NINETEEN ARGUMENTS, PROVING CIRCUMCISION NO Seal of the Covenant of Grace.  
WHEREUNTO, Is annexed; The unlawfulness of Infant's Baptism upon that ground.  
Written by R. J.  GAL. 5.2, 3.6. 
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.  
For I testify again to every man that is Circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.  
For in jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but Faith which worketh by love.  ROM. 2.26, 27. 
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for Circumcision?  
And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter, and circumcision dost transgress the Law?  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1645.   

TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader;  
THe Author of this Treatise (Mr. R. I.) being beyond Seas, and some friends of his, and the Truth, deeming these Arguments of his to be solid, and conducing to propagate the Truth, the Author being known to be learned, I have adventured (though without his knowledge) to make them public. The Copy being Transcribed by a bad Scribe, so that there are sundry mis-spellings and oversights.  
I shall desire thee with a favourable eye to bear with. If delay might not have brought in danger, I should have sent forth this, and the other Treatises in more exactness; But thou must remember we come out of Egypt in haste.  
Farewell. Thine C. B.   

Nineteen Arguments, Proving Circumcision no Seal of the Covenant of GRACE..  
BEcause that of CHAMIERUS is acknowledged, Sacramentorum nulla necessitas nisi ex iustitutione Divina; There is no necessity of the Sacrament, but by Divine Institution: Some therefore observing how Christ's institution of Baptism, Matth. 28. Mark. 16. yieldeth no foundation for the Dipping of Infants, but employeth an absolute prohibition of any such practice; whereby the Ordinance is profaned in a prodigal abuse, without, and against the will of the testator; and have ceased upon that Law of Circumcision, Gen (which is styled elsewhere in the Law of Moses, Joh. 7.23.) as the best foundation for besprinkling of Babes, in an Apish imitation of that Gospel-dipping, which was instituted by our Saviour, for the more effectual engrafting of Believers into his own death: And the rather do they fasten upon it; Because finding it to be a seal of that Promise which was made to Abraham and his seed, and denying that Promise to be a Covenant of Grace and remission of sins, they conclude it belongs in like manner, to all Believers of the Gentiles, and to their children; who are to have the same Seal unto them by Baptism (as they call it) which came in the Rome of Circumcision, as they contend. To this purpose, Blake pag. 14. viz. Upon this ground, Infants under the Law were to be circumcised, and upon the same ground, are Infants now to be baptised, etc. Again, what can Baptism sign and seal, but the righteousness of Faith? This Circumcision did sign and seal to Abraham and his posterity, etc.  
So CHIDLEY. Baptism being come in the room, etc. Sealeth up one and the same Covenant of life: And therefore as Circumcision, etc. so Baptism is to be administered upon Infants of Believers. Chidley pag. 39 If therefore it be proved that Circumcision did not seal the promise or Covenant of Grace, and Remission of sins; then this their foundation is very false and fantastical.  
Argument. 1 That Seal or Sacrament (as they call it) which by its institution and the nature of it, was not to be administered to some within the Covenant of Grace, and yet necessarily to be administered unto others, who were known not to be within the covenant of Grace; That cannot be the Seal of the covenant of Grace, and Remission of sins: But this Sacrament of Circumcision was such, etc. viz. Not to be administered to some evidently within the Covenant of Grace, as to LOT, 2 Pet. 2.7, 8. And yet necessarily to be administered to others who were not within the covenant of Grace, and known to be so, as to Ishmael, etc. Joh. 5.6, 7, 8. Jer. 7.25, 26. Therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and Remission of sins.  
Arg. 2 That Seal or Covenant which is in the flesh, and belongeth and must needs be administered to all the seed of the flesh; whether they be Infants, or men of age, holy, or apparently profane, knowing, or ignorant, that cannot be a Seal of Grace and Remission of sins, which belongeth and is to be administered to Believers only, Acts 10.43. with Acts 8.37. If thou believest with all thine heart, it is lawful for thee to be dipped, else not: But this Seal of Circumcision is altogether such, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. with Joh. 5. 6, 7. And therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of Grace and Remission of sins, which belongeth and is only to be administered to Believers. Gal. 38.9. Gen. 12.3. Acts 10.43. with Acts 8.37.  
Arg. 3 That which bindeth unto the Law, and becometh altogether unprofitable in a man, not keeping of the Law, that can never be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptism; which confirmeth unto Believers, their justification from all sin, Acts 22.16. By a mysterial burying of them into the death of Christ, Rom. 6.4, 6, 7. with Col. 2.12, 13. According to the tenor of the New Covenant, Heb. 8.12. Jer. 31. Whereby Believers only are justified and delivered from the Law, Acts 13.39. Rom. 7.4.6.  
But Circumcision bindeth unto the Law, Gal. 5.3. And becometh altogether unprofitable in a man not keeping the Law, Rom. 2.25. Therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptism; which apparently discovereth all such Obligations and conditions: As appeareth by Paul's Epistles, exhorting unto duty from the benefit received; but never urging to the keeping of the Law, as a condition necessarily required; that we may hold or reap the benefit of the Covenant. The proposition will appear more clearly, if you examine Acts 13.39. Where any Idiot may observe, that if Circumcision had sealed the same promise of Grace and Remission of sins, whereby all that believe are justified (as Dipping doth) than that assertion of the Apostle had been false; viz. From which ye could not be justified from the Law of Moses: For seeing they were circumcised by the authority of that Law, Joh. 7.23. It must needs follow (according unto these men) that by the true sense and right use of Circumcision, they might have been thereby justified, as well as by faith in that Gospell-promise, which there he largely openeth, Acts 13.32, 33.38. Forasmuch as the Righteousness of God had been revealed in both, for the salvation of every Believer; as Paul speaketh, Rom. 1.16, 17.  
