a means equally unworthy both of Divine Prudence and Wisdom , and of his Goodness and Mercy . Thus I have finished my defence of the Argument for Infants Baptism from Gen. 17 , and I think , have answered all is capable of being opposed against it , and yet seeing I know not but you may have more , I now offer , that if you have any thing else of any Moment to object either against the Argument it self , or against what is offered now in the defence of it ; If you propose it , so it be without unnecessary digressions into common places , and without popular trappings , and it be with the Candour and Sincerity , and with the modesty and temper that becomes a lover and seeker of Truth , I shall answer it chearfully , and therein give another Instance how much I am . Bowdon April 1st . 1682. Dear Sir , Your True Friend R. B. The Third Letter . Dear Sir , YOur Letter of the 29th . of September in Answer to that I sent you the 21st . of April , though put into so good and safe a hand , came not to mine before this 14th . of October , and then open . Happily it had occasion to call in on Friends ; and many times , the farthest way about is nearest home . However , though late come , I do assure you it is Welcome ; for I learn by it that the Controversie long depending , and which I fear'd would be Eternal , is not likely to continue much longer . And that after all the Exclamations of Evident and most Evident , of Plain and most Plain , of Scriptural , of Solid , of Substantial and Cogent which you make on what You say ; and of Chimera's , of Repugnant to Scripture , of doubtful Consequencies and ambiguous Uncertainties , of violence to the Text , of Corruption of Scripture , and of Addition to it on what I prove . The whole now is to determine on two Issues , the one Relating to the Duty enjoyned Gen. 17. 9. the other to the Subject of that duty ; [ what is meant by the Seed , and what by keeping the Covenant : ] As to the First Issue which concerns the Subject of the Duty ( for I will begin with that , ) I have abundantly evinced in my last Letter ( and yet you take no notice of it ) that by Seed in the 9th . verse , must be understood the Spiritual , as well as the Carnal Seed , and that , because the same Seed is meant in the 9th . verse that is in the 7th . and 8th . verses , the same subject in the general obligation verse the 9th . in all respects , that is in the promise , verses 7th . and 8th . and the same subject in the temporal promise verse the 8th . that is in the Spiritual verse the 7th : and the subject in the 7th . ( you grant ) doth take in all the Seed , the Spiritual as well as the Carnal , and therefore , so it must be in the 8th . and the 9th . I and in the 10th . also . Ay! but say you , the 8th . verse is to be understood only of the Carnal Seed , and why only ( say I ) unless the 7th . be also to be understood , of that only doth the Holy Ghost distinguish ? or if he do not , how dare you ? the Subjects are the same in both ; The Connexion carries it for the same Subsects ; and in both the Verses there are the ●ame words to express the subject , and why not then the same subjects meant by the same words ? Especially in regard the whole is but a continuation of one Speech of God to Abraham ; I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee , and thy Seed , verse the 7th . And I will give to thee , and thy Seed , verse the 8th . It it true ( as you suggest ) in the Letter , Canaan is Promised too , and was Possessed by the Carnal Seed , but the Litteral is not the only sence , and therefore the Litteral are not the only subjects : The Mystical and Spiritual is the principal sence , and therefore the Mystical and Spiritual are the principal subjects : Thus Argueth the Apostle , Seed ( saith he ) not Seeds : Seed , and that Seed was Isaac in the Letter , for the promise even of Canaan ( mark it ) was not made to Ishmael , though he were Abrahams Seed too , and then alive , and with him , nor to the Seed of Abraham that should derive from him by Ishmael , but it was made to Isaac , in Isaac shall thy Seed be called : and Isaac in the Letter , in the Mystery is Christ. He saith not Seeds ( saith he ) as comprehending Ishmael and Isaac , but he saith Seed , as speaking but of one , of Isaac only , which Isaac in the Truth is Christ Mystical . Further , consider though Canaan only was promised in the Letter , verse the 8th , the World is intended in the Mystery , and therefore , though it be said in the Text , The Land in which thou art a Stranger , even all the Land of Canaan , yet the Apostle amplifyeth the expression , Heb. 11. 13. and saith , They were Pilgrims and Strangers upon the Earth , not in Canaan only , but in the Earth . And if in the Promise which is made of Canaan the World be intended , well may believing Gentiles be intended in the Seed to whom it is made : For how else as they are Abrahams Seed is all theirs , if all were not some where given to Abraham and to his Seed , and where is all given to Abraham and to his Seed , and so to believing Gentiles , but here ? Read I pray advisedly , what our Apostle argues , Gal. 3. And in your next take also what I argued in my last , Paragraph by Paragraph , and so reply to it ; Then happily you will see a consequence and Cogency that yet you do not , or that you dissemble if you do . Remember also that when it is said in verse the 10th , This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and ye , and thy Seed after thee , there is no such Implication as you conceive there is in this expression [ between me and thee and thy Seed ] of the subjects of the Duty [ of keeping that Covenant , ] but of the Parties in the Covenant ; which ( as I told you formerly ) are three , and ( mark it ) God is one of them : Between me , namely , God on the one part , and ye , thou Abraham and thy natural Family here present on the other part , and thy Seed , Isaac in the Letter in whom the Seed was called , and Christ ( typified in Isaac , and in him the believing Gentiles , Children of the Promise ) in the mystery on the third part . It is unadvised to inferr that the Seed here is obliged to keep the Covenant of Circumcision by vertue of that expression , the subjects that are bound to keep it are ye , ye shall keep this my Covenant , and the [ Ye ] are distinguished from the Seed , [ between me and ye , and thy Seed : ] you may as well say , all the parties are obliged to keep it , and God is one of them , as that , by force of that expression , any one is : those that are to keep it are represented under the term [ ye ; ] and they were to keep it between God and themselves , and the Seed , as a sign of the Tripartite , ] Covenant between them . And to be clear , I understand the same Seed in the 7th . 8th . 9th . and 10th . verses ; Isaac in the Letter , Christ Mystical in the Spirit and Mystery . This for the first Issue . As for the other which relates to the Duty , what can almost be plainer , than that by keeping of the Covenant in the 9th . verse , is meant keeping of it in the sign , or keeping the sign of the Covenant , for it is , Thou shalt keep my Covenant , therefore thou and thy Seed in the 9th verse , and then immediately is added in the 10th . in one continued Speech , This is my Covenant which ye shall keep , &c. So that the sence and meaning of the Phrase [ of keeping the Covenant ] in either verse , is clearly the meaning of it in both ; And therefore to keep the Covenant in the 9th . verse , is to keep the sign of the Covenant , seeing to keep the Covenant in the 10th . is to keep it so , [ in the sign . ] That to keep the Covernant in the 10th . verse is to keep it in the sign is manifest , seeing their being Circumcised could not be a keeping of the Covenant ( as it is plainly intimated in verse the 10th . to be ) but so , ( viz. ) as it was the observation of the sign of the Covenant , and thus [ in the sign ] the Covenant of God was kept in Circumcision , as the Passover is said to be kept when the Lamb was eaten in Memory of it ; So Scriptural a way of speaking this is . I say , as the Feast of the Paschal Lamb was not the Passover it self , but a sign only of the passing over , and yet the Passover is said to have been kept , when that Feast was kept ( in sign of it , ) as by comparing Num. 9. 