CALEB'S INHERITANCE IN CANAAN: By grace., not WORKS, AN ANSWER  
To a Book Entitled The Doctrine of Baptism, and distinction of the Covenants, lately published, by Tho. Patient:  
Wherein a review is taken, 

I. Of his four Essentials, and they fully answered; Ergo  
II. Dipping proved no Gospel practice, from clear Scripture.  
III. His ten Arguments for dipping refuted.  
iv The two Covenants answered, and Circumcision proved a Covenant of Grace.  
V His seven Arguments to prove it a Covenant of Works, answered.  
VI His four Arguments to prove it a seal only to Abraham, answered: and the contrary proved.  
VII. The seven Fundamentals that he pretends to be destroyed by taking Infants into Covenant, cleared; and the aspersion proved false.  
VIII. A Reply to his Answer given to our usual Scriptures. For Infant-subjects of the kingdom, in all which Infant-baptism is cleared, and that Ordinance justified,    
By E. W. a Member of the Army in Ireland.  
Joh. 1.46. Can any good thing come out of Nazareth, come and see.  
Rev. 16 15. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his Garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.  
Zach. 13.4, 5. And it shall come to pass in that day, the Prophets shall be ashamed, every one of his vision, and he shall say, I am no Prophet, I am a husbandman. For man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.  
London, Printed for George Sawbridge, at the sign of the Bible upon Ludgate-hill. 1656.   

The Author to the Christian Reader, especially such who are his Comrades and Brethren, in the Armies of this Commonwealth.  
I Shall tell thee no long story of experience to draw on thy belief to embrace either truth, or error, nor do I think that an Argument sufficient to persuade men; besides their reason, and Conscience. 'tis that which Gods word condemns, in that boasting Church, who to entice and allure others, cried out she was rich, and endued with substance, and wanted nothing; when yet she was poor and miserable, and blind and naked. He that hath faith in this sense, let him have it to himself before God, and happy is he that condemns not himself in the things he allows. These are boasting days, wherein men in false ways under false Ordinances, pretend to have much communion with God: A day is coming when their works will be manifest, whether wrought in God or not, when wood, hay, and stubble will be burnt up: the work is already on the wheel, and a poor doubting Christian then will lie nearer Christ's heart, then fleshly boasters: it is not men's pretences to be acquainted with the depths of God, that will make them sound Christians, such there were in the first times of the Gospel, that would be talking of depths: but the holy Ghost, calls them Satan's depths. I could hearty wish that the Author of the new Doctrine of baptism had no cause to doubt of the currantness of his coin, I mean of his principles for heaven: but this I am bold to say, that did I pretend to be such a master in the school of experience, I should not only question all my teaching, but learning also; especially when it comes with such high swelling words against the ways of God: and let me tell thee, though I have no cause to boast of any thing; yet in this I will lay my experience against his: rejoice, and boast, with much confidence, and assurance, that those Ordinances which he calls counterfeits, and cries down for error, etc. and stamps such a black brand of reproach upon, throughout his whole book, shall stand and triumph as the glorious truths of Jesus Christ, in matter of worship, when all his mists and fogs shall be dispelled with the son of righteousness. The Reasons of my undertaking this task, are these which follow;  
1 First, Because I thought men of parts and abilities, as they would look upon the piece to be weak, feeble, and inconsiderate, and to deserve no answer, so their time was better employed then to spare it to such a work.  
2 Secondly, Lest any on the other hand, out of ignorance should think it unanswerable, as I hear many that cry it up, who are ready to misjudge, that our silence gives consent thereto.  
3 Thirdly, Because most of his Arguments (I perceive) are such as I have lately seen in pieces long since published, therefore the answer of him doth answer others of the same strain.  
4 Fourthly, Because the standing for this truth, for the interest of Infant Church-seed in the covenant, is a sprig of generation work, as the holy Ghost witnesseth, Gen. 17.9. which yet is opposed by our dissenting friends, I have therefore used this Trowel with those in Nehemiah 4.  
5 Fiftly, And to let good men know there are a few names in Sardis, that have not defiled their garments, who are apt to think the contrary.  
6 Sixthly, And to give a hand to pull them out that are fallen into Rivers: to reclaim their practice, by informing their judgements, or at least to cause them to make a halt, and to go no further in error; but remember from whence they are fallen and repent.  
7 Because the name T. P. is looked upon as the chief in this moist climate, that bears away the bell; and therefore fittest to be answered, his name being so well known amongst us, as also because, though there hath been never so much said, yet if it comes not forth as an Answer by name, there is but few that will vouchsafe to give it the reading. As if the most part of that judgement, were resolved to act from implicit Faith, or to bolt out the truth, and shut out the light that shines, in so many choice and learned pieces that are published, both touching the covenant and baptism.  
I cannot but think there are many censorious spirits who will be ready to smite with a reviling tongue; because they are even ready to call the Master of the house Belzebub, much more therefore a mean servant. It is the common language of the children of Belial in these days, that if a man do but speak a word for the Ministry, and servants of God, employed in that work of double honour, as I am here necessitated to do, there goes a Priestridden fellow. All I shall say to such, is to remember what Paul saith of scoffing Ishmael, Gal. 4.29, 30.  
The spirit by which his book was penned, I shall speak little to it here, because occasion will be offered to meet with it so fully in the Answer; only this I will say, that from one end to the other, I have not met with one Scripture by him quoted, but hath been most shamefully abused, either in Explication, or Application; and if that large story of his experience were right, which he speaks of in his Epistle, it is strange that a man so pretending should not hit the right mark of any one Text. God direct us to understand his Mind and Will: that so we may know the truth, and hold it fast in erring days, when there are so many deceitful counter-truths abroad, that Christians may not mistake the one for the other, and run up and down like Samsons Foxes, in days of heat, when so much combustible stubble is abroad, to set all in flames. Methinks the most acceptable news in these Athenian days, to all good men, would be, to hear our fallen Brethren reclaimed, and dissenting Protestant friends united in one Faith, under one Lord, in one Baptism: That hearts and hands being joined against the common and public enemy of the truth, the work of our Generation may the better go on and prosper.  
Division and dissension is but the Devil's bone of hatred and strife cast amongst Brethren; who well knows that nothing is more like to obstruct God's work in every generation. As that wise man tells us, how can two walk together except they are agreed? When persons are disjoined, in heads, and hearts; be sure they will fall short of the end. Our Lord Christ himself well knew the danger of such Doctrines, when he applies it to Kingdoms, and Families, and tells us they cannot stand.  
Look upon that Image of the four Monarchies in Daniel the second, that hath ruled the world. It is division hath been their ruin, when Gold, Silver, Brass, Iron, and Clay have been mixed. It is the glory of the Fifth Monarchy, that shall stand as long as the world lasts, that it is but one stone cut out: and then it is like to be a swelling one, when the other shall be Babeled, being smote on the divided Toes and Feet.  
Look into Germany and Savoy, the streets of the great City, are not the Witnesses killing there, that are to lie dead three days and a half? If that be so, stand upon your Watch-Towers, Christians; and see Rome's doom approaching: the expectation of their Isles is mounted, to behold what God is a doing; let all the earth keep silence before him, the hope of Israel is at the doors: and e'er long Abraham's Covenant will be the voice of the people. Those that divide here, so as to cast off this Covenant, are undone, and ruined; those that unite upon Covenant-terms, and own the Conditions, are, and shall be as Mount-Sionn, ever removed.  
Look toward the Wilderness: [How goodly are thy Tents O Jacob! and see the Church coming out leaning upon her beloved: there will not be an Infant left behind. It is pity then to see those who cry out, the Temple of the Lord, to carry on the Dragon's design in making war against the Church's seed. It hath been his project from the days of Abel; If they are let alone, the Church will soon grow too numerous: therefore Pharaoh will play his part, and Herod his part; That the voice of Rachel may be heard in Ramah, weeping for her children, because they are not. If I am thought too hot in the following discourse; let it be considered, that to give an Answer to that book, is to work in the fire, It being so full of Taunts and heats against the Truth.  
Reader, This Item I shall leave with thee: Study Controversy so far as to find the Truth; but take heed of losing thy hear● therein; get as much experience as thou canst, but do not blaze it to the world:— It is a word of advice from him who desires to be  
Thy Christian friend ED. WARREN.   

CALEB'S Inheritance in CANAAN By Grace, not Works.  

CHAP. I. The Doctrine examined, raised from 2 Act. 37.  
IT is the saying of the Holy Ghost, 2 Tim. 3. that in the last days perilous times should come, and amongst the list of dangerous persons, he tells us there should be false accusers: despisers of those that were good: and yet they should be such as had a form of godliness. And after he hath laid down what they are in themselves, he also gives a further description of them in their actions: what they should do, and who they should be like, Now as Jannes, and jambres withstood Moses, so do these men resist the Truth, men of corrupt minds, and reprobate concerning the Faith: But because the people of God would be fearful what the issue of such things would come to, therefore in ver. 9 he comforts them in this, That they should proceed no further, for their Folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. As if he had said; the way to put a stop to such persons, is to lay open their folly: and to show the world, that their accusations are false: this course did Moses take with those Egyptian Priests.  
The person with whom I am to deal in this Reply, hath showed himself in Print, to come in the number of those false accusers, declaring to the world that our practice of Infant-Baptism doth fight against and destroy, seven fundamental points in the Christian Religion; by which we may see his Charge mounts very high, and either he must make it good, or else he will fall under the guilt of his own folly and blindness, if not wickedness so to affirm. And will be also thereby brought under that following description to be a resister of the Truth, Copartner with those false Priests before mentioned.  
I have therefore dealt with him not only in those particulars wherein the accusation lies, but have begun and ended with his whole piece: to unveil and discover the rottenness and deceit thereof, that so, such who through weakness have been ready to embrace this error in their hearts, may in time dislodge it.  
These are the days wherein men heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; for what is writ in this book, called The Doctrine of Baptisms, is no more than what long since he publicly taught, as may be gathered from his own words. But doubtless, if a man should desire an account of his Ministerial Authority, by which he entitles himself a labourer; it would appear to be more from men than God; and that he was never ordained, to such a work: But is rather in the number of Jeroboams Priests, who was made of the lowest of the people, in the fullest extent of that word.  
In pag. 5. We have the groundwork and foundation of all the ensuing discourse, laid down in this Doctrine. That it is the duty of all that believe and repent to be baptised; which though it be truly raised, yet 'tis falsely applied, I shall therefore examine this Doctrine in the application of it. For as 'tis true, that he that believes and reputes, being converted from Judaisme or Heathenism, aught to be baptised; As such were they to whom the Apostle preached in this Act. 2. from whence this Author takes his Text; I say, as the application of this Doctrine is true to such that never yet embraced the Gospel, and so never practised that Ordinance, so on the other side, to apply it in such universal terms to those that have embraced the Gospel, and have been baptised, is unsound. For though a Doctrine be never so truly raised yet if it be not as truly applied, it is a wrenching and abusing the Scriptures, which is easily done, when we consider not the difference a●d nature of the Auditors: to clear which, let us come to some instances; suppose a Church be truly constituted, of which, a great part may be hypocrites, such as were Judas, Magus, Ananias and Saphira, Hymeneus, Alexander, Phyletus, mentioned in the Scriptures, all which were never true believers. These, all these, or any of these becoming true Converts, and such as truly repent of their wicked Hypocrisy; is ●his a Doctrine fit to be applied to them; without doubt such a practice would quickly overturn the Authors dipped Societies: If he be true to the principles of this Doctrine, as by himself it is applied; or else his words do imply that such Doctrines of Faith and Repentance is to be preached only to such as are without the Church, as if those that ●ere within had no need thereof: when as we know they are Doctrines of the Gospel: which is the kingdoms Gospel, and belongs to such as are within as well as without the kingdom; were I a Minister and should come amongst master Patient's people, and preach this Doctrine, and apply it as he doth; would he not think it very much knocked out of joint in the application, to tell them it is the duty of all, who really repent and believe to be baptised; doubtless there is no rational Christian but would so judge: If therefore it holds in one, it must hold also in the other, for it is not persons being hypocrites, or carnal, that nullifies their baptism: no though the Administrator and manner also be circumstantially corrupted and defective: what if John had baptised only by pouring out water which he did (as shall be after proved) when he should have plunged and dipped them as this Author doth; The Ordinance had not been thereby null and void for want of that circumstance. So on the other hand, should this Doctor of dipping convert a Heathen or Jew, and plunge him, when he should have only poured the water on him after the Primitive practice, yet the baptism stands in force still; yea, though the Author so dipping be no true, real, but a pretended Minister; as Ziphoras circumcising stood in force though she were a defective Administrator; and this is the general sense of Protestant Authors; that those Children or persons that receive Popish baptism by their Priests after they are really converted to the Faith of Christ, ought not again to be baptised: and yet we see they are as ignorant as heathens: by what therefore is said, it is apparent the forementioned Doctrine is not to be extended to all alike, and though it be an undoubted truth amongst such as preach to the heathens in New-England, or to such amongst ourselves as are yet unbaptised, yet it is not therefore a suitable Doctrine to such as have been before baptised either there or elsewhere. And yet we see with what fury, and height of Confidence this theme is prosecuted throughout all his book: 'tis a like Argument with this When Christ sent his Ministers to preach and baptise, their Commission was to go into all the World. Therefore he that is a true Minister of the Word and Baptism must be an Itinerary preacher. Augustus Caesar a Tyrant taxed his people; therefore it is lawful for all Magistrates to tax their subjects: which last hath been a Doctrine so raised by the Author in my hearing.   