Arg 4 If Circumcision had been a Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and remission of sins, whereby Baptism is; then the Apostle cannot be free from the blood of all men, Acts 20.26. No not of the Jews or those Gentiles, who were entangled, for want of a Right understanding in that particular. For as much as he never once declareth either to Jews or Gentiles, how circumcision was an old Seal of the same Covenant of Grace, which is now opened unto all, and abolished only by the introduction of dipping, a new ordinance instituted by Christ, for to confirm the new Covenant unto believers.  
But the Apostle would not call God to record a lie, Acts 22.26. And yet he never declareth this either to Jews or Gentiles. And therefore it can be no Seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins.  
It may be, some juggling Artist, will endeavour to deny the latter part of the Assumption; by assuring the contrary by Col. 2.11, 12.  
The Apostle doth not there so much as once intimate, 
Answer.  that Circumcision was an old Seal of the Covenant of Grace or that Baptism came in the Rome of it: But his scope is, to arm them against the undermining of Philosophy, or worldly Elements, vers. 8. Whereof Circumcision is one, Gal. 4.3. And this he doth, by showing how complete and perfect they were in Christ, vers. 9, 10. So that they needed not to run once to any rudiments of the world, for their further perfection; seeing they had the body and substance of all these shadows, by being buried by Dipping into the death of Christ, vers. 12, 13, 14. 16, 17.19, 20, 21. Now what consequence is there, to say; Believers being buried with Christ by Dipping, have the very substance of all which was in any wise signified, or represented by Jewish shadows; And therefore are thereby exempted from all such Ordinances, concerning meat, drink, or holidays, etc. vers. 14.20. Ergo, These shadows did seal the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins, to all that were under them: Which is most false. For divers things under the Law have been significant, which yet did not seal the Covenant of Grace to any soul in particular. And for Circumcision, though the Apostle here, vers. 11. As the Prophet elsewhere, Jer. 4.4. In doctrine or exhortation, have used such a spiritual Allegory, as alludeth to the carnal right; yet neither of them (I think) do speak of the carnal right as a proper sign peculiarly instituted, to signify the spiritual Circumcision: And though it were declared a sign, that God doth circumcise our hearts (as you see the Sabbath in a sense little different, Ezek. 20.20) yet that doth not prove it a Seal of that Covenant of Grace, whereby our hearts come to be circumcised, with the Circumcision made without hands, Jer. 31.33, 34. As Dipping is declared to be, etc. But the next will make this more evident.  
Arg. 5 If the Apostles in so divers Epistles, and upon so many occasions, have always inculcated, the enmity of it as contrary to the Covenant of Free Grace and Remission of sins, absolutely asserting the nullity of it, without any taxing of the abuse, or any kind of Remonstrance concerning the ancient Right use, or the abolition of it, by the new Ordinance of Dipping, now instituted instead thereof, then certainly the Apostle knew it to be no Seal of the Covevant of Grace, nor would have any to conceit it so; having ministered neither matter nor occasion, to such erroneous imaginations.  
But the Apostle hath constantly inculcated it, enmity to the Covenant of Freegrace, etc. Phil. 3.2. With Gal. 5.2. With chap. 2. vers. 3, 4. The nullity of it also, etc. Gal. 6.15. 1 Cor. 7.19. Without any insinuation of its ancient right use, etc. Ergo, it was never any Seal of the Covenant of Free Grace and Remission of sins, etc.  
Arg. 6 That which maketh the Spirit of God, to proceed against the Universal Law of Nature, must needs be a forced Covenant, and no true tenant. But this opinion maketh the Spirit of God to proceed contrary to the, etc. therefore this must needs be a forced Covenant, no true tenant. The proposition is proved, from Heb. 7.11. If therefore perfection were by the levitical Priesthood, etc. What needed there another Priest to arise, after the Order of Melchisedech, etc. Not be called after the Order of Aron; where he taketh it for granted, that in such matters, even God himself multiplieth nothing without necessity.  
The Assumption is as evident. 
Assump.  For if Circumcision were a Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and remission of sins, to all Believers and their Infants; (which Dipping confirmeth to those who rightly receive it: Then what needed those who had the Covenant of Grace already sealed unto them by Circumcision, but especially their Infants (as those fond opinionists do groundlessly affirm) be sealed again by Dipping, or Baptising, seeing the former Seal left a visible or practical sign and Character in the flesh? Whereas the latter of Baptism, leaveth no impression at all, but proveth unto Infants an unprofitable Seal, being unto them afterwards a thing much more uncertain, than the promise it sealeth; nay why did not Peter represent unto those nricked penitenciaries, Acts 2.7. The right use of the old seal for their present consolation, but peremptorily point them to the use of a new seal, without acquainting them at all with any abolition of the old; had they been seals of one and the same Covenant, even one and the same Sacrament, but only for change of the Element, as some with sottish confidence do aver, then how could he without rashness in such a trouble of their spirits, urge them unto a needle's innovation? Nay how did he so slight the former, as to take no notice of both their confines, nor make them perceive the passage from the one to the other, but simply sway their conscience before he die, settle or satisfy their judgements.  
Arg. 7 If the Spirit of God use the promise of grace and remission of sins, Gen. 12.3. As the best argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circumcision and the practice of i●, than that promise of blessedness by remission of sin●, Gen. 12.3. Is fare different from that Covenant of Gen. 17, 7, 8. Which was sealed by circumcision, vers. 9, 10, 11. (the reason of this proposition is) for else the false teachers might have replied, that we do not overthrow the Gospel which you preach, but only continue the use of the old seal. And therefore you allege against us, the 12. of Gen. little to the purpose, as if we could conceit, that the promise, which was sealed by circumsition to Abraham and his seed, should now abrogate the use of Circumcission, whereby it was sealed, and upon this erronions supposal, that the Covenant of Gen. 17. sealed by Circumcision was all one with Gen. 12.3. The Apostle had not omitted (according to his duty and usual Custom, 2 Tim. 25. (Cor. 9.19) By gentle remonstrance, to give them full satisfaction, concerning the abolition of the old seal, and the introduction of the new, without any such passionate clamour against the use of circumcision as pernicious, and destructive to the Gospel which he taught Gall. 2, 17, 18. with Gall. 5.10.  