2. &c. with Exod. 12. 3 , 4 , 12 , 13. &c. manifestly appears . So likewise Circumcision , though it were not in it self the very Covenant of God , but only the sign of that Covenant ; [ Abraham received the sign of Circumcision , Rom. 4. and in Gen. 17. ●● . It shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you . ] Yet the Covenant of God ( according to the way of Scriptural Expression ) might well be said to be kept , when Circumcision the sign of it , was observed . The Covenant in Scripture Language is said to be kept , when the sign of it is kept , Thou shalt keep my Covenant , is , thou shalt keep the sign of my Covenant . This is my Covenant which ye shall keep , is , this is the sign of my Covenant which ye shall keep . And if keeping Circumcision then were keeping of the Covenant ▪ because Circumcision was the then sign of it ; then keeping Baptism , now is keeping the Covenant , because Baptism is now the sign of it . To keep the Covenant ●here , is as I have proved to keep the sign . And now consider seriously , how plain and easie a sence this is I have of the words , I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee , and thy Seed after thee , between me the Lord , and thee Abraham , and thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit , to be a God to thee Abraham , and to thy Seed after thee , Isaac in the Letter and Spirit And I will give to thee Abraham , and to thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit , all the Land in which thou art a Stranger . Even the Land of Canaan in the Letter to Isaac , in the Letter , and the World the whole VVorld in the Spirit and Mystery , to Isaac in the Mystery , and therefore thou Abraham and thy Seed [ Isaac in the Letter and Spirit ] shall keep [ the sign of ] my Covenant . ( But ) this is [ the sign of ] my Covenant which ye which are now here , thou Abraham and Ishmael thy Son according to the Flesh , and the rest of thy Houshold here which stand for all the Seed according to the Flesh as so , This is [ the sign of ] my Covenant which ye , for your part , shall keep [ as a sign of the Covenant I have made between me and ye , and thy Seed Isaac the Seed of the Promise , and not of the Flesh ] every Man-child among you [ ye the Natural Family and Carnal Seed ] shall be Circumcised . Among you , he doth not say among the Seed ; The Seed is to keep the Covenant in a sign verse the 9th . but the Natural Family only are to keep it in this sign , in Circumcision ; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore [ in the sign of it ] thou and thy Seed ; ( But ) this is my Covenant which ye shall keep , &c. Every Man-child shall be Circumcised . Ay , say you , but in the sign of it is your Addition only . Not so say I , it is but my Explication according to the Scripture , Ay , but when God did tell Abraham , Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed , had no more ( say you ) been added , Abraham could never have understood that God intended hereby , this Covenant was to be observed in any external sign ; true , say I , had not God explained his meaning , Abraham might well have doubted of it ; but why doubt you ? Since more is added , and in what is added , God explains himself , and shews that , by keeping the Covenant , he meant keeping the sign of it . Ay , but a sign is a common separable accident to a Covenant ( in general , ) well , but it is not so to this ( in special ; ) Other Covenants have been ( you say ) without a sign ▪ but to be sure , in this a sign is made necessary ; For to keep the Covenant is to keep the sign . Ay , say you , but let go this 7th . of Genesis which is no more to purpose then the first , and then I will answer what else you have to say . Yes , very likely , as you have what is already said , and if I will throw away my weapons you will fight me . In fine , what ( say you ) so important an ordinance to depend on consequence from an Old Testament Text ! Yes ( say I ) and on the consequence of this Old Testament Text depends all the New Testament Doctrine of our Inheritance and Heirship ; See Gal. 3. And now , Dear Sir , is there not a word , not a syllable ( as you express it ) in the 17th . of Genesis , that the Spiritual Seed of Abraham are to keep the Covenant in the sign of it ? Have not I proved the Seed here is Isaac in the Spirit Principally ? doth not God distinguish between ye and thy Seed ? is not Circumcision enjoyned only on the natural Carnal Family of Abraham in the term ye as it is distinguished from the Seed ? is not the same the subject in the Obligation in the 9th ▪ verse , that is in the Promise Spiritual in the 7th . and temporal in the 8th . you cannot deny it , if you read the Text. If you design me any satisfaction , it must not be by blending and confounding things that differ , nor by common placing and keeping off in generals , but you must come up close to the matter , and shew why the subject in the general Obligation verse the 9th . is , in all respects the same with that in the Promise , both the Temporal and the Spiritual , but the subjects of the Obligation to Circumcision in particular , which is in the 10th . is altered . It is not there thou and thy Seed as all along before , but [ ye ] and [ ye ] is in the Letter Abraham , and those then with him there : But Isaac was not there , he was the Promised Seed . Again , why doth God distinguish [ ye ] from the Seed ; between me and ye , and thy Seed . In fine , why all along in the 10th . and 11th . verses , both in the imposition of Circumcision , and in the intimation of the end and use of it , the Holy Ghost doth use a restrictive term , and never mentions the Seed but ye , ye shall keep &c. and it shall be a token between me and ye ; He saith not thy Seed shall keep it &c. nor that it shall be a token to the Seed ; He saith thy Seed shall keep the Covenant in a sign , but doth not say that they shall keep the Covenant in this sign ; They must keep a sign but not this sign . Clear up these questions and you do something , and without it all is nothing . Thus I have briefly stated the issues on which the thing in Controversie between us now depends , and I have answered your objections , and am bold to say again that I have done it with the candour and fairness that becomes a seeker of truth . I mince not what you say ; I raise no dust to hide your strength , or blind the eyes of a Party . I do not frighten you with the threatnings on diminutions of Scripture ; as you do me with those on Additions ; such common placing here is out of place , and is fooling . I love not Tragical Declamations instead of Argumentation . Nor yet am I by noise and clamour and harangues of words which take with the people , but not with the wise , to be diverted from pursuing advantages . I know where I pinch you ; and yet I hate to cry Victoria while the field is disputing . I am a lover of plainness , as well as a seeker of all truth , and therefore use as little Artifice in arguing , as I do in Professing my self , October 14. 