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

1. The Minister  
2. The Form  
3. The Name into which  
4. The Subject.    
All which being laid down as so many Essentials, if any one be wanting, the baptism in his sense is made null and void: we are therefore come to examine these several heads, and first the Minister or Administrator: p. 6. preaching Disciples go ye therefore, but when he afterwards comes to explain his meaning, who they are, he speaks thus, That Disciple that can bring down God to the soul, and the soul up to God, is a lawful Minister of baptism.] I shall therefore a little search into this unheard of qualification, according to the place by him quoted; first the persons spoken of, had an immediate Commission from Christ. Go ye therefore: Secondly, The persons sent were Apostles; men in Office, men of Gifts, for the work; Go teach all Nations, baptising, such they were that baptised in a way of office, power, and authority; And because these, therefore every man that undertakes to preach by a Gift, either occasionally or intentively not having any Commission or Call thereto may baptise: is this any lawful deduction, or rather is it not the way to destroy the Ministry? by this rule, if there be twenty in the Church of which this Author is a labourer, or Minister, that can preach (or talk rather) as well as himself, they shall therefore take his power of administering these Seals out of his hands. When as both he, and they are bound to desist from any such actions until they are duly and solemnly admitted into an office that capacities them for the work; And the contrary is condemned by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. Are all Apostles, are all Prophets, are all Pastors and Teachers, etc. And therefore God hath set every member in the Church to be useful to the body in his due place: as are the members of the natural body, and not one to intrude upon the other. Consider further  
Secondly, If that be all the qualification required for the administration of Sacraments before mentioned, then may a woman be a lawful administrator; for though the title of preaching Disciples reaches only to the Males: yet that kind of explanation will reach females. What if such a one as Priscilla, who was a Disciple, should amongst many of her own Sex, be an instrument to convert some to the Faith? I hope it cannot be denied but she brings down God to the soul, is it therefore lawful for her to baptise? there must therefore such a restriction be put upon the words, as confines them to persons in office, or else we are like to come to a strange kind of Reformation at last. But indeed this kind of qualification, though the full current of the words are rough and harsh; yet may it well suit with their practice, for though they lay much weight upon the thing itself, called the Ordinance: yet are they very lose in this which he calls an Essential, namely the Administrator, for if the Pastor or Officer be absent, or sick (but usually they have neither) if the people do but desire such a brother to baptise and give the Sacraments, although it be but for a day, this is looked upon as a sufficient warrant to make such a person fit for the work, and thus the practice thereof shall run in the vein of Discipleship, one baptising the other, which is expressly against the very nature of the Ordinance, and all Scripture examples and precedents. Look upon John the Baptist a Prophet, a man sent by God, the Disciples of Christ, all by himself called and Commissioned: and so they were to administer baptism in a way of Office to the end of the world, and not only the Apostles, but their successors also, Pastors, Teachers. Which are as well given to the Church, as the Apostles, prophets, & Evangelists, Eph. 4.11. and do and shall continue so long as the Commission remains till the world's end: had it been given equally alike to all the Church Disciples, he would not have singled out persons in Office: so Philip an Evangelist called by a voice from Heaven, Ananias called by a vision from God Act 9  
Obj. But Baptism is an Ordinance that belongs to the Church, and it is in their power to give the keys as they shall judge fit.  
Answ. The Church can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth: nothing without the rule. If granted that all the males have their votes, yet the administration of the keys lies in the Office or Angel's power, for administration of the Seals Rev. 21.12. Ezek. 44.5, 11. Thirdly, Consider yet further how shall we know who is enabled to bring down God to the soul, and the soul up to God? Conversion is an act of Grace▪ and not in the Creatures power; and though a Minister may be truly called to the work by God and man: yet we know the word may not work for many years, but like seed, may lie hid in the ground, yet, must not this man baptise any, by this rule, though converted by others, because the success of his own labour lies hid, so as that he is not able to say he hath been instrumental in that kind to the souls of his hearers.  
In pag. 7. He strikes down our Ministry at a blow, and indeed opposeth diametrically what before he affirmed: That though a Minister do preach so as to convert, and bring down God to the soul, yet if he be ignorant of this practice of dippping, which he calls the true way of dispensing the Ordinance and a fundamental: he is no justifiable Minister, that in stead of dipping shall sprinkle carnal ignorant Children. By which we may see that the foundation of a true Ministry in his sense, lies more in the water then in conversion: For he denies any true Gospel Ministry, but those of his own stamp. So that when the Apostle Paul affirms the truth of his Ministry was evidenced by that Seal, the seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. 9.2. This Author would have it run The seal of a justifiable Minister, are ye in the water: and thus he destroys not only the present Ministry of Christ in this world: but also that of the Apostles themselves. For as I shall afterwards prove, they were all strangers to this practice of dipping, their manner being by pouring water on the subject: If Jesus Christ shall then justify our present Ministry in sealing their labours, it is too bold an act for a man of such a feeble practice to condemn them. Thus the Reader may see his result on both hands; when the Argument is brought against our practice: then no man is a lustifiable Minister, except he know how to plunge, and doth so practice, when he comes to show what a lawful administrator is in his sense, than he that can bring down the soul to God: so that we may from hence see, what a Babel Ministry this man of contradictions would set up in the world: If I should here ask the Author of this new Baptism, under what Ministry he was converted, no doubt but his answer would be very favourable to those, whom he here opposeth. Remember then your third Doctrine; That 'tis the disposition of such, that have the beginning of saving light, to desire more; and that from them whom God hath spoken to their souls by: Or else you may question whether you have any light at all. But because 'tis to speak a word for the truth, in opposing error, let me therefore return him Talion Law.  
1. He that takes the Covenant of Grace for a Covenant of Works, can be no Gospel Minister, because ignorant of the Gospel in the fundamentals thereof.  
2. He that affirms a Believer at one time may be under two Covenants of Works and Grace, he is no Minister of the Gospel.  
3. He that denies the extent of the Covenant of Grace to be as large and complete under the Gospel, as it was under the Law, can be no Minister of the Gospel.  
4. He that is not lawfully Ordained to the work of the Ministry, he can be no lawful Minister, because like the false Prophets, he runs before sent.  
5. He that shall by his Doctrine and Practice, put greater burden and yokes upon the necks of Christians, than ever the false Teachers did by Circumcision, Acts the 15. he is no warrantable Minister: But such a one is this Author of the Doctrine of Baptisms; ergo. The Minor I shall make appear through this whole discourse, given in as an Answer to his Book. Lastly, as to that contempt and reproach which he casts upon the seed of Believers, who are Abraham's children, calling them carnal, ignorant, as though they were uncapable of any good: Let him that rails know, that he that casts off Abraham's seed when infants, as not fit matter for worship, doth keep them out as an unclean thing: And so, though God hath separated them to a holy use; they are made unholy, and kept off as execrable, and so accursed: Which the Lord no doubt foresaw, when he gave Abraham that promise, Gen. 12. I will curse him that curseth thee. I say this, this word of the Lord will at last reach such, and pull them down, if their ●est were built as high as the stars of heaven. Therefore hear and fear, and do no more so wickedly, all ye that hope for the blessing of Abraham's Covenant.   