But the spirit doth use the promise of Grace and remission of sins as the best argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circumcision and the practice of it, as doth appear by Paul's argument, 
Assum.  Gal. 3 8, 9, 10. 13, 14. with Gen. 12.3. His argument is thus, if the free promise of blessing by remission of sins be received by faith, than the practice of Circumcision is pernicious, which by binding unto the Law, Gall. 5.3. Bringeth under the curse, Gall. 3.10. To which those our opinionists would have replied; No Paul, not so, for we hold circumcision to be or to have been, a seal of that blessing or righteousness, which is by saith: And if so; then ought Paul to have showed the abolition, and not to have so manifestly impunged the very nature and condition of it, as perniciously opposite to the very Gospell-promise every where; so that he maketh that of Gen. 22.18. To be an argument also against the doctrine, and use of Circumcision, as the understanding may observe from Gall. 3.16.18.25. with Cor. 4.3.  
Ergo, the promise of blessedness by remission of sins. Gen. 12.3. Is fare different from that Covenant of Gen. 17.7.8. Which was sealed by Circumcision.  
Arg. 8 That which maketh the Kingdom of heaven to be, and to have been holden in fee-tail by Abraham and his seed, and now by the faithful and their seed, is false against the Scripture: but this opinion maketh even the spiritual blessings Ephes. 1.3. to be holden in fee-tail by etc. therefore it is a false Commandment against the Scripture, the proposition is proved.  
First, because the Scripture speaketh only of two generations, the one natural, and therefore gendereth unto wrath: Ephes. 2.12.3. The other spiritual and ungendreth to the Kingdom. john 3.5. And therefore rejecteth the former altogether, as no way intituling to the inheritance, though one be borne of the blood of Abraham, john 1.12.13. Neither will it avail them to say as Mr. Perkin● on Gal. 2. That a man is two ways considerable either as a son of Adam and so he begetteth Children of wrath, or as a believer, and so his faith intitleth his seed also to the same heavenly inheritance, by virtue of the promise. Gen. 17.  
No man doth beget children as a believer, 
Answ.  for then every believer even the Eunuch. Acts 8. Should have done so, but man propagated only as the son of Adam, and if this promise concern believers as begetting Children. Then though the Children be unlawfully begotten, even bastard borne, to no earthly Inheritance, by our common Law▪ yet through their parent's Faith, and the promise they are borne to, an heavenly Inheritance, from the which they cannot fall but by actual infidelity or disobedience, and so stand in no need of the se●le especially of Baptism, which is mearely theoretical or doctrinal in the very form and Circumstance of it, till they be able to understand, to say nothing that this contradicteth the very text Rom. 9 8. Where he maketh a spiritual use of that tipical singling out the seed of Isaac. for the land of Canaan, viz. the Children of the fl●sh are not the Children of God, except they be by the word of promise begotten spiritually, as Isaac was by promise borne carnally Gall. 4.28, 29 Neither can any with colour of reason contend, that God by his Testament thus bequeatheth and sealleth this blessing unto them that they shall admit and receive with consent unto all thankful acknowledgement and return, than it is theirs till they do reject it; and by consequence, the spiritual blessing descend upon the seed of the Faithful, dying before years of discretion, after the manner of temporal lands holden in a Fee-tail.  
That which raiseth the preferment of the Jew far above the spirits intimation, answering to th● very question concerning the profit of Circumcision: Arg. 9 that must needs be a false and erroneous conception forced upon the Scripture. Bu● to m●ke it a seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins, ●s to raise the preferment of the Jew by nature, far above the spirits intimation answering to the question. For Rom. 3. v. 1.2. Upon the question of the jews advantage, and the profit of of Circumcision, he replieth ●hat the chief advantage is, that unto them were committed the Oracle's of God, which is a great privilege, and a singular preferment, a David himself confesses: Psal. 147.19, 20. by which means also the fi●●t proffer of Grace was made unto them, Luke 24.46, 47. with Act. 13.46. But all this doth not to the born jews seal the Covenant of Grace, no more than our having of the Scriptures, doth seal Remission of sins to every soul now born in England; whereas the advantage of the jew, and p●ofi● of Circumcision, by this opinion should have been incomparable; and not to be paralleled by any outward privildge: in that all born jews dying before the same or after Circumcision, were deified and assuredly saved. And so that which the Scripture hath hid in God with some appearance of the general hope for consolation of parents, should have been confirmed unto them by particular assurance.  
Therefore this opinion must needs be a false and erroneous conception forced upon the Scripture, etc.  
Arg. 10 If Circumcision be a seal of the Covenant of Grace, than the Covenant of G●ace is not a Testament bequeathing benefit only to all who by Faith admit and receive the same, but is a part or burdensome compact hanging upon some actual conditions, absolutely required: in the not doing or performance whereof, the Covenant becometh void and disannulled to both the parties concerned, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. in that Covenant. And by this reason, if Paul's believing wife have an Idolatrous husband, which will not suffer the Infants to be dipped, the Covenant of Grace is disannulled to them both: And whether she ought to kill her child, let them determine, who plead for bloody violence to be inflicted on some by the au●hrity of Moses his Testament Pact. But the Covenant of Grace is no such, but a mere Testament, bequeathing freely matter of benefit, to all who receive; and admit it by Faith only: Therefore Circumcision cannot be a seal of that Covenant of Grace.  
That which necessarily employeth falling from Grace, 
Argum.  these men cannot deny to be a false and wicked opinion.  