1682. Dear Sir Your Real Friend R. B. The Fourth and Last Letter . Dear Sir , IN your former Letter of September the 29th . you told me , that the words in the 17th . of Genesis ●9th . [ Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed , &c. ] do neither express nor give any the least intimation of any sign at all that God intended should be Annexed unto the Covenant , &c. for there God commands Abraham to keep the Covenant in General Terms only , and doth not say thou shalt keep my Covenant in the sign of it , that being ( say you ) my Addition only , &c. But in this of December the 15th . which I Received the 20th . you tell me , that as far as you can discern , God speaks but of one sign in both verses , [ viz. 9. 10 ] Now , how I pray you can he speak of one sign in both verses , if ( as you copiously affirmed ) he speaks nothing in the least of any sign at all in one of them ? who is it now ( to use your own Expressions ) that is Dazled ? that sees or saw one for two , and two for one ? and yet , all you say is Demonstration , 't is Solid , Scriptural , Substantial , and all I say is Chymera's , Contradictions , unproved Dictates , &c. Really Dear Sir , some grains of Modesty would do no hurt ; It would at least serve to make your Alterations more excusable . But the former , is not the only Point ( though mind , it be one of the two Issues on which the whole between us must determine , ) in which you are so slippery ; you are as much so in another , and that the second Issue ; for in your former Letters , all a long , you understand by the Spiritual Seed as I do , and as you ought , ( viz. ) Christ and Believing Gentiles ( to whom happily , you add Believing Jews , ) or Christ Mystical represented in Isaac , and indeed , without a softer place in ones head than I am willing to believe you have , it is impossible , seriously , to take it otherwise ; for 't is [ in Isaac thy Seed shall be called ; ] not [ thy Seed shall be called Isaac . ] And yet , in your Letter now you take the Spiritual Seed for Isaac's Person ; A sence of the Spiritual Seed against sence ; For it is Isaac in the Spirit only that is the Spiritual Seed , and Isaac in the Spirit , is Christ Mystical ; For so the Apostle [ and to thy Seed which is Christ. ] It is true , Isaac was a Mystical Person as he was a Type and Figure ; but if you mean but that by his being the Spiritual Seed , [ that he was the Seed of Abraham , and was a Mystical Person , ] then Isaac was no more the Spiritual Seed then Ishmael ; Ishmael being as much the Seed of Abraham , and as much a Mystical and Typical person as Isaac ; Ishmael a Type and Figure of the Legal Carnal Seed , as Isaac of the Believing Evangelical Seed ; The former representing the Jews , the latter Christ and Believing Gentiles . Only , as Ishmael to be a Type and Figure of the Carnal Legal Seed , was to be born after the Flesh , according to the Rule and Law of Generation in Nature ; So Isaac to be a Type and Figure of the Spiritual Evangelical Seed [ who were to be born not of bloods , nor of the will of the Flesh , nor of the will of Man , but of God ] was to be born after the Spirit , ( viz. ) by the power of God according to and in performance of his Promise ( made ) to Abraham . And to be born after the Spirit , with respect to Isaac , is not ( as happily , you may conceive it ) to be Regenerated and new born Spiritually , but to be born as to his natural Person not as Ishmael was , in the ordinary course of Nature by meer Carnal Coition ; but by Promise , in a supernatural way , above the Rules and Lawes and Powers of Nature , by Almighty Power Assisting ; even when it had ceased ( as the Scripture tells us ) to be with Sarah after the manner of Women , and when Abraham Himself also was old . See Gal. 4. 23 , 29. what is to be by Promise in the one verse , is to be born after the Spirit in the other . To start then a sence of the Spiritual Seed which was not thought of before , and which were not to the Purpose if a good one , is doubling ; and a Hare is used to double , when near run down . Had I been engaged in this controversie with a man unprejudiced , and not with one who , in adherence to an opinion long ago Conceived and Riveted , is obliged to do all things to maintain it , with one susceptible of Light , and not with one that wriggles , and winds , and turns , and all to avoid it ; with one that admits of plain sence , and not with one that will not see , that thrice one makes three ; or , that a Covenant between God and you , and thy Seed after thee , is a Covenant between three parties . I say , had I had the happiness of debating and trying of it with a Person indifferent ; and not the misfortune of being ingaged with one so hugely prepossessed , and one not very consistent to Himself , or to his Principles , the business long ago had been ended ; but who can draw the Picture of Proteus , or catch a Capering Will with the Wisp ? [ Ignis fatuus ] As to your groundless , severe , Provocative Reflections ( the which you call Reproofs drest up ( by all means ! ) in studyed , clean , mild , decent , and Christian Language , ) I say once for all , that it were easie for me , if I durst allow my self the liberty you take in that kind , and that it were not both undecent and unchristian to sharpen my Pen too : But I am resolved not to gratifie your design by any such intemperance . I can better bear then deserve your Reprehensions , and I have ( I believe ) too great Advantage in the cause , and in my Argument , to marr it by so bad Example . I alwayes thought it very improper in Debates and Controversies instead of Arguing , to be ( as you Phrase it , ) Cutting . He is rather a Butcher then a good Chyrurgion , that delights in cutting , and tearing , and slashing , when there is no need of it . Surely , softer words and harder Arguments would more become you . But among all your Groundless Provocations , none is more absurd , nor more unhandsome then the outcry , the Tragical Outcry which you raise upon a Mistake of the Transcriber , and that too but in a word , but in a letter , and without marring the Sence ; [ in Isaac shall the Seed be called ] viz. [ the Seed ] instead of [ thy Seed ] for so in truth , it was in the Exemplar , but likely , on a hasty cursory review of the Transcript not alter'd , because it stood with the sence . But though it were not in the First Exemplar [ the Seed ] but [ thy Seed , ] and [ the ] indeed were only a mistake of him that Copyed it ; yet had you repeated the whole Period in which it was inserted , ( but that must be cleanly , meekly , decently , Dissembled for the cause , and that you might have matter to work on ; ) it would appear that in that place , and in that manner in which the passage was brought in ; [ the ] was not improper ; no , no more improper then [ thy . ] For thus it stands in the Letter was sent — The Promise even of Canaan ( mark it ) was not made to Ishmael , though he were Abrahams Seed too , and then alive , and with him ; nor to the Seed of Abraham that should derive from him by Ishmael , but it was made to Isaac , for in Isaac shall the Seed be called , and Isaac in the Letter , in the Mystery is Christ. ] And who but Argus , if even He with all his Hundred Eyes can spy a fault here ? I , but if it cannot be spy'd , ( happily ) it may be felt , for ( say you ) it is a Palpable abuse of Scripture in misrendring it . ] And is it so ? but what then , if both [ the ] and [ thy ] too had been omitted , and [ His ] put in ? Sure the sence had still been good , and the Argument good still , and the Scripture not abused . For Allegation and Application of Scripture , even by Christ Himself , and by his Apostles , who I believe , would not abuse it by misrendring , is not ( as might be manifested in a hundred Instances ) alwayes ( as you would have it ) to a syllable , and in termes ; but to the sence , and present purpose : and sure I am , that the Seed [ of Abraham ] should be called in Isaac , is to my purpose , and is the sence of Genesis 21. 