CHAP. III. His second Essential, relating to the manner of Baptism by Dipping, answered.  
THe second Essential he so calls in this Doctrine of Baptisms, is the manner thereof, by Dipping, not sprinkling. To prove which, though he say the word is rendered to Dip, Dous, Drown, or Plunge, in this he speaketh with a hoodwinked understanding, and must shake hands with the Roman Tribe, that acts from an implicit faith, believing as learned men tells him; though yet he can hardly afford them a good word, or charitable censure. As for the place he brings, 2 Kings 5.14. where the Prophet bids Naaman go wash in Jordan seven times, and he dipped himself. Answer, Though washing is sometimes by dipping; yet not always, yea but seldom. A man may properly be said to wash himself in a River, though he only dips in his hand, and casts water about him, which is most frequent and usual, both in our practice, and acceptation of the word, either in our vulgar, or in Scripture dialect: Were a man to wash his face or head, must he needs dip it; and so of any other part, or the whole body: But let us search the Scriptures, Mark 7.4. Except they wash they eat not; and Luke 11.30. They marvel at Christ, that he had not first washed before dinner: Is any man so void of reason to think, that before the Pharisees sat down, they plunged themselves: And Christ, who well knew what the word to baptise, or wash, signified, gives them such an answer as relates to the pouring out of water, so washing only the outside of things, verse 39  
Had their cups and platters, tables and beds, been dipped, and so washed, then had inside, outside, and every side, been washed. The word than hath a promiscuous acceptation, some times taken one way, some times another; as Sidnam clears this, Budeus, Scapula, Pasor, Grotius, do give the sense of the word: Therefore to no purpose is this unlearned Authors Appeal to the Greek, Latin, and English Churches: Though yet, 'tis considerable, that he should acknowledge such as Churches, whom his words and practice do so much cry down; therefore I doubt his charity is much of the same nature with those of the late fifth Monarchy; who though they would use the word of Protestant Churches, yet they did look upon them but as the outworks of Antichrist, which were first to be stormed: For there is scarce a Book extant of the Anabaptists, but hath a touch thereof; such is that Piece called The Storming of Antichrist, which came out long since, and others of the like stuff.  
Secondly, he tells us that the phrase in which Baptism is rendered, doth usually, and necessarily import such a thing, And therefore when mention is made of Baptising, 'tis commonly translated, in, or into, and therefore suits most with dipping, and not that preposition [with] which suits most with sprinkling; and when our translation tells us that john Baptised with water, he would correct it within water; and instead of ye shall be baptised with the holy Ghost and with fire, it should be rendered in the holy spirit and in fire.;  
Answ: W● may see to what height ignorance is mounted, when he that knows not what a preposition is, shall undertake to mend translations: what property of speech can there be in that phrase, Mark 1.8. to say he shall baptise you in the holy Ghost, and in fire, when the word is, with: is it possible for a man to be doused, drowned or plunged into the holy Ghost, methinks he might blush to show his ignorance.  
But to make this clear, let's view and compare the place with Acts. 1.5. For john truly baptised with water, so Mark 1.8. I have baptised you with water, and Math. 11. I indeed baptise you with water but ye shall be baptised with the holy Ghost, and with fire, would it not be strange to read it into fire, considering also, that these words relate to the pouring out the holy Ghost, spoken of Acts 2.3. and there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like unto fire, and it sat upon each of them, they did not sit in the fire, but the holy Ghost like fire sat upon them; and then in verse. ●7. the Apostle Peter, who very well knew what was meant by the word Baptise, interprets it, by joel 2.31 to be the pouring out of the spirit prophesied of. And thus when Christ's tells them of their being Baptised with the spirit, it appears to be meant of the spirits pouring out, so that from hence its evident, that john's Baptism was by pouring out water, and not plunging into water, or else it would not have been so conjunctively placed with the the manner of the spirits Baptism: john truly Baptised with water, but ye shall be Baptised with the holy Ghost. For as the pouring out the holy Ghost was the true Baptism of the Spirit, so john truly Baptising with water, was by powreing it out also; let but any Englishman read it that knows but how to make sense of what he reads, & it must of necessity gives a dash to all their plunging; Let therefore such as have been deluded into so groundless a practice consider it and repent thereof.  
A second parallel instance to confute this practice of dipping, is that of Israel's being Baptised in the clouds & in the Sea 1 Cor 10. which by Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, as before Peter was of the jews, is called a Baptism: and by what principle of reason or conscience, can any man think that Israel was plunged into either cloud or sea, when the word of God tells us they marched through the sea upon dry land: Exo: 14: 22. the waters being divided, yea david's relating to this very march of Israel Psalm the 77.15.17. tells us that this Baptism (which Paul so calls, in which believers and their seed were Baptised) was by pouring out water, and not plunging into water: For thus the word runs, the clouds poured out water.  
If men therefore will not harden their hearts against the truth and blind their own eyes, here is light enough to show us what is meant by this word Baptise; the Authority of Peter and Paul both eminent Apostles bearing witness to this truth: & yet we must be deluded from the truth by ignorant men, against not only the very light of nature, but of Scriptures also. As for that other Preposition example, which he brings in that page of baptising in the Wilderness, and in Jordan, he tells us it would be improper to render it, with the Wilderness and with Jordan, and therefore would urge it to be as improper in that other place.  
I answer, the Reader may from hence also gather how sadly fit this man is for a minister, who to make our practice speak nonsense, doth not himself know what belongs to a sense. For because the preposition [with] is by us maintained proper, when it relates to the matter, or manner, therefore he would have it also as proper when it relates to the place: as if I should say, Master Patient hath baptised with the milpool with Dublin, for in the milpool in Dublin.  
4. In Pag. 9 his next place he brings to maintain his dipping is that of Paul. 1 Cor 10. already touched on, they were all Baptised to Moses in the Cloud, and in the sea, not with the clouds and with the sea.  
Answ: Which is most proper to say, Israel were Baptised by pouring out water from the cloud, and by sprinkling from the sea, or to say, Israel was Baptised by plunging into the cloud, and into the sea, for than they must be all overwhelmed with both. And David in the place before-quoted tells us it was done by pouring out water; was it improper to say, Israel was Baptised in the sea, when they were in the sea? for though God wrought a miracle to divide the waters, that Israel might march upon dry ground, yet was it in the Sea. As when a man hath been in a shower of rain, Is it improper to say he hath been in the rain, because it is not proper to say he hath been dipped into a cloud? I shall therefore refer this to the consideration of the most judicious of that Judgement (of which, there are many.) What ground of Reason there can be for such a construction as is made of that place, by this Author, and shall also leave that place, Exod. 15.4, 5. to be thought of as an example, That when the Egyptians marched into the Sea, they were baptised in his sense, i. e. Dipped, doused, and drowned, but not Gods Israel; take heed therefore of your too eager pursuit of Abraham's Seed; who as they were then, so still are baptised by pouring or sprinkling.  
Fifthly, In Page 10. the next place he brings for dipping, is in Acts 8.38, 39 Philip baptised the Eunuch, they being both in the water, he dipped the Eunuch, as John did Jesus, Matth. 3.16.  
Answ. And much at one, that is, the Eunuch was as much plunged as Christ was plunged; for they were neither of them so baptised. It hath been already proved, that John's manner of baptising, was not by plunging, but pouring out water; and therefore that Text, Matth. 3.6. stands for a cipher in this particular. A man may as properly be said to go down into the water, and come up out of the water, though not wetshod, as if he had been dipped all over: So was Israel in the Sea properly, and yet not dipped; besides, Philip was as much in the Water as the Eunuch, and in that construction they must be both plunged; but not a word is here of the mode of Baptism, only he baptised him, the manner must be picked out of other Scriptures, which may be easily gathered from what hath been already spoken: There may be other Reasons also given, why it could not be by dipping, as that the Eunuch was upon a journey travelling homeward; and therefore neither he, nor Philip, provided with garments suitable for such a work, it being accidental to them both: For if it be a Gospel Ordinance, it must not be done, they being both naked; for so it would have been an action of no good report, contrary to Paul's rule. And indeed, take it in the most serious manner, as now practised yet there is no show of carriage or deportment suitable to the Majesty of the Gospel of Christ, which may easily appear to any sober Christian, whose eyes are not darkened by ignorance or blind zeal: For what gravity can there be for a Minister, who is God's Ambassador to the World, 2 Cor. 5.20. to put off his shooes and stockings, and to lead a Gentlewoman by the hand into a River, and throw her on her back? Is this a deportment fit for Ambassadors that come from God? whose holiness is such, that will not permit a Woman to be uncovered or unvailed in the Church, and shall we think than he will own such inhumanities'? Methinks the very naming hereof should be a sufficient confutation, which is enough to make a modest face to blush. Also considering, that either Subject or Administrator, and perhaps both, may be of so tender, weak, and feeble constitution, as they are not able to undergo the cold. Many such considerations falls in, that were it practised amongst Heathens, that do by nature the things contained in the Law; that very light amongst them would condemn it.  
Sixthly, He argues in Page 10. from John's Baptism, his work being to Baptise, he remained near Jordan, and afterwards at Enon near Salem, because there was much Water in that place. Ergo, He baptised by dipping.  
Answ. It hath been already proved from Mark 18. with Acts 1.3. and Chap. 2.17. which relates to Joel the second, That John's Baptism was not by dipping, but pouring out Water; and therefore this cannot be the reason why he chose that place, namely, Because there were many Waters to dip. Other Reasons must be therefore given, as, That because the work of baptising a whole Region was very great; and John not only baptising himself, but very likely, having made Disciples which he taught more immediately, Luke 11.1, 2. John 4.1, 2. Matth. 11.2, 3. Luke 7.18. as Christ did his Disciples: He also might ordain and appoint them to the work, that so when the whole multitude of people came together, they might have each a share of the work, and conveniency of place accordingly, because there were many waters, when other parts of the Country were very scarce thereof; as not only History, but Scripture mention; tract Israel's march from Egypt.  
Surely, had this Author of the Doctrine of Baptisms lived in Spain, or in many parts of Zona-torida, where they sell Water as we do Beer, not having enough to drown a man in a Country; he would have been of a more sober judgement. Adding this also thereto, That when John baptised a whole Region, both men and women, rich and poor; either, he must send out Order to all the Country, ●o bring suitable Garments, which the poor, it is likely, could not do or else promiscuously he must dip them naked, or, in such Garments as they wear; the unworthiness of which practice is already shown: Therefore it is much to think, that a person who prebends to Preach the Gospel, as this man doth, should be so purbsinde, having his eyes shut against the truth. But that God deals so by men in a way of Justice, when they set up idols in their hearts, he answers them according to their idol●, Ezek. 14.1, 3, 4, 5. a place by himself afterwards quoted, though falsely applied.  
Page the eleventh and twelfth, contains his seventh, eighth, and ninth Arguments, which may be all put together, because all alike, and the confutation of one answers the rest; where he tells us, That Baptism ought to be by dipping, is proved from the nature of the Ordinance; and from the Analogy, it hath with the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, many places he brings, but to every little purpose. And therefore I answer with Mr. Sidenham  
1. That plunging cannot represent it, is most clear; for when Christ was buried, he was not plunged into the Earth, but laid in joseph's Sepulchre cut out of a Rock, Matth. 27.6. which was the manner of burials amongst the Jews; and if covering all over, though in a Rock, was sufficient, to cause such a resemblance by dipping, then had Christ been covered in a House or Coffin for three days; it must also have been so resembled.  
2. Neither doth it answer to the mode of burying amongst Christians in Europe, or elsewhere: For the Earth, by which the person is covered, is applied to the subject, and cast upon him; so that the applying of water to the subject in Baptism, as John did, in those places before quoted, [I indeed baptise you with water, etc.] doth more lively represent Christ's burial, then dipping can. To what purpose therefore is it for a man to heap up a multitude of Scriptures, as this Author here doth, to make all sure, when he is wholly mistaken in the thing, and manner thereof▪ and not one of those Texts proves, that ever Christ was so buried?  
Seventhly. Page 13. he comes to his tenth Argument to prove Baptism by dipping, namely, because it holds forth a conformity to Christ in his sufferings. So saith Christ, I have a Baptism, meaning his death, and can ye be baptised with the Baptism wherewith I am baptised; meaning his afflictions. And this is set forth by dipping into water, because when the Saints in the Scripture express their afflictions, they set them forth by being in the depths, Psal. 130. Out of the depths have I cried And Isa. 43.2. When thou passest through the waters, they shall not overflow thee: Therefore Believers are to be dipped all over into the water; and as he is raised up again by the hand of the Minister, it holds forth, that so such souls, shall be saved from all their affl●ctio s by Christ. Psal. 24.17. Many are the afflictions of the righteous▪ but God delivereth them out of all: And that this doth signify our Salvation doth further appear, 1 Pet. 3 ●1 Alike figure whereunto Baptism even s●ves us: A●d Mark 6 16. He that believes, and ●s baptised, or dipped, shall be saved.;  
Answ. What strange Hieroglyphics doth this Author make in the Water, by dipping? What stretched inferences to make the Scripture answer his fancy? let's try the places. If Christ calls his afflictions a Baptism, doth it therefore follow, That all Believers should represent it by plunging? We know that many Christians never meet with such afflictions; and such a practice to be so plunged, would be a greater affliction than ever befell them; and the place implies this, to be in deep waters, is an affliction; or, would this new Doctor have Believers do themselves a mischief, to represent Christ's afflictions: Which of necessity, thousands must do by this practice of dipping. It is no hard matter to give several instances hereof.  
Secondly, What should such do to represent those afflictions of Christ, that have not water enough in a Country, except they should make deep Ponds or Vessels of purpose. Did ever the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days, or the Primitive persecutions, take that course, and yet no doubt but they were as much baptised into Christ's death and afflictions, as ever this Author could be, though with his practice he should give his body to be burnt, to justify the same. Therefore, let the judicious but impartially judge what strange doctrines this labourer, for dowsing, brings. What though David cried to the Lord out of the depths; yet his head still kept above water: unless he will affirms, that the promise in the place, by himself quoted Isai. 43.2. was not made good unto him, [When thou passest through the water, it shall not overflow thee.] And though afflictions shall never quite overflow a child of God, yet by this doctrine the body must be dipped all over: A strange resemblance!  
The like we may say to that of 1 Pet. 3.21. by which he would prove, That Baptism is a figure of Salvation, though yet, it cannot be by dipping under water, because the Apostle calls it a like figure to the Ark: But the Ark was never under water, but always floating, and so the persons that were in the Ark; therefore if Baptism be a like figure, than it needs no going under water for a signification: For had the Ark been doused under water, the signification had been lost, or at least not so clear. By this therefore, we may take the hint of an other Argument, to prove dipping under water, not to be the Scripture way of baptising. Thus we may see how fully and apparently even his own Scriptures, makes against both his Book and practice.  
As to that other place, Matth. 16.16. it is quite besides the business; for it doth not prove Baptism to be a figure of Salvation: only he that believes and is baptised, i. e. obeys the Gospel, shall be saved. Thus than his second Essential of dipping hath been examined with all his ten arguments: upon which this Author of the doctrine of Baptisms doth build the whole stress and fabric of dipping-grown persons with so much heat and confidence, and such slighting contempt of his opposers, and upon the whole result it appears but as a bubble quickly broken, Ergo dipping is no Essential.   