But this conceit, 
Assump.  etc. necessarily implieth falling from grace; for either it belongeth to them in general, viz. If they will believe it, and so the promise of remission of sins belongeth to every man alive, Mark 16.15. or it appertaineth to them and their children in special: till by actual unbeleise, and disobedience, they fall away and reject it. And so if there be no falling away, all their nation as well as ours, must needs have been saved. Ergo, these men cannot deny it to be a false wicked opinion, Rom. 9.27. The assumption is more evident amongst us, where all are dipped, by virtue of that Covenant, Gen. 17. because they are Abraham's seed; which yet they cannot be, except they be born christians: Gal. 3.29. neither young nor old can be Abraham's seeds, except they be Christ's first.  
If the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins was never entailed upon any man and his seed, Arg. 12 but in the whole nature and condition of it, relating unto faith only in the partakers; then Circumcision can be no seal of that Covenant of Grace.  
But antecedent, 
Assump.  if true that the Covenant of Grace was never entailed, etc. seeing it always relateth unto faith only in all partakers, Gen. 12.3. with Gal. 3.8, 9 Heb. 4. Acts 27.17, 18. Rom. 3.25. Rom. 4.22, 23.24. Heb. 3.14. Now by these men's fantasy, they were made partakers of Christ by Jewish generation, and circumcision; as their own Infants are supposed to be by birth and baptism: whereas the Scriptures witnesses, no promise of Grace and Remission of sins, but only to the personal beleivers.  
If here any object, 
Acts 10.43.  Acts 2.39.  
I answer, that only concerneth the promise of the spirit; which was revealed by Joel, cap. 2.28. and doth follow the receivall of the Gospel: Ephes. 1.13. Gal. 3.14. as shall be plainly and clearly proved to any opposite, though it need no proof; being evident from Peter's whole speech, and the verse preceding the Text: therefore the consequence is true also, that Circumcision could not be a seal of the Covenant of Grace.  
First that of Paul, 
Object.  Rom. 4.11. where it is styled a seal of the righteousness of Faith.  
First, 
Answ.  it was not given to strengthen the weakness, but to honour the strength of Abraham's Faith. And therefore doth the Apostle, Rom. 4. beat them oft from the use of circumcision, as being nothing but a fleshly badge, bearing witness to the spiritual, eminency of Abraham's faith, he being thereby as it were marked out for an exemplary pattern to all believers, as father or chief of them.  
Those which are but any whit acquainted with the Greek tongue, do know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth an exemplary note to make any man or thing illustrious, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in that sense, to ennoble by some especial note, to which purpose that may be pertinent, john 6.27. God the Father is said to seal him, making him illustrious by all manner of testimonies. Now ponder well that this sign was not given to him merely, because he was faithful, for than it should have been unto Noah long before, or at the least to Lot now▪ as well as to Abraham; much less was it given in any relation to his weakness▪ seeing that he was so strong that he staggered not: Rom 4.20. and therefore not as a seal to confirm, but as a badge of honour for to credit, as this coherence doth conclude; but though it were a special favour marking out his faith as exemplary, yet its nature and institution showeth that it confirmeth nothing to him and his seed, but the land of Canaan: Gen. 13.15. with cap. 17.8, 9, 10. and Psalm. 105.11. and Acts 7.5.8. where all may observe it a seal of a covenant concerning an outward blessing, Genes. 28.41. distinct from that Gospell-promise, Genes. 12.3. which is received by Faith only: Gallathians 1.8.9.14. Genesis 15.5, 6. with Rom. 4.13.18. Gallathians 3.16.19. Now that Circumcision is no seal of the righteousness of Faith I will prove it byan unanswerable argument, viz. if Circumcision bea seal of the righteousness of Faith in their sense, than the Inheritance cometh as well by the Law, as by the Promise; the reason is, because Circumcision is nothing: and by consequence no seal at all, except a man keep the Law: Rom. 2.25. 1 Cor. 7.19.  
But that the Inheritance should any way come by the Law, as by the Promise, is most contrary to Paul; Romans 4.14. where he maketh all concurrence of the Law inconsistent with Faith, and the Promise, so fare as it concerneth our eternal inheritance. And therefore that sense is blasphemously contradictory to Paul's discourse, and destructive to the pure doctrine of justification; now whereas some have conceited that Circumcision▪ did over and above its ordinary use, seal to the jews in general, that Christ should descend of them or their seed, in whom only Believers should be saved, whether they were circumcised or nor.  
It sealed no such matter at all, so that if there had been no other Gospell-promise besides, 
Answ.  Genesis 17. they must have sought salvation in the Law, and by the Law only: Gallathians 5.3. 1 Corinth. 7▪ 19 Acts 15.10. Rom. 2.25. showeth the perfection of a Believer, buried by dipping into the death of Christ, unto which by Circumcision they could not aspire unto. The reason of Chamieras, as is most unworthy the wit and judgement of so learned and voluminous a writer, for (quoth he) that Covenant whereby God promiseth to be a God to them and their seed, must needs be a covenant of grace and remission of sins, because, (as he thinketh) God cannot be so but in Christ only.  