12. * as much as Gal. 4. 30. is to the sence of Gen. 21. 10. and to the Apostles Purpose . Thus over subtile you be ; without Discretion , without Judgment , and without Candour , and this 't is to be Learned in Schoolmen , and to have subtle John Duns ( Scotus ) for a Master . But to our business . Whereas I had said I have abundantly evinced that by Seed in the 9th . verse , must be understood the Spiritual as well as the Carnal Seed ; you reply , that that may be easily evinced which was never controverted : ] As if it had not been in the Controversie all along , and been the main of it , and acknowledged to be so in your former Letter [ whether the Spiritual Seed were meant in the 7. 8. 9. and 10th . verses as well as the Carnal ? ] and is not this the first Issue , in which you have joyned ? Well , but whatever it was before , my business now , as you assign it , is to prove ( in your terms ) that Isaac quatenus Spiritual Seed , or ( which I think you mean , or mean nothing to purpose ) that Isaac as he represented the Spiritual Seed or Christ Mystical , is meant in verse the 9th . And this I think I have sufficiently evinced already , and that ( after your Concession ) it needeth no more Eviction ; It being indeed a Figure of speaking , called in English a Bull , to say the Spiritual Seed is meant as well as the Carnal ( as you say , and say it was never controverted , ) and yet , that the Spiritual Seed as Spiritual is not meant , for if the Spiritual Seed , be not meant as Spiritual , then the Carnal Seed only , and not the Spiritual as well as the Carnal is meant . This should suffice by way of Rejoynder ; But , because ( as you affirm ) this is a Foundation stone ( such as it is ) in that structure I have raised , and you are so over confident ( for nature will have its course , ) that I cannot prove by Scripture , that the Spiritual Seed as Spiritual , is meant in the 9th . verse ; besides , what I have done already in my former Letters , which stands altogether on this foot , and which you have not in the least reply'd to ; and besides , that I cannot conceive if the Spiritual Seed be meant at all ( as you grant it is ) but that it must be meant as Spiritual ( for it is you must tell me , how else , it can be meant ; ) I say , besides all this , you shall have a Text , a plain Text for it . But before I Cite the Text , I will assume as certain and agreed between us , to make it come home , what you have asserted very fully in a former Letter , and also I have proved ; ( viz. ) that the same subject in all respects is meant in the 9th . verse , that is in the 8th . ; And taking this for granted , I affirm that the Apostle sayes all as much as you would have me to prove , when Rom. 4. 13 , 16 , 17. He argues in these terms , For the Promise that he ( viz. Abraham ) should be the heir of the World , was not to Abraham , or to his Seed by the Law , but through the Righteousness of Faith ; therefore it is of Faith , that it might be by grace , to the end that the Promise might be sure to All the Seed ; not to that only which is of the Law , but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham , [ clearly implying , the Promise would not have been sure to all the Seed , if it had not been so to both Seeds . ] who is the Father of Us all . But to apply the Text. Either the Promise made to Isaac ( for in Isaac Abrahams Seed is called , ) was made to him , and so the Obligation lay upon him quatenus , as he represented the Seed of the Faith of Abraham ; or it was made to him , and so the Obligation lay upon him as not representing that Seed : If you say the Promise was made to him , and so the Obligation lay upon him quatenus , as he represented the Seed of the Faith of Abraham , then it was made to him , and the Obligation lay upon him quatenus , as he represented the Spiritual Seed ; for the seed of the Faith of Abraham is the Spiritual Seed ; but if you say the Promise was made to Isaac , and so the Obligation lay upon him as in his own Person only , or only as the Legal either mere Carnal or believing seed descended from him , then the Promise is not sure to all the seed , not to the Seed of the Faith of Abraham under the Gospel , because this seed then , is not Entituled to it as seed , for it is in Isaac that Abrahams seed is called , according to Gen. 21. and so the Apostle ( who makes good their Title as Abrahams seed , and consequently as they were in Isaac , ) was really out of the right , if you be in it . But I have mentioned a Concession of yours in a Former Letter , and make use of it ; least therefore you either should forget it , or should by some Evasion which I cannot think of Elevate the force of it , and so Create me new trouble hereafter , I will cite the passage now , but with this precaution , that I do not say you understand precisely the same persons as I do , to be intended in the 8th . and 9th . and 10th . verses , but I say you grant there , and there make much of it , that the same persons or subjects ( be they what they will , ) are to be understood as meant in the 9th . and 10th , verses , which are so in the 8th . For say you [ God having promised in the 8th . verse to give unto Abraham , and to his Seed after him the Land wherein he was then a stranger , even all the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession , and to be their God. In the very next verse he is pleased to proceed to declare the Incumbence now to be fastened on them upon the forementioned account , &c. ] So that you grant , the same persons are under the Incumbence and Obligation that are under the Promise , and are so in the same respect , as being in the Obligation upon account of their being in the Promise , and the Apostle is plain , that the Promise is to Abraham and to all his Seed , the Seed which is of the Faith of Abraham , or the believing Gentile , as well as the Seed which is of the Law , or the Natural Jew ; And I should think the Apostles Authority as good as any . And now , 't is a proper time to answer your question , and to tell what Authors I follow , why , you see , they are Scriptural ones , such as Paul &c. the same Authors the first Reformers followed , and the same your Predecessors pretended to follow . This is the proof I have that Isaac in the Spirit , or Isaac as he Represented Christ Mystical , and so the believing Gentiles , meant in Gen. 17. 