CHAP. IU. His third head of Essentials concerning the name into which persons are Baptised.  
WE are come now to examine and look into this third Essential (by him so called) of dipping into the name of the Father etc. as 'tis by him opened page 14. 15. 16. and 24. in which he tells us a person cannot be rightly Baptised into the name, except he be able to give a distinct Account of the Trinity of persons in their several operations. Let us therefore review those primitive and ' Apostolical examples.  
Answ: The Baptism of john, none will deny, but his Baptism and Ministry was from God, and so a Gospell-Baptizm: did the persons he Baptised give this Account? the contrary is most evident, and that they claimed a right to that ordinance as being Abraham's seed to whom the covenant was made: therefore when the Pharisees came to be Baptised, who lived not as Abraham's Children, he turns them back with a reproof, think not to say within yourselves you have Abraham to your Father: for you are a generation of Vipers. Had not the rest been received upon that consideration as Abraham's seed; the reproof had not been suitable: but no mention is made of their distinct knowledge in the mystery of the Trinity.  
Secondly had this been an essential, then was john's Baptizm quite null, and the Apostles also before Christ's death: for the third person was not so eminently known nor sent, because Christ was not then glorified, yea john's disciples never heard whether there were any holy Ghost, therefore how could they believe in him (and so confess, him) so distinctly and eminently? Rom. 10.14.  
This further appears by considering the commission itself, and the practice of the disciples thereupon: the words of the Commission are, go teach all nations &c. teaching them to observe whatever I command you. In which something is to be taught before, something after Baptism, now that which is to be taught before is so much as capacifies them to be disciples, for so our opposites give the Rendition of the words, go disciple all nations. As a Child then may be a disciple when he first gins to learn his A. B. C. so may a Christian be a disciple of Christ without such a high pitch of Knowledge into the mystery of the Trinity. For without all peradventure, the Apostles themselves were ignorant thereof though Baptised, when Christ first called them, and were afterwards taught further by degrees: for the Scripture tells us they were disciples before they knew how to pray Luke. 11.1.2.  
Fourthly, That this is no Essential, further appears, if we view the practice of the Apostles after Christ's ascension; as for instance, that place Acts 2. where so many thousands were Baptised together, can any reasonable man think that they all gave such a distinct Account of their faith into the persons of the Trinity, and that in one day. The like also in the Eunuch Acts the 8. what Accounts did he give, but only I believe that jesus Christ is the son of God, and surely had there been more needful, when he asked that question, what hinders? Philip would not have Baptised him before he had given a fuller account into all the persons of the Trinity, For to what purpose had it been, when his Baptism had been null for want thereof; the like instance also is that of Simon Magus Acts, 8. then Simon himself believed also and was Baptised, and yet afterwards he appeared to be so Ignorant of the holy Ghost, that he would have bought the gifts thereof with money, yea were this to be decided by the Anabaptists themselves there would not be one in twenty rightly Baptised, supposing (though not granted) their practice to be true, For how ●ew amongst them are able to give such an account of the Trinity of persons, when as also many of them, to my knowledge, and that not of the meanest, deny the personality of the holy Ghost at all? we may therefore see what new doctrines are intruded upon the consciences of weak Christians, by men that do not understand what an Essential is, yet I would not be so understood as that I should deny the form of words, to all within the Covenant, when the ordinance is administered, or that I plead against a preposition or confession of faith, from such as are converted and not Baptised, which yet may be, as hath been here proved, though there may be much ignorance of so high a mystery; thus also having examined this head, we find that the name into which Believers with their seed are Baptised is, not so to be applied, as that a person ought not to be baptised, unless he can so distinctly answer to this Doctors new Catechism, Ergo such a kind of knowledge, is no Essential.   