It is apparently false, 
Answ.  Psal 50.1.8.9. there being divers relations whereby God is styled the God of people, besides that of remission of sins through Christ. Thus he is styled the God of the spirit of all flesh. Numb. 16.22. And as he is styled the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim. 4.10 so why not the God of all men, though not by remission of sins in Christ but merely in relation ●o some other of his works or attributes; especially by this typical relation wherein he so often calleth them his people, when they were his enemies: and he giving out the bill of divorce against them. Hos. 4.6. with Mich. 6.3, 4, 5. And had not his outward covenant in some sense entitled them unto God, they could have been no figure fit for ensample to the antitype, even the true Israel of God under the new Testament: Gal. 6.16. Pet 2.9. 1 Cor. 10.6.11. with Jer. 13.11. where you may note also that those who would make circumcision a figure of dipping, gain nothing by it for be▪ sprinkling of Babies; for than it will follow, that as none were to be circumcised, but the seed of Abraham; with Srangers, Proselytes, and Slaves b●nght with money: so none are to be dipped but those who believe the doctrine of the Gospel, Mark 16.17. or else profess the same Faith. And as the seed of Isaac and of jacob only were called to inherit in Canaan, so those only who have believed through grace, Acts 18.27. as the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. and not such as Simon Maguc, Acts 8 13. who sergeant the same confession, shall inherit the heavenly Canaan. I hope the godly wise will conceive, that though the Covenant were the same, and the Sacrament also; but only for change of the Element (as the Baby sp●inklers bear people in hand) so authorising the profane abominable abuse of Zaedobiprisme, by the command for circumcision; yet upon that conceit (if it were granted) not such conclusion can truly be drawn to the absolute dishonour of Christ, and contradiction of his express Will and Testament. But that foundation being rotten and false, than all the building must fall. And I doubt not but all men of apprehension will easily discern from the precedent arguments, how the Apostle in all his disputations against circumcision yieldeth it. And by consequence that covenant of Genesis the 17. As a privilege pecultar to the natural seed of Abraham, Rom. 2.17 25. the chiefest profit whereof was their, being born and bred under the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.1.2.  
But that spiritual (so different from the carnal) Gen. 17. Acts 7. Covenant of blessing or righteousness by remission of sins, Gen. 12.3. with cap. 15.6. Paul allegeth and proveth promiscuously, or without difference, Rom. 3.21, 22, 23, 24, 25. appertaining unto the uncircumcised also, Rom, 4.3.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. wherein he leaveth Abraham no seed but spiritual, Gal 3.7, 8.29. acknowledging neither natural Jew nor son of Abraham, but only those who are made so by the will of God through the word of truth, john 1.12, 13. with james 1.10. compared with Rom. 2.28, 29. Luk. 19.9. And as the Scripture vehemently rejecteth all concurrence of works in justification so doth it as plainly abtenounce all Birth privilege: john 1.13. Eph. 2. john 3.5.6. as no way intitling to, much less in eressing in the benefit of the covenant of grace, or promise of salvation. Now to convince any considerate man of this, there is one or two argument truly, a Podescticall and as unanswerable as any of the former.  
Arg. 13 That which by its own nature and use was an intolerable yoke both to the jews and to their fore fathers, that could never in its true nature and use be a seal of the righteousness of Faith, or of the covenant of grace, or remission of sins.  
The undeniable reason of this Proposition is, from a principal granted by all, who have any light either of natural reason or dialect call learning; oppotsia non possunt eidem attribui, secundum idem, ad idem, codem tempore; things opposite: viz. to seal righteousness and forgiveness of sins, and to bind unto the Law, Gal. 5.3. can never be attributed to one and the same thing; as namely circumcision, Secundem eidem: in respect of one and the same part, viz. the spirit or conscience; ad idem: in relation to one and the same persons, they are therefore Fathers, eodem. tempore at one and the same time; whether after the Law, or under it.  
But circumcision in its true nature and use, 
Assunsp.  was an intolerable yoke both to the jews, and their fore▪ fathers. Acts 15.10. Ergo, it could never be in its true nature and use, any seal of righteousness, or of the covenant of grace, or remission of sins; for than it should be matter of benefit, and not matter of burden, which the Scripture setteth in opposition incompatible; making them to be really, and essentially different. For what is by its own nature a burden or bondage to the spirit, is formally different from that which is a matter of pu●e liberty and benefit to the spirit; as the seal of righteousness is, and must always be, Rom. 6.4.14, 15. compared with Rom. 7.1.4.5▪ 6.  
Arg. 14 If the Covenant or Law o● circumcision were the only thing whereby boasting was occasioned, and that law of Faith (which by dipping is confirmed to believers, the only thing whereby boasting was excluded; then that Covenant of Gen. 17. cannot be the same with that new Testament of grace and remission of sins, whereof Christ is the mediator, Heb. 8.  
For than circumcision should not have occasioned (as Paul granteth) it did, 
Reason.  boasting, but have utterly disannulled all disdain towards the uncircumcised; as the law of faith, and covenant of grace, are declared to do: Acts 10.15.28. with cap. 15.9. where Peter affirmeth circumcision to make such a difference, as the law of faith doth destroy, abolish, and disannul; Rom. 3, 27.  
But the covenant or law of circumcision, 
Assump.  was the only thing whereby boasting was occasioned, Rom. 2.17.25. with cap. 3 12. and the law of faith the only thing whereby boasting was excluded, Rom. 3, 27. Therefore the covenant of Genesis 17. cannot be the same with that covenant or new Testament, whereof Christ is the Mediator.  
If any object that Christ is called the Minister of circumcision, 
Object.  Romans 15.18.  
He was made the servant of circumcision, 
Answ.  when he was made of a woman, and so made under the law, Gallathians 4.4, 5. that suffering, Gallathians 3, 13. as a cursed sinner by the imputation of our iniquities, he might confirm the truth of God, and the promises made to the Fathers; Genesis 12.3. Acts 13.32. with Hebrews 9.14, 15. Romans 15.8.  
Arg. 15 Those two covenants which differ in the object. Secondly in the matmatter. Thirdly in the form. Fourthly in the end. Fiftly in the effect; those are not only (as some grant) really, but formally and effectually different.  