9. Against which , you offer me again what in effect , I have baffled over and over . But because it may afford me a rise of more express declaring what I have said formerly , and also of adding something which I had not such occasion to produce before , I shall consider it again . You say then , that Isaac in the Spirit , or the believing Gentiles cannot be understood by the Seed in the 9th . verse , because the Seed there mentioned , is expresly commanded in the 10th . to be Circumcised . ] Which ( say I ) is , In effect ▪ to say it is so , because it is so . To conceive the force of which Reply , as well as of your Reason , I must have leave to enter into the State of Matters , as at present they do stand between us . The 9th . verse is the parting point . You argue that the Seed in the 9th . verse , [ Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore Thou and thy Seed ] cannot be understood of the Spiritual Seed , [ believing Gentiles , ] because that Seed which is in the 9th . verse , is ( say you ) expresly commanded in the 10th . to be Circumcised ; and that that is the meaning of keeping the Covenant in verse the 9th . I on the contrary , argue that the Obligation in the 9th . verse , cannot be understood Determinately , and particularly of Circumcision , because the subject of it is the same Seed to whom the Promise is made ; namely , All the Seed , and Circumcision was not competent to all ; and that therefore [ ye . ] in the 10th . verse , on which the Obligation to be Circumcised is laid , cannot possibly include the Seed as in the 9th . verse , this is the true State. For you therefore to take for granted that the Seed mentioned in the 9th . verse , is included in [ ye ] in the 10th . is as thing so mean and pitiful , that in English , it is called Begging , Begging the question , for this is one of the Points in question between us : But to affirm that the Seed in the 9th . verse , is expresly commanded in the 10th . to be Circumcised , is worse , for in express terms , it is not [ this is the Covenant which thou and thy Seed shall keep ] but [ this is the Covenant which ye shall keep , ] and what is meant by [ ye ] whether Abraham and the Seed mentioned before in verse the 9th . or only He and Ishmael , and the other persons then present at the Institution of Circumcision , which God should speak to , is the question . I do confess , the Grammar of the Text would have carried it well enough for your sence , and it would have run smoothly , [ Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed ; This is the Covenant which ye shall keep ] if it had not pleased God to add [ between me and you , and thy Seed after thee : ] But yet even then I could not easily have understood how Any of the Seed could be excused from Circumcision . But that then , had been the only difficulty ; but now there is another , and no small one ; for God himself Distinguishing in the 10th . verse , between you and thy Seed after thee , [ This is the Covenant which you shall keep between me and you , and thy Seed after thee ; ] and thy Seed after thee in the 10th . verse , being in all respects the same expression , without any the least alteration , with that in the 9th , and that also in one continued Speech , and consequently signifying the same subjects in all respects , what is plainer then that this distinction must be a Key to the whole Text , and that to open the Text in any wayes without this , will not be to unlock , but force it . And this Distinction indeed is that which pinches and amazes you , and makes you so confused that you scarce know what you say , for in one place you say it resolutely , that there is no such Distinction but of my making ; but in another , with greater modesty , you say , that as appears to you , God doth not distinguish the [ ye ] from the Seed in the beginning of the 10th . verse , except as one was present , the other Future . ] And what is all this ? but that he doth distinguish and that he doth not , and that he doth not distinguish except as he doth distinguish , and that as much as can 〈◊〉 distinguished , ( viz. ) as one from many , and present persons from future , ah ! Dear Sir you seem a little unsettled ; and therefore it is time to give over . But happily , I go too fast , and you will tell me that as you said , that no such distinction is but of my making , so you gave a reason for saying it , ( viz ) That the termes of every distinction must be opposite , else it is no distinction ; ] And there is Logick for me : And sweet Sir for this I thank you [ that there is no distinction but where opposition , ] It is new , a new Light in Logick ; Former Logicians ( poor dark men , they ) never saw it , one of them , and he no small one neither , Dully tells us , that Diversity is either Distinction or Opposition ; and not one of them ( so blind they be ) but would tell , that Disparates are distinct , and are not opposites ; And indeed Dear Sir your Heart , and Tongue , and Hand , are things distinct , but ( I hope ) not Opposites ; Either other Logicians ( all of them ) are out of their Element ; or you , yet , Good Sir not come into it . Well , but however you express it , your meaning may be good , ye , and thy Seed may be conjoyned in one party in the Obligation , as you say they are , though by the way , to be conjoyned , they , in themselves , must be distinct . But what you add , is neither good nor true ; ( viz. ) That the Seed which I would make a Member of the Distinction , is a self Created term ] so you say , but mean ( I think ) a Creature of mine . But I assure you 't is not so ; I am no Creator ; I added not these termes [ between me and you , and thy Seed ; ] they are the Holy Spirits , and not mine , and seem even at first sight , to imply a distinction of parties , as well as of persons , and to sound as if the Covenant were Tripartite , but yet , as I love not skirmishing for words only , call them two parties , or three parties , or four parties if you will , provided you distinguish between God and you , and thy Seed , and do not make you and thy Seed all one thing , as well as all one party ; I assure you it shall break no squares . But by occasion of your directing me unto the second and fourth verses of the 17th . of Gen. to prove the Covenant Bipartite ; give me leave to observe to you , ( and in the Observation to imply an Answer , ) that Abraham , as he is the subject in the Promises in the whole transaction between God and him , doth in diverse places , undergo a diverse consideration , he is considered two waves ; First , he is considered singly by himself , and in his own Person , and so he is transacted with , and Promises are made to him , verses 2. 4 , 5 , 6. [ I will make my Covenant between me and thee , my Covenant is with thee ; Thy Name shall be no more Abram , but Abraham , I will make thee many Nations . ] In all these a Covenant is made with Abraham , as he is considered singly , and in his own Person ; without any mention of his Seed , or any concernment of them . But then secondly , he is considered jointly , as concerned with his Seed , and so , he is transacted with , and promises are made and ratified to him in the 7th . and 8th . verses ; [ and I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee , and thy Seed after thee , &c. and I will give unto thee , and to thy Seed after thee , the Land in which thou art a Stranger ] Now the Covenant as made with Abraham singly , is Bipartite ; but as made with Abraham as he is joyned with his Seed , it is Tripartite ; for there a new party , or ( which is as much as I said I would contend for , or be understood to mean ) a new , another Person is taken in . Again , as Abraham had undergone a double consideration in the Covenant or Promise , and was transacted with both singly in his own Person , and also jointly with his Seed ; So answerably , in the general Obligation verse the 9th , he is expresly and in terms made the subject of it , both singly by himself , and also as joyned with the Seed ; [ Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , ] there he is singly ; [ Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations , ] there he is joyned : So exact it pleases God to be , even in termes , in adjusting of the subjects in the Promise and Obligation , and in making of them Answering ; All to shew , that those that are included in the one , are equally implyed in the other , and that by the same account and consideration , by which any lay their claim to the former , by the very same consideration , and on the same account they come under the tyes of the Latter . On the whole , it is not so absurd if duly weighed , to say ( which yet I do not peremptorily say ) that in that part of the Covenant in which Abraham is joyned with the Seed , he should stand for his natural posterity , as there the Seed doth for Christ Mystical : And so much the Text you Cite , namely , Gen. 9. 