CHAP. V Relates to the subject fit for Baptism, in which the whole Scriptures give in their votes to believers and their Infants.  
IN Page the 17 he comes to his last head of Essentials, namely the subjects to whom the ordinance is to be administered, laid down in these terms, Disciples, penitent persons: the Texts he brings are Mark. 6.16. go preach the Gospel etc. he that believes and is baptised shall be saved, compared with Matth. 28.10. Go teach all nations Baptising.  
Answ: ●o clear these places we are to consider, that before the death of Christ the Gospel, i. e. Abraham's Covenant was shut up to the Jewish nation only; And therefore the wall of separation, being broken down by the death of Christ he enlarges that commission to all nations which before was confined to the Jews, According to that old prophecy of Noah Gen. 9.27 God shall enlarge japheth; and he shall dwell in the tent of Shem. So that look what privileges the Jews had before, and in what sense they were disciples, and Canaanites made subject to them; In the same large extent the same privileges of covenant-discipleship, was by this commission published to the world. i e. to all nations Go teach all nations, i. e. open Abraham's covenant to all nations, i. e. Let all nations upon embracing the Gospel and submitting to the conditions of Abraham's covenant, (for there can be no other Gospel taught,) have the same benefit of being disciples that the Jews had before, that is, both they and their seed; for so 'tis clear the Jews and their Children were disciples, Esa 8.16. seal the law amongst my disciples. And Acts 15. they were those upon whose necks the ●alse teachers would lay the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses, and are called in verse ●0. Disciples. Another clear text for this is Math. 10 last verse, whosoever shall give to one of these little ones a cup of cold water, only in the name of a disciple, shall not lose his reward where we have three for s of persons named, a Prophet: a righteous man, and a little Child, and the least of these called a disciple by Christ himself▪ that, by little ones is meant Children, and not believers Adult, is plain, because that otherwise it had been Tautology, the word righteous man including all such Adult-believers. [See this place also to prove children disciples, Matth. 21.15. with Luk. 19.37, 39] For the whole verse runs in diminitives, both as to the favours shown, and the person to whom: For as a less favour could not well be extended for Christ's sake, than the giving a cup of water, so it could not be extended to a less subject, then to an Infant-disciple. The same word is used, Matth. 18.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 The result comes to this, That if Children were disciples amongst the Jewish Nation, to whom the Gospel or Covenant was first preached; and this new Commission was given by way of enlargement of that Covenant to all Nations, baptising, etc. 'Tis then evident, that children of Believers are now also disciples, therefore fit subjects for Baptism; and the putting of any other sense upon the place, as our opposites do (in all their Books lately published) is but a resting and abusing the holy Scriptures. And  
Secondly, All those other Texts by this Author brought for baptising of Believers in Page 17, 18, 19 are those, which in a right sense we deny not, provided, (as hath been already said) They are converted from Judaisme, or Heathenism; or such amongst ourselves that have for several years past, neglected their Baptism. An example whereof, we may take from the practice of our Brethren of New England, in baptising many Heathens, lately converted, which this Author might have seen, had he stayed there a little longer, and been as Patient in nature, as he is by name.  
The next proofs he brings to prove Adult-believers, and not Children, to be the only subjects of Baptism, is all those Families, Page ●oo mentioned in the New Testament, where this opposite undertakes to prove they were all converted Disciples, such as upon hearing the Word, did actually believe hitherto notwithstanding any thing he hath said. As in page 18. That God commands his Ministers to dip Believers only: It hath been proved, and that by the testimony of two Ap stles, That dipping is not the Scripture-way of bap ising; and that Adult believers are not the only subjects of Baptism, is in part cleared: And though he is pleased to say, The Apostles did baptise only such, it shall appear, That what he affirms therein, is against the very scope and mind of God, through the Scriptures, in these following examples.  
1. The first Family Text he quotes▪ is that of Lydia, Acts 16.14, 15. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of Purple, of he City of Thiatira, which worshipped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened that she attended, etc. And when she was baptised and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and she constrained us. Which Family Mr. Patient saith, were all Believers, Verse 40. which Paul and Sylas went to visit.  
Answ. The consideration of the words preceding the Text, and the several circumstances, will give a clear light to find out the truth, by him (and many Scribes of a late edition of that party) obscured and darkened.  
First, The persons that were met together, were only women.  
Secondly, Of all those Women met, we find only Lydia converted.  
Thirdly, Upon her conversion, we find her household baptised, and that at the same time: By which it is apparent, that she took with her, her family to the place of worship; for thus the words run, And when she was baptised, and her household, she besought us, saying, If you have judged me faithful to the Lord, come with me, etc. Both she and her household, were baptised before they went home; by which also, we may very lawfully gather,  
1. That there were no men at the meeting.  
2. That therefore those Brethren afterwards mentioned, could not be then at that time converted, because, had there been men, and they wrought upon, the Holy Ghost would not have overslipt them, to take notice only of the Female: Therefore it is evident, That those Brethren spoken of, Verse 40. were either some of the Family afterwards converted, or some other of the City, then met at her house, which were after Lydea's conversion, wrought upon, because we find Paul and Sylas were committed to prison; and it is likely, it was upon that converting work, which the Gospel made amongst them, according to the voice that called them, come over and help us. Or 3. they might be believing Brethren from other parts, that came to buy Purple, because we find the Spirit of God taking such exact notice of her profession, Vers. 14. But that those Brethren, were converted at that time, when she and her household were baptised, is against the express Letter of the Text, as any observant Reader may see. This Text therefore makes against Mr. Patient; for if Lydia and her household were baptised, when we find only Lydia converted: And if by house, is meant Children, as I shall afterwards prove it is, than it is agreeable to the very mind of God, to say, That her believing gave her Children aright to Baptism, because we do not find any that believed, but her, and yet we find all her household baptised. Thus than this place breaks forth with much clear light, dispelling those fogs of error that scribbling pens have cast upon it.  
Secondly, The next place he brings is the Jailor and his house, Acts 16. who rejoiced in God with all his house, [he believing] For so the words are truly rendered, by which it doth not appear the whole house believed, but the whole house rejoiced, and yet, both he and his whole house were Baptised. Secondly 'tis observable, the exhortation given the Jailor runs in the very strains of Abraham's covenant, Gen. 17. walk before me, And I will be thy God and the God or thy seed; so here, believe, and thou shalt be saved and thy house, so Acts 2. when they were pricked in heart, as this Jailor was, Repent and be Baptised, the promise is to you and your Children: so here verse 33. he was Baptised, he and all that were of him. A fuller expression could not well be used, to set out his Children by, who may properly be said to be of their Parents, and none but they. Therefore, if the Jailor and all that were of him were Baptised, when only the Jailor believed, though all rejoiced, than he and his Children were Baptised; unless any man can be so unreasonable as to say, that those that were of him were not Children; which to affirm, will but rather discover weakeness then Eclipse the truth.  
Thirdly, A third example which holds forth a clearer light to the preceding, is that of Zacheus, Luke 9 who was a Gentile-Publican, yet upon Christ's calling him, he useth this argument, to day I must abide at thy house, and in verse 9 this day is salvation come to this house, For as much as he also is a Son of Abraham: In which word [also] the very covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is confirmed to him and his house though a Gentile, that had no relation to Abraham's seed by birth, yet, thou also though a Gentile, art the son of Abraham; and therefore salvation is come to thy house. Noteworthy are the collections of faithful Sydenham, from this place, whose little piece hath made their water-works totter, and remains not only unanswered, but unanswereable, though the spattering of a scratching pen hath given a late attempt to little purpose. His collections are these, first, that assoon as Zacheus believed, Christ applied Abraham's promise to his house; And it there had not been something more in it, he would have said only, salvation is come to thee: For the spirit of God doth not put a syllable more in the Scriptures than is useful and necessary.  
Secondly He opens Abraham's covenant not only to him, but his house, and argues the privilege from his being a son of Abraham, though a Gentile, showing that Abraham's covenant hath as large an extent amongst the Gentiles, as it had amongst the Jews to a believer and his seed; otherwise it had been enough to have said salvation is come to thee: but to mention his house with himself, and to bring them into the blessing, and give this as a reason, because thou also art a son of Abraham, is as much as to say, that the privileges of Abraham's covenant are the same to thee a Gentile and thy house, as they were to Isaac, for as much as thou also art a son of Abraham, as well as he. Now for Christ to speak in this dialect, and to tell them of their household and his favour to them, and that in the beginning of the Gospels' planting, and yet at the same time to exclude their infants from all outward signs of the promise, which they ever had in darkest days of Grace, is a strange policy unsuitable to the simplicity of the Gospel.;  
These are such plain examples, that I marvel what kind of conscience men pretend to have, when they shut out the sun that shines in these scriptures, and cry out they are full of darkness.  
Fourthly, The next place and example brought by this Author, is the house of Stephanus, whom Paul Baptised; A Triumphant place so thought, to prove that there was no Children in those houses mentioned 1. Cor. 11.6. chap 16.15. the words run thus; I beseech you brethren you know the household of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia: that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the Saints; That ye submit yourselves to such, and to every one that laboureth with us: where saith Master Patient, we see they were all ministers, and men that laboured with the Apostles, therefore not Babes or Children.  
Answ: The Apostle doth not say they were all Ministers, or such as laboured in the word and doctrine, as he did himself; But they are so said to Minister, because they addicted themselves to the ministering to the Saints, in a way of Hospitality, for so the word is taken for relieving the Poor and so the same chap. refers to 1 Cor. 16. namely a free, liberal and charitable collection for the poor Saints: verse 1.2.3. and 2 Cor 8.4. chap. 9.1. now as touching the Ministering to the Saints, 'tis superfluous for me to write etc. In which places the same word is used, as here in this example of Stephanus and his house, who addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints. by which it appears, that as the Apostle had boasted of others in the former chap. so in this also he commends the freeness and Hospitality of Stephanus; because in such actions there is much heart-sinceritie to be seen, in entertaining poor Christians, This being so, Then 'tis no hard matter to know, who is meant by the house of Stephanus which Paul Baptised. For though the servants 'tis likely might be gracious, and full of love to poor Christians, yet by the word house is property meant, Parents and Children, and 'tis very, unlikely, the servants of the house should be so free and hospitable of their Master's goods. And as for the Children, they were taken in by their Parents Actions and so the whole house is commended, For the hospitality of Stephanus and his yoakfellow, as 'tis usual in such causes, to say, such a house is noble and free, when 'tis meant only of the heads and chief of the family, and these were the persons that Paul presseth the Church to honour and esteem; and to submit to such; And not to such only, but to every one also, that helpeth with us, and laboureth. But 'tis a stretched inference to say, that because his house addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, therefore they were all preachers, and such as laboured in the Gospel, and the Church was to submit themselves to all the household i e. servants, and all as ministers, therefore no Children. The like also the Apostle pressed them in the following verse to submit to Fortunatus and Achicus, who came with a seasonable and refreshing relief and supply to their wants; therefore acknowledge ye them that are such, verse 18. i e. such who minister relief to Christians in necessity. So Matth. 8.15. 'tis said that Peter's Wives Mother ministered to Christ. Master Patient, surely will not be so far besides himself, to think that she preached to Christ, as a minister; from what then hath been also said to this instance, 'tis abundantly clear to any sober spirit who is willing to search after truth, and not take things barely upon the count of Master Patients word. Our opposites have not so honestly quitted themselves in all their writings in interpreting this text, to lay a snare, or decoy, to entrap, or entice people into the lake of error, by saying that here was none but Adult-beleevers in this house, when as the tenor of those Scriptures hitherto which related to households, hath still run to the children upon the parents believing.  
Quest. But how shall I know, whether, when the Scripture speaks of house, there were any Children? for the word is not expressed; they might be households and yet no Children.  
Answ.. 'Tis the common way in finding out the mind of God in Scriptures to compare them, that so what is, dark in one, may be cleared by the other; And since the spirit of God at the first tender of the Gospel, did delight to speak to Jew and Gentile, in the Old Testament Dialect, as to say of Lydia, She and her House, the Jailor and his House, Cornelius and his House, Stephanus and his House, Zacheus and his house; so Crispus believed in God with all his house, the house of Aristobulus, the house of Narcissus; it is as if he had said, If you would know what I mean by this word house, then look back to my First will and Testament; for what it was then, it is now. Therefore when upon review, we shall find in the Old Testament, there were Children mentioned, and chief included; It will be then an undoubted truth to say, and maintain, That in all these houses mentioned to be baptised, there were Children, which properly gave the denomination, and they all baptised whilst little ones, upon the Belief or Covenant-right of their Parents. See Gen. 12.3. In thee shall all the families of the Earth be blessed: Who are so properly the Family as Children? Chap. 30.30. And when shall I provide for my own house also? Who was that house that Jacob was bound to look after, and provide for, but his Wife and Children. And Chap. 45.18, 19 Then said Pharaoh, Say unto thy Brethren, take your Father, and your Household, and come unto me. And Verse 19 it is explained to be heir little ones, Wives, and Fathers. So Num. 3.15. 2 Sam. 23.5. Josh. 24.15. So the Apostle, He that provides not for his own house, i. e. His Children, is worse than an Infidel, and hath denied the Faith, 1 Tim. 5.8. What denying the Faith can this be, for such as profess Christ, if it be not the Faith of that Covenant of Grace, into which, Believers and Professing-Christians with their Seed, are admitted? The neglect of a Heathen-Parent, in not providing for his Children, cannot be called a denying the Faith, but the denying the Law of Nature. But the neglect of Christians in not providing for their Children, is a denying the Faith, because visibly within the Covenant. Exod. 1.1. Prov. 31.11. 1 Sam. 20.15. 2 Sam 9.3, 9 1 King. 17. 1●, 13, 21, 22, 23. Psal. 127.1, 3. Prov. 12.7. Hos. 1.4. 1 Tim 3 4, 5. & 5.4, 8. 2 Tim. 1.16. A full Text also is, That where the Prophet speaks of Israel's conversion and gathering under the Faith of Christ, yet to be fulfilled. Jer. 1.1. At that time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the Families of Israel, and they shall be my people: A Text so remarkable that it is enough to convince any man, that, look what God was to Israel, and the Families of Israel, in blessing them, as their God; i. e. aged in Covenant with them, and their ●eed, so he will be the same God again to Israel, and their Families in Gospel-days: Which ●ime is near at hand, and they, and their Seed, whilst Babes, shall be his people; so that either our opposites must oppose that doctrine of the Jews conversion, when both they and their Children shall be brought into the Faith of Christ, or else of necessity they must acknowledge the truth by us maintained.  
Now then to sum up all, the premises considered, and that upon the advantage the Spirit of God puts into our hands, in explaining what is meant by the word house, himself, who is a better Expositor, than Mr. Patient, or any else; We see the whole Catalogue, or Cloud of Family-Witnesses and Examples, in Scripture, do give in their Light and Testimony to Abraham's Infant-seed. And that when the Scripture speaks of Households baptised, it is meant Parents and Children; and when a Master of a Family was converted, and became the son of Abraham, as Zacheus, though a Gentile, his Seed, or House also, were taken visibly into Covenant, Luke 10 3, 6. So that by this time, we see the vanity, and selfconfidence of this Author, to speak such bitter words of Gall and Wormwood, as he doth in page 23. against a world of people; who, as he saith, from Custom, and Tradition, run headlong after this Idol of man's invention. By which it is evident, That whosoever embraceth not this new doctrine of dipping, which hath already been proved, not Apostolical; he is no otherwise looked upon, or esteemed, then, yea called an Idolater. And thus not only the Truths of God, and Privileges given to all God's people, suffer; but also the Powers and Authorities of these Nations come to be undervalved, slighted, and contemned, for practising or countenancing such Idolatries. Thus the dark-side of the Cloud, by this, appears only to such spirits, when the Israel of God, i e Abraham's Seed, have light within their dwellings. Ye therefore who have upright hearts to God, and his ways, that have been hitherto led in these untrodden paths, and so have lost the way, inquire after the footsteps of the flock, and have more pity to your own bowels: Cut not off their entail to Grace, by losing your visible right and title to the Covenant, in which the invisible part thereof is conveyed. What though they are born in sin and iniquity, yet the Promise reaches them whilst young, as it reached Isaac when a Child. If you are not wanting in your duties, your children have a Gospel-right; the Seed of the Jews had it, yea, they shall have it again to the same Covenant. Take heed lest your Children cry our against you at the last day, and say, their cruel Parents took away their Bread, and gave away their birthright for nought. Let me therefore say with the Prophet, It hath and shall be for a lamentation, to see Christians kick against their own mercies. And let me leave this with you Mr. Patient, Ro. 2.22. thou that abhorrest an Idol, do not commit sacrilege, by stealing away a Church ordinance from those to whom God hath given it: Thus far his four Essentials are weighed, over which we may write that superscription Daniel. 8.15. Mene Mene tekel upharsin thou art weighed in the balance and found too light.   