But the covenant of Genesis 17. which is ratified by circumcision, 
Assump.  differeth from that of jer. 31.33, 34. with Heb. 8.6. which is confirmed to every believer by Baptism. Gallathians 3.17, 27. with Isai 42.6. and Acts 2 38 cap. 22 16 First in the object, for that of Genesis 17. respecteth the carnal seed in their generations, verse 7 9 But that Genesis 12 13. and jer. 31 respecteth the spiritual seed only; Gallathians 3.7, 8, 9: Secondly in matter for that of Genesis 17 containeth an outward blessing, concerning the possession of and protection in an earthly inheritance, verse 8. cap. 28.4. Acts 7.5.6. whereas this Covenant of grace, Isa. 42.6. containeth spiritual blessings only▪ Ephes. 13. even Remission of sins; Rom. 4.6, 7, 8, 9 the free donation of an undefiled inheritance following upon the same, Acts 26.18. Thirdly in the form, for that of Gen. 17. is only Pactum, a certain pact suspended altogether upon a legal duty or condition, exacted under penalty of severe temporal punishment, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 14. whereas this is Testamentum, a Testament bequeathing all benefit, Heb. 8.12. but requiring nothing besides faith which it also begetteth, Acts 26.18. with cap. 18.27.  
Fourthly in their ends, for that of Gen. 17. was together a national Church, Deut. 4.34. with v. 37. jer. 13.11. God hath assayed to take unto a nation, etc. And because he hath loved their Fathers, therefore he hath chosen their seed called the Church in the wilderness, Acts 7.38. which people were carnally or typically holy, Exod. 19.6. with Esai 9.2. Acts 10.28. appointed to a typical land which God had espied out for them, Ezek 20.5, 6. holden under the carnal rites and typical ordinances imposed on them by way of burden, till the time of reformation, Heb 9.10. with Gal. 4.9. where circumcision is reckoned as a beggetly Element, that so they might be a type of figure of every true visible Church of Christ under this new Testament, Deut. 7.6. with Eph. 1.3.4.  
But the end of this Covenant is to gather visible Churches of Christ, which being begotten by the Gospel, are by dipping entered into the communion of Saints; Holden by any visible society of believers meeting in one place, as you may see in the Church of Corinth: Chap. 6.11. with cap. 12, 13. and cap. 11, 20. cap. 14.23. the Churches of Galatia which were after the same manner begotten, Galathians 4 26.31. And those who are thus begotten, are by dipping admitted to all the benefits of a visible Communion: Acts 2.41, 42. which visible Churches through the washing of water and the word, become true Antitypes really answerable to the nation of the circumcised: and are, Galathians 6 16 styled the true Israel of God; yea a chosen Generation, and an holy nation; 1 Pet. 2.9. which being born of the mortal seed, are begotten to an undefiled inheritance as appeareth from such places, 1 Peter 2.9. with chapter 1.23. and 3, 4. Galathians 6.16. Ephesians 5.26, 27. Therefore were they a figurative people full of types for examples to any Church of the Gentiles, which had believed through Grace: 1 Corinthians 10 6 with Acts 8.37.  
Lastly, they differ in the effect; for that of Genesis 17 depending on circumcision is a beggarly rudiment, Galathians 4.9. which by binding unto the Law, Galathians 5.3. gendereth unto bondage only, Gallathians 4 25. never yielding any ability to perform; whereas that of jeremiah 31 33, 34 is the very same with Galathithians 4 26. which following with Grace, gendereth unto Liberty; Galathians 4 31. from all guilt of sin and legal bondage: Galathians 5 1. with Hebrews 10 15, 16, 17, 18. unto which the Law of Circumcisition engageth, yea and this ministereth the spirit, Gal. 3.8, 9, 14. so that every one to whom this Covenant is confirmed by the Ordinance of dipping according to Christ's Will and Testament (Non ponenti obicem, as they say) if he be no hypocrite, than every such person so dipped hath truly put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. is washed from all his sins; justified, and sanctified: Rev. 1.5. with 1 Cor. 6.11. and hath some measure of faith. Rom. 12.3. according to the true tenor of that Covenant, which God who cannot he hath confirmed in Christ; so that where there is a lawful subject of Baptism void of hypocrisy, there is a jew in heart and spirit, Rom. 2 29. to whom according to God's purpose and grace, 2 Timothy 19 all the benefits of the new Covenant are absolutely confirmed by dipping, which is therefore truly called the laver of Regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost; Titus 3.5. being always (except the subject be unlawful, or an hypocrite) accompanied with renovation of mind, as appeareth from Gal. 3.27, 28. with Col 3 17. But though the subjects of Circumcision be lawful, ●nd without hypocrisy; yet doth it not make him a jew, in heart and spirit: much less doth it absolutely confirm the benefit of the new Covenant unto him, Rom. 2.28. But here we need not require the subject to be without hypocrisy, for the arrantest and most apparent hypocrite of the whole nation was a proper lawful subject of that Ordinance of Circumcis. joh. 5.6, 7, 8. compared with that of jer. 7.25, 26 Ergo, these 2 Covenants of Gen. 17. jer. 31. are not only really, as some Sophisters grant and say, but formally & essentially different.  
By this last argument any may understand how grossly they pervert the words of the living God, jer. 23. even of the Lord jesus Christ, our only God and Saviour; who would have the Commission of Christ, Matth. 28. Mark 16. to be a continuation of that Covenant, Gen. 17. by which command only the Ministers of Christ have power and authority to besprinkle babes, so blasphemonsly exalting the servant above? his Lord, in making him to supply the effect of Christ jesus his Testament, by directing to the due administration of the Ordinance of dipping, in the house of him who is the Son and only Master; Heb. 3.1, 2, 3.5, 6. where you see verse 5. that Christ was to interpret Moses, but why? or how Moses should tell us the meaning of Christ's Testament, I could never yet understand. Again, why did the spirit of Christ which was in jeremiah, 1 Peter 11, 12▪ tel● us of a new Covenant; jer. 31.33.34. And yet never once insinuate how it was, but a renovation of the old Covenant. Gen. 17. with a little alteration in the change of the Element only: viz. dipping for circumcising, upon which the Apostle Paul never putteth himself to business: Gal. cap. 1. cap. 2. cap. 3. cap 4. cap. 5. cap. 6.17. Though upon his foolish supposal, it had been the only point requiring his pains for clear proof against the opposite jews,  
Thirdly, when Christ ascended on high and gave gifts, etc. for the gathering or instauration of the Saints: Eph. 4.8.11, 12. By what Spirit, Reason, or dialectical dream, can any conclude that the true Ministers of Christ, without and against their Master's commission, were obliged to make Saints by besprinkling the babies of all believing Gentiles; by that command of Genesis 17.9, 10. If after examination we still remain blinded by such a ridiculous babble, endeavouring to bury the truth, by shuffeling plain things into difficulty. Then shall I cease to wonder at those who are so taken with the vain and fantastical superstitions of Popery, or else be sealed with Mahomet's fopperies.  