9 , 11 , 12. Implyes , ( viz. ) that the Parents represent and stand for their Children ; though in other Respects , that Text is no wayes Parallel to this , Gen. 17. 10. nor serves your purpose ; For there it is [ between me and you , and your Seed ] but here [ between me and you , and thy Seed , not your Seed , ] and you have told me , that on every point of the Law , Mountains of sence do hang. I have proved the Distinction [ between God and you , and thy Seed ] to be Real : and in prospect that I might be able to do so , you have provided me an Explication ; which is , that when God saith , [ This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you ] in your Opinion , it can be understood no otherwise then thus , [ between me and you ] that is , between me and thou Abraham , together with thy Son Ishmael , and the rest of the Family now present with thee ; And not only between me and you now present , but between me and you , and thy Seed after thee before expressed . ] But oh ! sweet Sir recollect a little here , for I fear you do mistake your self , These are the very words of the Paraphrase , the Mizmaze Paraphrase ; However , it makes me hope we shall agree at last , your off's and on 's , and on 's and off's are good signes of it . No say you , stop there ; For thy Seed after thee in the 9th . verse , is included in the first [ ye ] of the 10th . verse , ] But how ( say I ) can that be , if it be excluded the second ; from which in the 10th . it is distinguished ? But to press you the more , I ask you , doth not in your opinion , [ thy Seed in the 9th . verse . ] Include the Present as well as Future Seed ? You tell me it doth , else how came Ishmael under the Duty ! I ask again , doth not the first ye ( or you ) in the 10th . verse , in your Opinion include the Seed in the 9th . ? you tell me it doth . I ask further , doth not the second [ you ] in the 10th . verse signifie the same with the first [ ye or you ? ] here you must be at a stand , for if the first you [ or ye ] include the Seed Present and Future , and the second [ you ] do signifie the same as the first , then the second [ you ] must include the Future Seed as well as the Present , and so the addition to it [ of thy Seed after thee ] must be superfluous , and where then , will be the Mountains of sence hanging on that word ▪ But on the other hand , if you say the second [ you ] doth signifie the present Family only , and the first you [ or ye ] the Family both Present and Future , you make the Scripture unintelligible , and God not only to speak ambiguously , but against all the Rules of Grammar and common speaking , and against good sence , to make a Pronoune Demonstrative not to Demonstrate , and though standing in Coherence and Relation , yet not to Cohere , not to Relate . This is my Covenant which you [ or ye ] shall keep between me and you ; What you I pray now but the First ? You that are to keep the Covenant , are to keep it between me and you . To take the first you [ or ye ] for some Persons , and the second for others , is non-sensical : Both standing plainly for the same , and therefore if [ between me and you ] be as you say , [ between me and thee Abraham , and Ishmael , and the rest of the Family here present ] the first you [ or ye ] must be understood of them too ; and that 's the whole of the Paraphrase . However , I am glad you have found the present Family spoken to any where in the Text , for that granted , I think my sence above exception , and that it will lye even with all that goes before , and all that followes after ; Taking [ thy Seed after thee ] for Isaac in the Letter and Spirit in all the verses : I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee , and thy Seed ; I will give to thee and thy Seed ; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy Seed . This is the Covenant which you shall keep [ speaking to the present Family , Abraham being there ] between me and you , and thy Seed after thee , [ casting his Eye on Abraham . ] Before I leave this point , I am to mind you of a bold Abuse you put upon me when you intimate as my Opinion , that Baptism is immediately intended in the 9th . verse , whereas ( you know ) I have told you ten times over , that I understand the keeping of the Covenant there generally , for keeping of it in the sign of it ( whatever the sign at any time be , ) and not particularly and determinately , for keeping of it immediately either in Circumcision , or in Baptism ; Indeed in that moment , when the general Obligation was imposed of keeping the sign , neither Baptism nor Circumcision in particular was yet Instituted ; Though Circumcision was , in the very next Moment . I confess , had the keeping of the Covenant in the sign of it , which is the duty injoyned in the 9th . verse , been a keeping of it particularly and Determinately , in either Baptism or Circumcision ; Then ( as you object , ) either Abraham must have been Baptized , if Baptism had been intended particularly ; or else , Isaac in the Spirit [ the believing Gentiles , the true Spiritual Seed ] must have been Circumcised if Circumcision had immediately and particularly been meant : But that term being understood but generally and indeterminately ; Abraham and his Seed are only obliged by it to keep the Covenant in some sign ; In that sign Respectively , which should be the sign of their Respective times : And thus Abraham did keep it in Circumcision , the sign in his time ; And so did Isaac in the Letter , as the Natural Off-spring of Abraham , in the sign that then was : But Spiritual Isaac ( or the believing Gentiles ) could not keep it in the sign then ; They not having being then , and so no particular sign was ordained for them then ; but when ever they should be , They ( being the Seed of Abraham ) are tyed by the Obligation [ verse the 9th ] to keep the Covenant in the sign of it , viz. in that sign which then should be ( the sign , ) when they became Seed . And on this occasion it may not be omitted to be noted , that though Isaac in his own person , as a Natural Descendant of Abraham , was Circumcised , as in that Capacity he ought to be ; yet ( being to sustain the Person of Abrahams Spiritual Seed , and in the Mystery to stand for and be a Type of that Seed , which is of the saith of Abraham ) he was not as Ishmael ( who was the Type and Figure of the Seed which was of the Law , ) present at the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision , designed to be the sign of the Legal Seed ; Ishmael was one of those that God did speak to [ every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised ] but Isaac was not there ; He was unborn : This Timing of the Institution should be of some significancy . To this I add , for greater Illumination of the Holy Mystery , that even the calling of the Natural Seed in Isaac , and the appropriating of the Promises in the Letter , to the Seed of Abraham as it did derive by Isaac , was Mystical ; And shewed , that as all the Promises of God are yea , and Amen in Christ , so that Christians and true Believers are in him ▪ the true Inheritors of the Promise , in the Spiritual meaning of it , and indeed , why else , should the Seed be called in Isaac , Gen. 21. 