CHAP. VI Page 23. 24. Is a praeludium to the subsequent chapter touching the Covenant.  
WE are now come to view that passion of Weakness that lies in those two Pages, and first, of his distinction given of Idolatry, which though I grant to be good; yet he still mistakes in application: for he comes again to tell us, that in the room of this precious Ordinance of God, the dipping of believers, which Christ hath confirmed by his blood, is set up an Idol of man's invention, namely the sprinkling of Carnal poor infants; and doubtless if there be an Idol in the world, now set up amongst men, this must needs be one in his sense, because he hath learned this to be an Idol, either the worshipping a false God, or the true God in a false manner, etc.  
Answ. Let any reader Judge whether this man of the watery element doth not speak with as high a piece of confidence, as if he had a spirit of infallibility to judge our practice by, he tells us that dipping of believers, was an ordinance confirmed, by the blood of Christ, therefore sprinkling of Children must needs be an Idol his Allegatitions have been examined in all the parts thereof, and: we still find notwithstanding any thing he hath said to the contrary) that children's Baptism remains an Ordinance, That dipping is not the way of the Gospel; and therefore I must tell him, that dipping was never confirmed by Christ's blood; Ergo, He speaks untruths in the name of the Lord: neither is it an Idol of the first or second magnitude; no Image of Baptism, set up in the room thereof by man's invention, which are terms by him used, to bespatter the truth. But the contrary is proved, The Administrators Right, a person qualified and ordained; the manner, by sprinkling or pouring out water Right, the form of words Right, and the subject Right: And therefore an Ordinance that shall stand (maugre all the malice of men) as a precious Ordinance of jesus Christ, so long as the Sun & Moon endures. And therefore instead of your appealing to men, since there hath been enough said, If you and I had never written; let us appeal to God; and let all those that own their children's right in the Covenant say, Amen.  
In Page 25 he concludes again, that Infant Baptism is corrupt in the four Essentials aforementioned,  
Answ: First then by his own words, 'tis not anihillated, but only Corrupted, and that a person though corruptly Baptised ought not to be Baptised, that being already proved. But,  
Secondly, He reckons without his host, and therefore must come to a new account: They are not Essentials, nor any of them, as laid down by him, but whimsies of his own brain; therefore.  
The next thing we are to follow him in is the business of the Covenants, with its distinctions and extent; from which he undertakes to prove, that Infants are not subjects of Baptism. Though we have hitherto built upon a good Foundation; yet if he shakes down his main pillar, it will be time to forsake the house. But before we can come to his Arguments, we must pass by many falsitis and prolocutions, and go through many impertinencies, which must be born withal amongst the Patrons of Error. The first thing he deals with is, A (pretended) false consequence, which he saith, we draw from scripture, to maintain Infant-Baptism: It runs thus, The Covenant of Grace is made with believers, and their seed: Therefore the seal of the Covenant belongs to them. To disprove which he tells us, 'tis against the Law of the new Testament.  
Answ. The new Testament is Christ's last will to his Church; in which he shows forth more love than he did in his first Testament, which was made to the same Church; and the Covenant of Grace, in the spiritual part thereof, is the same in both: If therefore in the old Testament, which was his first Legacy, he took Children into his kingdom, and yet now, his bowels should be shut against them who are not then called into liberty, but a greater bondage than before. But grace in the Covenant being unchangeable, therefore Children still remain within Christ's kingdom, except our opposites can show us how, when, and where they were outlawed.  
Secondly, His insisting upon the Command, Matth. 28. Go teach and Baptise, doth not at all cross this consequence, as hath been already proved; therefore no consequence of ours is forced to oppose the new Testament.  
Thirdly, But such without which his practice is not Gospel, because it shuts up the tender bowels of our Lord Jesus in a narrower compass than ever the Law did, and the fancies and burdens, Master Patient would put upon our shoulders, in that which they call the Ordinance, would be heavier than ever the Loins of the Law were; As to that Instance he brings of Peter in Page 26. to prove consequencies against commands unlawful, because he would have dissuaded Christ from suffering, in these words, Far be it from thee Lord:  
Answ. Instead of handling the word like a Minister, he stretcheth the strings of Scripture, till they crack: what kind of consequence could this be, or from what place of Scripture, or against what command, was this a consequence to say, Far be it from thee Lord? Surely the most any English Grammarian can make from thence is; That it was a dissuasive, but no consequence. However, by this we may Judge how feeble this man's Judgement is, when he thinks God hath Chosen him as one of those, that shall confound the wise of the world, that doth not yet understand what a true, or right consequence is.  
Master Patient afterwards tells us, that all such consequencies and books and arguments as are brought against commands (to prove Infant Baptism, which is clearly implied) he may say of them, as Christ to Peter, Get the behind me Satan, thou art an offence to me. Page 6.27.  
Answ. Alas poor man, if the Physics of truth offend his stomach, which should cure him; 'tis a sad sign he is near past recovery. How ever, take this extract from his own Instance, that so far as any man shall dissuade others from truth, and cause them to apostatise from the ways of Christ, he Acts the Devil's part, Ergo This I say not; Get thee behind me Satan but this I say, that book by him published, in which he so bitterly reviles the good old wav of God: for the ends aforesaid. The state would do well to have all such books, though in Folio, put into an Index Expurgatorius, amongst the whole Rabble of Erroneous and Heretical pieces, that have been printed in these Licentions book-days: and so condemn them to the fire, as they have done others not fit to be suffered. And by this means, all Protestant Churches through the world, will know, what Religion we are of.  
In Page the 27 he pretends to come nearer the consequence, and grounds thereof, but doth not close till Page ●8. And then he tells us of the danger of the practice of Infant-Baptism, that if it be maintained in all its dimensions upon the Ground of the Covenant it will shake the very foundation of the Gospel.  
Answ. All these are but great swelling words of vanity, fit for nothing but to delude the simple, of which we have been slong since foretold, by the Apostles of Christ: but to the business of the Covenant at last he comes; where at length we shall find with what gross ignorance, he gropes about, to find a new way, but is mistaken.   

CHAP. VII. The two Covenants answered.  
PAge 28. In handling this consequence, and to cut off the interest of Children, and right to the Covenant, he reduceth the method into these four heads, as before the Controversy of Baptism was into four Essentials.  
First, To prove there are two Covenants held forth in Scripture: a Covenant of Works, and a Covenant of Grace.  
Secondly, That the Covenant of Circumcision was not of Grace, but works. Thirdly, That none but believers ever had, or shall have a right to the Covenant of Grace.  
Fourthly, To answer such objections and Scriptures as are usually alleged, to defend a Covenant of life in the flesh.  
To prove the first of these, he brings several Scriptures: the main of which is, Jer 31.32.33 34. but to what purpose, it will afterwards appear: the words are these. Behold the days come, that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, & the house of Judah; Not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers, when I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the Land of Egypt; which my Covenant they broke, though I was to them a husband, saith the Lord. where saith Master Patient, we find an old Covenant, and a new Covenant: the old broken, therefore of works; the new was not like the old, therefore of Grace etc.  
Answ. Before I shall come to answer the Scriptures by him quoted. I shall briefly premise, what a Covenant of Grace is; The Answer will be this, It's a gracious engagement betwixt God and his people upon Gospel terms, requiring duties from them, in promising mercy to them: what that mercy and duties be, and how far Conditional, shall largely appear in its due place: this definition of the Covenant, importing a Condition is often denied by our opposites, and sometimes Granted, so that to be as a stable foundation to build upon, I thought it most fit for this place. And according to this definition, I shall do two things:  
First, Give a brief Epitome or Analysis of Abraham's Covenant.  
Secondly, The whole ensuing discourse, with all his Scriptures that he brings, will be from hence answered, and so his weapons brought against us, and many more added to them, shall be made use of, to prove Abraham's Covenant in every part thereof, to be a Covenant of pure Grace; which (I am sure) as 'tis the best fortification I can make to secure the truth, so the incursions that shall be made from hence, upon his confused and new doctrine, will give a rout thereto.  
Abraham's Covenant had two parts, Gen. 17.2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14.  
First, God's part: this consisted in blessings, carried on in a way of promise, and that twofold.  

1. Inward and Spiritual; I will be thy God, and thy Seeds God: to give grace and Glory.  
2. Outward and Temporal, specially in three things. 

1. In multiplying his seed as the Stars.  
2. In making them blessings to families and Nations.  
3. In giving them the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.     
Secondly, Man's part; and this respected duties to be done and that twofold.  

1. Inward, walk before me, and be thou perfect.  
2. Outward, and this also in three things especially. 

1. In keeping to the seal or token which then was (circumcision, as now Baptism) therefore in every Generation.  
2. In keeping the Moral Law.  
3. All those Typical ceremonies relating to Worship.     
By all which we shall hereafter see.  

1. That here are not two Covenants spoken of.  
2. That the Covenant of Grace is Conditional.   
First it hath God's part, and that consists of promises and blessings, Spiritual and Temporal. Secondly man's part consisting of duties, inward and outward, and all this but one Covenant. This Covenant was confirmed, First to Abraham as a public Father: Secondly to his seed, i. e. all the heirs of promises to the world's end, both Jews and Gentiles.  

1. By Promise.  
2. By Oath.  
3. By seal.   
So that what was promised to Abraham, was promised to all his seed, and what was sworn and sealed to Abraham, was sworn and sealed to all his seed. According to this definition also we shall see a twofold admission into Covenant.  

1. Into the outward privileges of the Covenant.  
2. Into the inward grace of the Covenant.   
Hence also we shall have light to see, first, how hypocrites and wicked men did then, and do now, get within the Covenant; Secondly how such as are within the Covenant do break it, As first he that contemned or slighted, or neglected the token or seal of the Covenant to his seed, hath broken the Covenant, which being outward they might keep.  
Secondly, The breach of any part of the Moral Law, was a breach of the Covenant, and this also might have been externally kept by all, that were externally within the Covenant.  
Thirdly, All those typical Church rites might have been kept, and the neglect or breach of any one in the due order or manner required, was a breach of the Covenant: for neglect of the first, God's wrath was so kindled against Moses that he would have killed him; for breach of the second and third Israel was also punished with death: many instances thereof might be given. Hence also we shall be led to an answer how the ●ovenant is called.  