The Church of Ephesus ●s commended, Rev. 2.2. for trying those that say they are Apostles, and are not; oh that our Professors would try their Ministers whether they come in by Scripture rules, and observe Scripture rules and commands: if they do not they are false Ministers, and liars against the truth. And to that end let them prove that those doctrines they teach, are the doctrines that Christ and his Apostles taught and practised, or they are other if not contrary; and then see the danger of teaching them, Gal. 1.8, 9 And that Baptism is a doctrine, see Heb. 6.2. we ought to avoid those that bring doctrine contrary to that received from Christ and his Apostles, Rom. 16.17.18. we are to contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints, Judas verse 3. Christ bids teach and baptise, Matth. 28.19. They will baptise, and then teach. Christ saith, he that beleiveth and is baptised, Mark 16.16. They will baptise and then make them beleeveyrs if they can. Christ saith, teaching them to observe whatsoever I command; Matth. 28.20. They will observe what is right in their own eyes, Philip saith to the Eunuch desiring to be baptised of him, if thou beleivest, thou mayst; Acts 8.37. So faith is required of those that are to be baptised which children cannot have in an ordinary way: Rom. 10. 14.17. Now children are not capable of being wrought upon by the word, and for any secret work, secret things belong to God, but things revealed to us and our children.  
See 2 Epist. John v 7. and from v 5.10. v. 11. who now is an Antechrist? the Papists as well as we confess Christ to become in the flesh, who then deny it? they that do not set up jesus the Christ K●ng, Priest, and Prophet of his Church; will not be ruled by his laws, submit not to his teaching, make him not the only Priest and sacrifice, these deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and therein are Antichristian. 1 john 4.3. The Papists deny him in his Priestly office, and I wish too many o●hers do not in his Prophetical and Kingly office; see the danger of it, Deut. 18.18, 19 Acts 3.23. Luke 19.17, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, Heb. 12.29.  
Oh that the Lord would persuade his people to search the Scriptures diligently, that they may not hang their religion upon any creature so long as I did, lest they smart so severely for it as I have done; for he will not only render vengeance to them that know him not, but to them which obey him not; 2 Thessalonians 18. The Lord in mercy awaken his people for Christ his sake, AMEN.  
Arg. 1 That which makes the Traditions of men of equal authority with the Law of God, aught in no wise to be; Matthew 15 6 Mark 7 7. But the Baptism of Infants, thoug of believing parents doth so, Ergo, That ought not to be; The Minor is thus provided: That which is an action of Religion performed, and not one jot or tittle of the word requiring the same, that makes the traditions of men of equal authority with the Law of God: but the Baptism of Infants, though of believers, is an action of Religion supposed to be performed, and not one jot or title of the word requiring the same: Ergo, the Baptism of infants though of believers, makes the traditions of men of equal authority with the Law of God, and consequently aught in no wise to be.  
Arg. 3 Every affirmative command of Christ hath its negative, so that whosoever Christ hath commanded to be baptised aught so to be, and if o●hers prohibited: but the affirmative command of Christ to his Apostles, Mat. 28.18. in that they should teach all nations baptising them, (that is those that are taught) by themselves, or some other: Ergo, The Apostles were prohibited from baptising any that were not first taught, if the Apostles were prohibited in the negative of Christ's command touching Baptism from baptising, any that were not first taught either by themselves or others, then ought not the infants no not of believers, to be baptised, because the Apostles or other Ministers could not, nor cannot know them to be so taught in their infancy; seeing they make no profession of faith and repentance. But the Apostles were prohibited from baptising any that were not first taught, either by themselves, or other▪ in the negative of Christ's command touching Baptism, by consequence of the former argument: Ergo, The infants though of believers, ought not to be baptised.  
Arg 3 That which overthrows the nature of the Covenant of Grace, aught in no wise to be: But the baptism of infants, though of believers, doth so: Ergo, the Baptism of infants ought in no wise to be. The proof the minor. That which is administered upon a supposed interest in the covenant of Grace without Faith in the person so interested that overthrows the nature of the covenant of grace, because persons have interest therein no otherwise then by Faith, Romans 4.16. Gallathians 3.9.29. any thing else concluded so, makes the promise or covenant void, Rom. 4.14. Gal. 3.18 But the Baptism of infants though of believers, is administered upon a supposed interest in the covenant of grace; without faith in the person so interested, (viz the faith of their parents) Ergo, The Baptism of infants, (though of believers) overthrows the nature of the covenant of grace, and consequently aught in no wise to be.  
Arg. 4 That which overthrows the nature of Christ's true visible Church, aught in no wise to be. But the Baptism of infants, though of believers doth so. Ergo, it ought in no wise to be. If the matter of the church be only regenerate persons, and the matter of the visible Church such only as appear so by the profession of faith and repentance, then to baptise infants; is to contradict this, and to overthrow the nature thereof; seeing they are borne in sin and make no appearance to the contrary: but that they so remain. But the matter of the Church are only regenerate persons, john 3.3.5. and the matter of the visible Church only such as appear so by the profession of faith and repentance, as all the Epistles of Paul written to the Churches do prove: Rom. 8.15. 1 Cor. 4.15. as these instances instead of many do make it appear. Therefore to baptise infants (though of believers) is to overthrow the nature thereof, and consequently aught in no wise to be.  