12. were it not for a Mystery ? For if by Seed , there is meant ( as in the Letter it is ) only the Carnal Seed , one would think , it should have been more proper to have called it in Ishmael , the Type and Figure of that Seed , than in Isaac who represented Another , and so indeed it would have been , if but the Carnal Seed had been called in Isaac , without any Relation , any Aspect at all unto the Spiritual . Here also it may not be improper to observe the difference in the several Blessings which it pleased God to conferr on Ishmael and Isaac , Gen. 17. 19 , 20 , 21. no mention in the least of any Seed in the Blessing of Ishmael , though in the fruitfulness is promised to him , there be an implication of Children , but in that of Isaac , there is mention of Seed ; The Covenant is Established with him , and with his Seed after him : As if the term Seed was Mystical and Spiritual , and did not only signifie Natural Children , but Spiritual also . Judge now , whether Isaac be not , both in the Promise , and in the Obligation too , to be considered as he represents the believing Gentiles , the true Spiritual Seed . All that I have offered hitherto , is on occasion of your first Reason to evince , that Isaac in the Spirit , or Isaac as he represented the Spiritual Seed , is not intended in the general Obligation verse the 9th . and that was taken from Isaac himself : I will now proceed to the second , ( for so I do reduce to order what you in some confusion have written without any , ) and this is from Ishmael ; For say you ▪ it was not under that precise notion that the present Obligation verse the 9th . was fastned on him , ( viz. Isaac ) there being nothing of this nature mentioned throughout the whole Context , but rather as he was Descended from Abraham according to the Flesh , for otherwise Ishmael had been excluded from the Duty there mentioned , who could pretend nothing of any Spiritual Relation to Abraham , as Isaac did , and yet it cannot be denyed but Ishmael was included therein , as well as Isaac . ] But this requires little Answer , as running altogether upon Mistakes ; For Isaac in the Letter is meant indeed , but Isaac in the Spirit principally . Again , there is as little in the whole Con-Text mentioned of Christ , ( and yet I hope you will not exclude him too from being meant , ) as there is of the Obligations being fastned on Isaac , as he represented the Spiritual Seed . And as for Ishmael , it was Abrahams Duty to Circumcise him , and he Circumcised him as he did his Slaves , under the Notion of his own , his Property , and not precisely as his Seed . And if Ishmael himself was under any Obligation to Circumcise his ( as I conceive he was , ) it was as he was comprehended in the you , to whom expresly the command of Circumcision was given , he was also obliged in Abraham . * But that he was obliged to do it , as being Abrahams Seed , by vertue of the general injunction , Gen. 17. 9. I positively deny . For that Seed only , and no other is obliged by vertue of the general injunction there , which is the Object of the Promise before ; That Seed only which is in the Promise in verse the 8th . is the Seed put under the duty in verse the 9th . now Ishmael was farr enough from being the Object of the Promise in verse the 8th . so far , that He is expresly and in Termes excluded from it ; The Scripture not only saying , In Isaac shall thy Seed be called , but also , cast out the Bond Woman and her Son for the Son of this Bond Woman shall not be Heir with my Son , with Isaac , Gen. 21. 10. And now bethink also , how can the Spiritual Seed as well as the Carnal in your sence , that is , Isaac as well as Ishmael be in the Promise and the Obligation too , as you say they be ▪ if Ishmael were not Heir of the Promise , nor at all in it . And here I had dismissed this point , but that it comes into my mind , that against Abrahams standing ( * with Ishmael &c. ) in the business of Circumcision for his Natural Posterity , ( which yet is usual in the Scriptures for the Fathers to do , and is so ( as I noted before ) in the very Covenant of Noah which you mentioned ; ) You object , How then did he receive Circumcision as a seal of the Righteousness by Faith. ] To which I answer very well ; for the sign of Circumcision is Annexed to the Covenant and Promise , as now Established ; I will Establish my Covenant , &c. The Promise of Canaan , it was made to Abraham , and to his Seed before , Gen. 15. 7 , 8. &c. 18. but now is Ratified and Confirmed , and in token of its being so , a sign is put to it ; So that the signing of the Covenant with Circumcision , being in token of its ratification , was a sealing , ( * the sign was a seal ) a Confirming of the Righteousness by faith ; that is , of the Reward of Righteousness , or of that Inheritance which God , for Abrahams believing of his Promise to him , ( so improbable , so unlikely , and in Nature so impossible , ( viz. ) that he should have Seed as the Stars ) conferred upon him : For so it must be understood , as will appear most evidently from a view of the whole passage , Gen. 15. 5 , 6 , 7. for there we have a Relation ; First , of Gods Promise to Abraham , which was of Seed as Stars , in the 5th verse ; And then Secondly , of Abrahams belief , and Faith in that improbable Promise , in the beginning of the 6th . verse , Abraham believed the Lord ; And Thirdly , of the Reward the Lord gave him for that his great Faith ; and this , First , more generally , in the latter part of the 6th . verse , and he accounted it unto him for Righteousness ; That is , the Lord Rewarded him , for so , in the Language of the Holy Scriptures , to account for Righteousness is ; It is graciously to give a Person the Reward of Righteousness , for a thing which in it self , is not compleat Righteousness ; And then Secondly , more Particularly , how he Rewarded him , and that is verse the 7th . by giving him the Promise of the Land of Canaan . And indeed our Faith is accounted unto us for Righteousness , as Abrahams was to Him ; We have by Divine Grace , the Heavenly Inheritance for believing in Christ , as He the Promise of the Temporal , * ( though not that only ) for Believing Jehovah . And now , why might not all this be , and yet Abraham * in the business of Circumcision represent his own Posterity ; ( * though I do not positively say he did ; ) and the rather , because the Reward ( * in the Letter ) was Canaan , which now was Sealed and Confirmed to him in the sign of Circumcision , put to the ratification of that Covenant and Promise , in which God had before conveighed , and passed it . Thus I have proved Isaac as he represented Christ Mystical , or the Spiritual Seed , to be intended in the Obligation , verse the 9th . but it seems I might have saved so much Ink and Paper , for at last you tell me plainly , that Abraham and all his , Present or Future , Carnal or Spiritual , were concerned in the Obligation as well as in the Promise , some way or other . [ That is well , ] in the Promises Temporal , the Carnal Seed were concerned , in the Blessings Temporal and Spiritual , the Believing Seed of Abraham were concerned , and both the one and the other [ and what are they , ( say I ) but the Natural and Believing Seed of Abraham , ] were also concerned in the Obligation , verse the 9th . [ so far you are just , I , but you must not be mistaken , you add , ] ( i. e. ) to be Circumcised , for Isaac , and all the believing Jews , were Circumcised as well as Ishmael . ] And what , Dear Sir , was Isaac and the believing Jews , the only believing Seed of Abraham ? And doth Isaac stand but for believing Jews , and not for believing Gentiles ? I pray , reconcile your self unto the Apostle , Gal. 3. 