1. Old and so vanished away.  
2. New and so remains.  
3. An administration.   
This being briefly premised, I now come to give in the Answer to the place by him quoted Jer. 31.32. which he brings to prove that there are two Covenants but grossly mistaken yet so far as we may go without breach of faith to the truth of Christ, in acknowledging two Covenants, shall not deny him friendship, as namely,  
First, That there hath been two Covenants made with man: the one of works before the fall, in which man stood alone without a mediator, under which covenant all mankind by nature lies to this day, which is also materially the same with that righteous Law Moral, given to Israel from mount Sinah, though upon other terms.  
Secondly, The other of Grace made since the fall, and tendered to Adam, in the promise of Christ, since which, the Law in any part of it, is not given as a covenant of works, but as the Law of Christ put in the hands of a mediator, therefore.  
Thirdly, It was never intended by God, either in giving circumcision to Abraham, or the Law to Israel, that ever Abraham's seed should enjoy Canaan, by the law as a Covenant of works, but only (as hath been laid down in the Analysis) as man's part, of the covenant of grace.  
Quest. But if that was not a covenant of works given to Israel, when God took them by the hand, in order to bring them into Canaan, what then can be the meaning of that place, where the holy Ghost speaks of, an old & new Covenant? & tells us the new Covenant which he will make after those days, shall not be according to the old, etc.  
The clearing of this, with a Questian or two more, will take in all those scriptures brought to this, and therefore I further answer.  
First, The Covenant there mentioned is called new, as the Law of love, john 13.34.1 john 2.8. is called a new Commandment or Law: which yet is not new in itself, but the same Command as was given to Israel of old Leu. 19.18 And as the new heavens and new earth are called new Re. 21.1. And as the new Creature is called new, which is not the annihilating the old, and creating new, but the putting of the old heavens and old earth, into a new frame of Government, and the old creature into a new state of grace, so the new Covenant is the same that brought Israel out of Egypt, and contained remission of sins, and eternal life in Christ by faith with all the blessings of this life, but so called, new,  
Secondly, Because those typical ceremonies and ordinances which were man's part of the Covenant of grace then, and related to his duty in God's worship, were by Christ's coming abolished, and new ordinances under the Gospel established in room thereof, for the promising part of the Covenant of grace, from the beginning, hath ever been clothed, with the preceptive Conditional part, to bind up man to his duty, and walking close with God in his Ordinances of worship. And therefore when Christ was held forth in the first promise, immediately sacrifices were instituted, a distinction made betwixt clean and unclean creatures, the Law of tithes and first fruits observed, blood forbidden: familie-duties required, all which a diligent reader of Scriptures, may easily observe, from Adam to Moses, before there was a publishing the Law from Sinai, and so to Christ, Track it from Christ again, to the world's end, you have the first abolished, a second instituted, and as then, so still; to bind man to his duty in walking with God, but not as in a distinct Covenant of works, but as the terms of grace, to which man is bound by the Covenant: and thus those typical ce emonies were as old clothes, and are called beggarly Rudiments or Rags, in which the promising part was clothed, and dressed. The Apostle in Heb. 10. calls the exhibition of Christ in flesh, in offering up his blood by once dying, and such manner of institutions as should be written by him, to be the new Covenant verse 15.16: and puts it in opposition to the Legal sacrifices verse 4. 5, therefore verse 19, 20. the second is called the new and living way consecrated, implying, that as there is now a way to heaven consecrated by the blood of Christ, and therefore new; so there was a way to heaven before Christ came, consecrated by the blood of Bulls and Goats, called old: by this then we see, in what respect the Covenant is called new and old, namely, as relating to a new or old Church-state; the first given as typical by Moses to Israel, as Christ's kingdom; the second as substantial, by Christ to the same kingdom; but still in the same Covenant of grace: for a Church state is given in order to a souls enjoying, communion with God in his ordinances, which is impossible to be by a Covenant of works, since the fall; thus then, the bringing of Israel into a new Church-state, under the Gospel, is called a new Covenant, which God will make with the house of Israel in those days: This gives us light, to answer also that other place Heb. 8.6, 7. by Master Patient quoted to prove two Covenants, because Christ is called the Mediator of a better Covenant established upon better promises: for if the first Testament had been faultless, there would have been no place sought for the second; but finding fault with them, he saith, behold the day is come, when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and verse 13. In that he saith, a new Covenant, he hath made the first old: now that which waxeth old, is ready to vanish away. By which terms old and new, first and second, better and worse, he would needs understand two Covenants; one of works, the other of Grace.  
Answ. In this 8 Chap. the Apostle comes to apply what he had treated of before in the former Chap. verse 1 now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum. ●n the former Chapter the Apostle had been speaking of the Levitical Priesthood and Law, i. e. the Law of Ordinances, and therefore verse 18. he tells us, the Commandment going before, i. e. before Christ came, was disannulled, because of the weakness, and unprofitableness of it, and gives the reason in verse 19 because the Law, i. e. the Law of ceremonies made nothing perfect in comparison, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh to God, by which he means the Gospel-Ordinances of worship; called better, because opposed to the Ceremonies of the Law, which therefore are employed to be wrote. And that by this better hope, is meant Gospel-Ordinances, is evident; because the Apostle useth it as an Argument to the Church of the Hebrews, to persuade them to hold fast their profession, which they were revol●ing from ●elling them, If they should cast of the Ordinances of worship, they could not then draw nigh to God; because they would then cast off also the High-Priesthood of Christ; so ch. 3.6. Whose house are we if we held fast the rejoicing of the hope to the end. And ver. 14. We are made partakers of Christ if we hold fast the confidence to the end, He here calls that the confidence, which before he called the Hope and Confidence, and ch. 10.35. Cast not away therefore your Confidence, As if he had said, If you cast away the Ordinances, of worship, you stand no longer related to Christ as his house; nor have you any hope or ground of hope, to draw nigh to God. So ch. 7.19. the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by which we draw nigh to God: So that the Ordinances of drawing ●igh to God under the Gospel, are called a better hope, as they stand opposed to ●he Ordinances of worship under the Law: which albeit they did approach to God in them; yet they were kept thereby at a greater distance, ch. 9.6, 7, 8, 9 So—  
Again, let us review this chapter further, because the clearing up of chap. 8. depends upon it. And these Scriptures being fully answered, we shall not have much to do with the rest; we have already seen, hat the O di●ances of the Gospel, are opposed to those of the Law And hat this is so, see v. 11. If perfection was by the Levitical Priesthood (For under it the people received the Law) what need was there of another Priesthood to rise after the order of Melchizedek? What law ●as this the people received, ver. 12. 'Tis such a law as was changed ●p●n the change of the Priesthood, which cannot be meant of the Moral Law, for this is still the s●me and not changed; but the Law of the Altar, which in for 16. is called a carnal commandment, which in ver. 18. is disannulled by reason of the weakness of it, and ver. 19 for the Law made nothing perfect, and the reason is given ch 9 9 Because i● was a figure for the time present, in which were offered gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did it perfect: And ch. 10.1. The Law bring but a shadow of good things to come, can never with those Sacrifices which they continually offered, make the comers there to perfect; for than they would not have ceased: and in ver. 8. when he speaks of Christ coming to be offered, he draws this result from the premises; he takes away the first that he may establish the second.  
Now in this 8 chapter he draws towards a conclusion, and in the first verse: of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: he had before spoken of the Law of Ordinances, and weakness thereof; and therefore in this 7. v. of c. 8. he calls it the first Covenant, for if the first Covenant had been faultless. Why, wherein was it faulty? The Apostle had before told them, it was faulty because it was weak, and unprofitable: and had it not been so, that law of Ordinances would have made the worshippers perfect; And then no place would have been sought for the second Covenant. So then by the first Covenant 'tis clear is meant the Ordinances of the Ceremonial worship, and therefore finding fault with them, he speaks in the plural number [them] Ordinances not Covenants, ver. 8. (unless Mr Patient will make two Covenants of works then) he saith, behold the day is come when I will make a new Covenant, referring to Jer 31. 3●. with the house of Israel i. e. new l●was of worship. Not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers, etc. And verse last, in that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old, etc. And therefore whereas Mr P. tells us that God gave Israel a Covenant of works to enjoy Canaan by; It is most absurd: as by their following particulars further appears.  
1. Had those typical Ordinances been a Covenant of Works given at Mount- Sinai to Israel, than it had not been put in the hand, of a Mediator. For where God gives a people a Mediator, is supposed, he intends them Grace thereby. When Adam was put into a Covenant of Works, he was left to stand or fall by himself without help; since that no Covenant of Works was ever made, Gal. 4. Moses is called the Mediator of the first Testament. Now a Will or a Testament is an act of Grace purely.  
2. Had it been a Covenant of Works by which they were to possess Canaan, there had not been one man that ever had entered into that rest. For it was impossible for them to fulfil it, because the power of doing, so as to answer a Covenant of works, was lost in the fall.  
3. What favour had this been to Abraham, Isaac, and so to all the seed of Promise, to have such a flourishing promise, to possess such a fruitful Land by a Covenant of Works, when many of the Nations of the world did possess a more fruitful Country, and were never put to such labour and toil, such difficulties and dangers that Israel were put to?  
4. 'Tis against the Nature of a Covenant of Grace which God made with Abraham, first to put him into a Covenant of Grace for spirituals, and then twenty four years after should put him into a Covenant of Works for Temporals. So that either believers must fall from Grace, or else stand under two Covenants at one time.  
5. Had it been a Covenant of Works made with Abraham, Isaac, and so along, as this Author affirms, then how came the bond-womans' son a type of that Covenant, to be exempted from that Covenant of Works, and Isaac which wes Sarahs' son, a type of the Covenant of Grace, and a child of Promise, to be put under that Covenant? It could not be for any outward distinction, in outward enjoyments, for I shmael had more of the glory of the world than Isaac, Gen. 17.21.  
6. Had the mercy intended Israel, related only to externals in giving them a fruitful Country, in blessing their corn, wine, and oil, the fruit of their bodies, their basket, and store, as Mr. Patient affirms, and this to be enjoyed by a Covenant of Works; then as a worthy Divine well observes, in somewhat the like case, how could Esau have been charged for a profane person, for selling his birthright? For there had been no profaneness in that, because profaneness supposeth a contempt or neglect of something spiritual, which is therefore to be enjoyed upon a spiritual account, and not by works.  
7 What the Prophet speaks, Jer. 31.22. and the Apostle, Heb. 8. 9 of Gods taking Israel by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, is by the Prophet, Hos. 11.4. interpreted, compared with Mat. 2.15 to be an act of a tender Father who owned Israel as a son; for as a father in tender love and respect to his young child, taketh h●m by the hand to teach him to go: so did God deal with Israel when a child The like be did to Ephraim ver. 3. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking him by the hand: so when he destroyed Sodom, Gen. 19.16. Whilst L●t ●●gered as being unwilling to leave Sodom the Text saith, he laid h●ld upon his hand and brought him forth. And the reason is given, because the Lord was merciful to them. So that what God did to his people in this kind (is most clear) was from a pure Covenant of Grace, and Mercy, not by a Covenant of Works.  
8. What God did to Israel in giving them rest in Canaan, was as Canaan was a Type of Heaven, Isa 65.9. and of the Church's state under the New-Testament, Jer. 3.18. Psal. 105.6. For so the promise of Abraham, in giving them Canaan is by the Prophet David interpreted to be, to a thousand generations, which therefore must needs extend to the end of the world. For so 'tis called a Covenant for ever. And had his seed enjoyed Canaan from Abraham's days, yet from thence to Christ was but forty two generations, Mat. 1. So that if Canaan was to be possessed as a type of heaven, than it was not to be possessed by a Covenant of works, but by faith, so Abraham possessed it, Heb. 11.8, 9, 10. By Faith he sojourned in the Land of promise as in a strange Country, dwelling in Tabernacles with Isaac, and Jacob; heirs with him of the same Promise. For he looked for a City which had foundations, whose builder and maker was God. And ver. 15, 16. he sought a better Country, a Country whereof that was but a type. Now what promise wer● Isaac and Jacob heirs of? Why that of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17.8. To thee will I give the Land of Canaan. And this the Apostle tell● us was possessed by Faith as a type of heaven; therefore not by a Covenant of Works.  
9 It further appears by comparing, Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God, with Heb. 11.16. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City, Where the Apostle thus argues▪ that had the gr●at pro●●se to ●braham, been only of an earthly Canaan; which this Author affirms, was to be enjoyed by a Covenant of Works; God would have been ashamed to be called his God; 'tis evident therefore, that for men to affirm such Doctrines as this, is to put an affront upon God himself.  