Arg. 5 That which makes Religion subsist in the deed done now in the time of the Gospel, aught in no wise to be, Phil. 3.3. john 4.23.24. But the Baptism of infants, though of believers doth so, Ergo, it ought in no wise to be The minor is thus proved: That which is an action of Religion done, and no faith in the person of the doer, required in the doing of that thing, that makes Religion to subsist in the deed done; but the Baptism of infants, though of believers, is an action of Religion performed, and no faith required in the person of the doer, in the doing of that thing: Ergo, the Baptism of infants, though of believers, makes Religion to subsist in the deed done in the time of the Gospel, and consequently aught in no wise to be.  
Arg. 6 That which reviveth judaisme, and so denieth Christ to be come in the flesh, aught in no wise to be; 1 john 4.3. 2 john 7. But the Baptism of Infants, though of believers doth so, therefore, etc. The second Proposition proved thus.  
That practice which is grounded upon the typical seed, which typed out Christ the true promised seed, and ceased at his coming: ●hat practice now in respect of the ground of that practice, reviveth judaisme in the Type, and denieth Christ the truth of the type, to become in the flesh. But the Baptism of infants, though of believers is grounded upon the typical seed which typed out Christ the true promised seed, and ceased at his coming, Gal. 3.16.19. Therefore that being practised, now reviveth judaisme in the type, and denyeth Christ the truth of the type to become in the flesh, and consequently aught in no wise to be.  
Arg. 7 That which makes the world and the Church all one, and confounds the distinction that ought to be betwixt them, ought in no wise to be, Col. 4.5. 1 Pet. 2.12. Col. 2.20 2 Cor. 6.14. But the baptism of Infants though of believers doth so: therefore it ought not to be. The second proposition is thus proved, those which administer the special privilege, the Ordinance of entering persons into the Church, from common causes which do belong to the world, as well as to the Church, do make the world and the Church all one, and confound the distinction that ought to be betwixt them. But to baptise infant's though of believers, is to administer the special privilege, the ordinance of entering persons into the Church, from common cause which do belong to the world, as well as to the Church; (to wit) the general offer of promise, Matth. 28.18. Acts 2.39 which is to be offered to every man and woman in the world, Mark 16.15. or else the being borne of believing parents, which agrees to Ishmael and Esau as well as to Isaac and jacob; and all in this respect being bu● flesh, born in sin and children of wrath, john 3.6. Psal. 51.3. Eph. 2.3. Therefore to baptise infants, though of believers, is to make the world and the Church all one, and confounds the distinction that ought to be betwixt them, and consequently ought not to be.  
But circumcision, 
Object.  the ordinance of entering persons into the jewish Church, was administered upon persons from the s●me common cause above, mentioned; and yet it did not make that Church and the world all one, nor yet confound the distinction that was betwixt them, and the world, therefore the consequence doth not follow.  
The Church of the jews did not differ from the world, 
Answ.  in the same causes that the christian Church doth: for they were a nation separated and set apart by God by the covenant of circumcision, Acts 7.8. from all other nations; to worship at jerusalem, Deut. 7 6, 7, 8. and 12.6.13.14. john 4.20. But the christian Church are part of the same nation, begotten and born by the immortal seed the word and spirit of God, john 3.3.5. james 1.18. 1 Pet. 1.23. to the saith of the truth. Rom. 11.20. Gal. 3.26. by which only they have right to baptism, Acts 8.37. and 10.47. and 11.17. and are to shine as lights before the world in the places where they live, Ph. 2.15.16. 1 Pet. 2.12. And hence it followeth, that although circumcision according to God's command, did from such common causes enter persons into the Church, and yet did not confound the distinction, they being a distinct nation from the rest of the world; yet, if persons of the same nation without any command from God be baptised, and thereby entered into the Church from common causes belonging to the world, such as are above mentioned: That necessarily makes the Church and the world all one and confounds the distinction that ought to be betwixt them, and therefore the objection from circumcision is nothing to hinder the former consequence, but that it remaineth firm and sound.  
Arg. 8 That which unites persons with the Church of Rome, and Papists; aught in no wise to be, Rev. 18.4. But the baptism of infants, though of believers, doth so: therefore it ought in no wise to be. The second Proposition is thus proved, wheresoever the baptism is one, the Church and people are one; But the Papists and Rome's baptism, is one with the infant's baptism, though believers. Therefore the baptism of infants makes one with the Church of Rome and Papists.  
That the Papists and Rome's baptism, is one with infant's baptism, though of believers; I prove because they baptise infants, and there be some believers amongst them, else God would not call them from them, Rev. 18.4. Whose infants are there baptised; but especially because there is no difference in infants, as infants, unless God make some difference; now there is no difference known between the believers infants, and the Papists infants: and we are all born Papists by nature, and what hinders that we are not all Papists? but conversion, or education, or outward restraint, and what was it that brought all to be Papists at first, from Apostolical, to be Apostatical; but the baptising of infants? whereby religion came into act before it was wrought in the heart, and so they became christians in name, and were indeed against Christ in nature; and so were Antichristum, and so were a Church of Christ in name, and a great one too: yea. a catholic one though against Christ, and so Antichristian in nature; and thus they looking upon one Minister as chief, whom they made Pope, he must needs be Christ's Vicar in name, though he were against Christ indeed: and so the Antichrist who when they had made him, they must needs adore and worship him, and all the world wonders and worships this beast; so he compels all by fraud and force to be of his Church, both great and small: Rev. 13.16. And besides, all that are baptised, are supposed to be believers, but all Papists are supposed to be baptised; Therefore all Papists are supposed to be believers. And then to baptise the infants of Papists, is to baptise the infants of believers, and and there is no difference in baptism then one in Church fellowship with them which ought in no wise to be; therefore infants, no not of believers, ought not to be baptised.  
FINIS,