14 , 15 , 16. &c. and 4. 22. &c. to 31. and Rom. 4. 18 , 16. And remember , I have clearly proved , in the Correct Copy of my first Letter , that Ishmael and Isaac are , the former the Seed under the Law , the latter , Believers under the Gospel . Ay! but what if Isaac stand in the Obligation , verse the 9th . for the Spiritual Seed or believing Gentiles , what then ? What is this to the Baptism of Infants , ] I answer , I referr you for a further answer to the Corrected Copy of my first Letter ; There you may plainly see , what it is to Infants Baptism ; I repeat it not , because it would be endless to go round , and say over again the same things : A Circle is infinite ; There is another word for you to whet on , but I hope you will not mistake it for [ God , ] as you did the word Eternal in my last for [ in Eternity , ] against common use , Aeterno sed erunt tibi magna Volumina versu . Tibul l. 2. The like in Cicera , and in Seneca , &c. Upon the whole , I hope I have most fully Asserted the Paraphrase I made upon the Text in Controversie ; The Paraphrase do I say , or dare I mention that again ! why that , that is , to you , the most involved , tortious , intricate that ever you heard of , except Origens Allegorical and Mystical Commentaries ] And I believe you ; but then , how well the Apostle , who is my Author , will escape your censure , I know not , but it is well for him , and for me too , that the Paraphrase is all this but unto you ; The sizes of Humane understanding are very different , and yours is not the Measure and Standard of good sence , or of Judgment ; others more unbyassed , and as judicious persons will not think the worse of the Paraphrase , nor the better of you for your calling it names . Only , as to the great adoe you make upon the disjunctive Particle [ but ] inserted in my Paraphrase , I must tell you , that but a grain of either the Candour of which you make profession , or of true soundness of Judgment , would have prevented it . For that [ but , ] I did not add it unto the Text ; I never insisted on it ; I only put it in a Pa●renthesis to shew that a Particle ( as small as that was ) if understood and supplyed ( as the like is done many times in other Scriptures , and must be done to make the sence entire , see Job . 16. 5. ) would have put my sence of the Text out of question . I but put it in to make you sensible of my meaning ; which conceived , you might leave it out again , for my sence is good without it ; and the connexive particle [ now ] would do as well to my purpose , and one of them , to make the sence compleat , must be understood , if by [ you , ] you mean restrictively , those there present only : in the one [ you ] you do , and therefore must in both , the reason is the same for both , as for one . Let it be granted ( as by you it is ) that God doth speak to any in the term [ you ] as present , I may make good my Paraphrase against the World , for the supposal of an Apostrophe , is all that seemeth Harsh and Difficult in it ; Suppose him to mean but them there present in the first [ you ; ] that is , to mean that in the first , which you your self do grant he means in the second , and the business is ended . But as for your Paraphrase , it is too general and loose , and off from the Text , and not a Paraphrase upon it . What you add in answer to my several questions , is but Retailing of what I had before , and have again considered now in gross ; only where you say , that the reason why in the 10th . verse , and afterward &c. the Holy Ghost useth a restrictive term , ye shall keep &c. is because it would have been improper to have repeated the word Seed , ( according to the usual formes of Speech generally in custom among men ) it being enough when Abraham and his Seed had been once or twice mentioned to say [ you ] as there was further occasion to make mention of them . ] I answer , that it is not once or twice , but four times , and that is alwayes all along [ thee and thy Seed ] before he came to institute Circumcision , which was not competent to all the Seed : And why I pray , not Humane formes of Speech observed before , by the using of [ you ] , after once or twice mentioning , instead of [ thee and thy Seed : ] Again , shew me , among all the formes of Speech generally in custom among men , one such as this is in your sence , where two you's , in the same Coherence and Relation , shall be understood diversely ; The first of them for one subject , the second for another : This is the Covenant which you shall keep between me and you , which you shall keep , meaning some persons ; between me and you , meaning other Persons . If this be your Grammar , it is new too , and all as new as your Logick . In fine , in your sence it would have run smooth , and more according to the formes of Speech generally in custom among men , in these termes ; Thou shalt keep my Covenant , therefore thou and thy Seed ; This is the Covenant which you shall keep between me and you [ omitting thy Seed after thee . ] every man child among you shall be Circumcised : But [ thy Seed ] being put in with the second [ you ] , and so distinguished from it , clearly implies that it was not intended to be Comprehended in the first . But the Controversie must , and shall have end ; ( and the sooner , because ( as you do manage it ) it is become a wordy brabling business ; as also , for that you treat me in it but ( as Aesop did his Masters Guests ) with Tongue , Tongue still , nothing but Tongue in several dishes . ) And that it may have end as fairly as it took beginning , seeing we have joyned Issue , and have made our Arguments ; I propose that you elect some ( two or three ) of your Friends , and at any time , in any House at Totness within a Moneth at your appointment , meet me with the like number of mine , to hear the whole matter , and Judge upon it : Else the World must , You may do with your Papers as you list , I will Publish mine , in vindication of . Decem. 26. 1682. Your Affectionate Friend . R. B. FINIS . Books Printed for Jonathan Greenwood at the Crown in the Poultry . INstuctions about Heart-work , what is to be done on Gods part , and ours , for the Cure and keeping of the heart , that we may live in the exercise and growth of Grace here , and have a comfortable Assurance of Glory to Eternity , by that Eminent Gospel Minister , Mr. Richard Allein , Author of Vindiciae Pietatis ; with a Preface , by Dr. Annesley . Compassionate Counsel to all Young Men , especially , 1. London Apprentices , 2. Students of Divinity , Physick and Law , 3. The Sons of Magistrates and Rich Men ; By Richard Baxter . Price bound 1. s. 6. d. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Right Honourable Anne Baroness Holles , of Ifield in Sussex , with a short account of her Holy Life , and Patience under all Afflictions , from Heb. 13. 14. By James Waters , Domestick Chaplain to the Right Honourable Francis Lord Holles , Barron Holles of Ifield , her late Husband . The Future State , or a Learned and Judicious Discourse , attempting some Display of the Souls Happiness , in regard to that Eternally Progressive Knowledg , o● Eternal Increase of Knowledg , and the Consequences of it , which is amongst the Blessed in Heaven ; Highly Approved 〈◊〉 by the Learned ; By a Country Gentleman , a Worshipper of God in the way o● the Church of England . Price Bound One Shilling . FINIS .