10. It still further appears, that Abraham's seed enjoyed Canaan by a Covenant of Grace; because what ●oses and joshua did, who were their conductors, was done by faith, and ti● also applied to all Israel, Heb 11.27, 28, ●9, By faith, he forsook Egypt, by faith he kept the passover, by faith they passed through the red Sea So when Joshua led them over Jordan it was an act of faith; yea the very conquest of the enemy there, was an act of Faith, ver. 30. therefore, for him to affirm t●a● first Covenant be●ore largely opened, to be those typical ceremonies; and so man's p●rt of the Covenant of Grace to be ● Covenant of Works, by which they were to live happily in Canaan, is such notorious stuff that he might blush to name it.  
11● S●ch ● doctrine directly opposeth these Scriptures, Deut. 9.4.5, 6 7, 8 speak not thou in thy heart, saying, for my righteousness the Lo d hath brought me in to possess this Land, and ver. 5. not for thy righteousness, dost thou possess this Land, And ver. 6. not for thy righteousness for thou art a stiffnecked pe●ple, and ver. 7, forget not how thou provokedst the Lord to wrath in the wilderness, and from the day that ye came out of Egypt even to this day, until ye came to this place, ye have been rebellious against the Lord, and ver. 27. he refers back to Abraham's Covenant, and makes use of it as an argument to prevail with God in Prayer; because he had promised to give them Canaan by grace, and not by their works, so also ch. ●0. 11, 12, 13, 16. Exod. 2.24. ch. 3.6.8. and ch. 6.8. Numb. 14.23.  
12. That rest the Apostle speaks of Heb. 4.1. is meant of a like rest to that of Canaan, which Israel was cut short off for want of faith, Heb. 3.18. to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? this promise of rest is by the Apostle called a p●eaching ●he Gospel, Heb. 4.2. For unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them; implying clearly, that what was spoken in that promise of giving Israel rest in Canaan was a preaching the Gospel to them. So that as the spiritual part of the Covenant, which conveys justification by Faith, is by Paul called a Gospel preaching, Gal. 3.8. ●o the temporal part of the same Covenant, Gen. 17.8. which this author would fain make a Covenant of works, thereby to maintain his errors, the same Apostle tells us it was a Gospel preaching also. By what therefore hath been said hitherto, 'tis a shining truth, that Abraham's Covenant in all parts thereof, relating to spirituals, and temporals, was a full and complete Covenant of Grace, to which circumcision was annexed, as a seal, not as a distinct Covenant of works, in order to the possessing of Canaan; because as hath been proved, by these twelve considerations, as there hath been no Covenant of works, given since the fall, so Israel enjoyed Canaan by a Covenant of Grace; it follows therefore that Circumcision, and all those legal Ordinances, called the first Covenant, was no Covenant of works, but that part of the Covenant of Grace that related to man's duty; therefore Gen. 17.14. 'tis called God's Covenant, and the neglect of man's duty in that Covenant was a breach thereof.  
Q. But if that place Jer. 31.32. with Heb. ●. 6, 7. be to be understood of a Covenant of Grace, and not of works; then how may it be said that Israel broke that Covenant? Can a Covenant of Grace be broken?  
The Answer to this, upon what is laid down in the Analysis of Abraham's Covenant, is plain, for there is no Covenant of Grace but hath Conditions, which bind man to his duty: it was so under the Law: faith and repentance was the condition of the Covenant then, as 'tis now: and because faith without works is dead, being alone, Jam. 2.17. therefore God hath given Ordinances, and the Laws Moral to his people to keep faith alive, and man may break his part of the Covenant; so it was with Israel, Rom. 4. when the Question was put, What advantage then hath the Jew? Much e●●●y way, because to them, as to all Israel, was committed the Oracles, and the Covenant, etc.  
Here was the Covenant of Grace externally administered to all: but yet there was but a remnant saved, and the greatest part of Israel were Covenant-breakers; and the like we have now, and is, and must be acknowledged by all our dissenting friends of the dipped Societies, an external, and internal administration of the Covenant: For their confidence is not so high as to say, that all they dip are really within the Covenant, for we see many of them turn Apostates from every thing that is good, and prove carnal wretches; as did Simon Magus, Judas, Hymeneus, Philetus, Ananias, and Saphira, who were all within the Covenant visibly. If they say they baptise not upon the account of the Covenant at all, but upon the profession of Faith; I answer, either they baptise as visible believers, or real: if visible, then as visibly within the Covenant; if as real, then really within the Covenant: so that still the Covenant lies at bottom, and there is as much falling from Grace, and breach of the Covenant upon their own principles, as is pleaded for. The like answer also is to be given to that other clause, of Gods being a husband to them, for the whole Nation of Israel was engaged to God as a spouse, Jer. 3.14. and so under the Law of marriage; and therefore when they were divorced, the whole Nation was cast off; yet one of a City and two of a family were taken to Zion, I such as were spiritually within the Covenant, they had still communion with God v 14. so now, the whole Church is visibly under a Covenant of Marriage to Christ, believers and their seed, and are therefore the children of the kingdom, but yet we know the greatest part of a Church may be hypocrites, and so the children of the kingdom may be cast out: so that it is most clear, a Covenant of G●ace in this sense may be broken in the visib e p●rt thereof, by the visible members of it.  
P. The n●xt I find his piece driving at, is to prove the Covenant of Grace not to be made upon conditions, but absolute: to prove it, he takes up many pages, though to little purpose; for what he in one place denies, in another place he affirms; as in pag. 35. where he confesseth Faith and Repentance the condition of the Covenant.  
Answ. If it be the condition of the covenant, than the covenant is not made without conditions. For indeed to speak of a covenant absolute without conditions, is to speak of that, which cannot be; for if it hath no conditions, it is no covenant, but only a tender of grace. And here lies much of Mr. Patients great mistake, to take the tender of Grace for the covenant; and thus he falls into the Antinomian Doctrine: and therefore as faith and repentance is the condition, so the covenant is not concluded, betwixt God and the soul, till those qualifications are wrought, therefore the veins of freegrace are full of riches, because as God tenders, so he gives secretly the qualifications that lay hold upon the tender, so he did to our first Parents.  
2. But besides, if the covenant hath no conditions, why then doth not Mr. Patient baptise all that come, but they must give such a strict account of their faith as before he speaks of? or why are any cast out that prove rotten? will they make conditions themselves, when God hath made none? For the very ground of administering all Ordinances, is from the covenant as it is conditional: and if it be not conditional, then is it made with a drunkard, as a drunkard; and with a whoremaster, as a whoremaster; with a blasphemer and Sabbath breaker as such: and then to no purpose is that of Paul 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness, Christ and Belial together? that place Jer. 32.40. had such conditions as God requires. For his fear was wrought in their hearts, that they should not departed from him: the like also Ezek. 16.59. Thus saith the Lord, I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenants and because he afterward speaks of my covenant & thy covenant, therefore M P. concludes, here were two covenants; the one broken which was man's, the other kept which was Gods. But in this also there was but one covenant, which had two parts, God's part and man's, which was their manner of covenanting with God to make an oath to walk in his ways: and when they had broken this oath; they had broken the covenant, second their part of the covenant: see that place also, Neh. 10.29. They entered into a curse to walk in the laws of God, that were given by Moses the servant of the Lord; The Law given was the terms God bound them to in a way of Grace and Mercy, and their oath or curse, declared their owning thereof; so that when the oath was broken, the covenant was broken; therefore the deduction that Mr. Patient makes from these Texts, that there are two covenants, is unsound and rotten, and savours of too ignorant a spirit in the covenant of Grace. The like also Ezek. 36.25, 26, 27. I will sprinkle clean water upon you I will take away the heart of stone, and give you a heart of flesh, etc. And ver. 37. I will yet for all this be enquired of by the house of Israel; is not here a condition? whereas therefore Mr. Patient tells us if God's people sin. He binds himself to pardon their sins, and to remember their sins no more; and therefore it is impossible for a soul once in this covenant to miscarry.  
Answ. Such an application as this, is fit for a Synagogue of Libertines than a Church of Christ, God never pardons the sin of a people, but he makes them holy. And before he pa d●ns their sin he will make them smart, and cry out under the stroke of his hand; how did David roar under the wrath of the Almighty? the whole book of Psalms shows us; so Heman, and Ephraim, Manasses, yea all the examples in God's word, and the experiences of God's people, they all speak out the truth, Heb. 7.2. that Christ is first a King of righteousness, before a King of Peace.  
Therefore let such as fear the Lord remember the covenant of grace hath conditions, such as God will whip his people into; and if the Rod will not do, his shepherd's crook shall be laid on with strong blows▪ by this way had David comfort, Psal. 23. And therefore tells us, Psal. 89.37. If God's people sin, and transgress his Law, he will visit their transgressions with a rod, and their iniquities with stripes; and though everlasting love is their portion, yet that is the way he takes to breed them up, to bring them to covenant conditions: And though the Elect of God shall never finally fall away; yet they may and do break and fall from the visible part of the covenant too often, though they are brought in again, and others fall off finally, as did those primitive Apostates already mentioned. So that place must be understood, Joh. 15.2, 4 5, 6. which distinction Mr Patient must admit of, and can never evade it.  
All the rest of those scriptures by him brought to prove the absoluteness, or sureness of the covenant, or two covenants, do bear the same interpretation; take those two for instance, Isaiah ●5. 3. harken to me incline your ear, hear and your soul shall live: and I will make an everlasting covenant, etc. So Heb. c. 17, 18. wherein G●d willing to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel confirmed the same by oath to Abraham; that by two immutable things in which it was impossible foy God to lie: we might have strong consolation: And though Mr Patient from these places concludes, the covenant-mercy of David to be sure, and so immutable; yet there must be an inclining the ear, and harkening to the voice of God: even of such as are really within the covenant; and to such only the covenant is sure. But now there were many of the Church of the Hebrews that we have ground to judge were but visibly in covenant, and so, only pretended heirs of promise, and such were they that were falling from Ordinances that forsook the assemblies; sold their birthright, as those also already mentioned: So that we still see the distinction holds, some are really, some only visibly, seemingly within the covenant.  
P. Pa. 24 He afterwards brings many places to prove, that the condition of the covenant (which before he denied) is faith and repentance, and they are wrought in the soul by God.  
Answ. That the condition of the covenant is so wrought, is by us confessed, but yet we may here see how whiffling erroneous spirits are: sometimes he affirms the covenant to be absolute, sometimes that it is conditional, that so he might have a starting hole to fly out at: and let me remind him here; that if he keeps to this principle, that faith and repentance is the condition of the covenant; he must according to the Scriptures, admit of a visible being in the covenant, as well as of an invisible, in order to the communion of Saints in the world; for there are many pretenders to those conditions and qualifications, which yet by virtue of their profession cannot be denied the seals of the covenant, because they visibly submit to the terms thereof, as is before proved.  
P. The next thing he grisly errs in, is page 37, where in his explaining that Text, Gen. 3.17. of the seed of the woman, he tells us it is meant of Christ: That God would infuse or put into the woman's seed, his created gifts of holiness and purity.  
Answ. We may see what old Springs of error this book of h●s bubbles up withal. For by this he makes Christ only a comple●t and perfect man, as Adam before the fall, with infused qualifications, and by this made an unspotted Sacrifice; by which, the divine nature of Christ is taken away, that he was not God as well as man: and the Hypostatical union (as Divines call it) is by this destroyed, contrary to the whole current of God's word; and directly opposing Joh. 1.1, 2, 3, 10, 14. And the word was made flesh, and dwelled amongst us ver. 18. So Heb. 1.2, 3. 1 Joh. 4.14, 15. ch. 5.1.7, 10, 1. mult●tudes o Texts might be added. Arius thy error struggles to live, wh●n th●n ●rt dead.  
2. When God saith, I will put enmity betwixt thy seed and her seed we are not to understand it merely of Christ, but of the Infant-Ch●rch seed. For so Eve by faith understood the promise, Gen. 4.5. when S●th was born, God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew. Which Infant-seed of the Church is as truly in covenant, was, and shall be to the world's end, as Adult believers, and Satan's malice is as much against them, as the other, in all ages, as appears by cain's bloody Murder, with Exod. 1.10, 16. Mat. 2.16. Rev. ●2. 2.13.17. Therefore Mr Patient in his often endeavours to cast out this seed of the Church by confining the Church, either to Christ personally, or Adult believers, which so often he calls the spiritual seed, doth but strive to do that now, which if he will but read those places cited, He may know who it was that studied the same practice in former ages.  
P. The 28 page, tells us that the new covenant was never entailed upon any fleshly line or generation as the covenant of circumcision was, but was still confirmed of God in Christ, and to such only in Christ as you find in the promises to Abraham, Gen. 12.3. In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed In which there is no respect of persons in their blessings to life, but all Nations in Christ, as well one as another are blest, and all out of Christ are accursed.  
Answ. It hath been befo e proved that the new covenant or covenant of grace, hath a twofold part or branch, the one invisible, the other visible, and both are the covenant. The one relates to the grace of the covenant, the other to man's duty in the use of Ordinances. And this second part, hath from the beginning run upon entail to believers and their seed; even from the days of Adam to Christ, and so since; yea the promise which relates to the spiritual seed, runs for the most part upon entail also, though I do not say that all the seed of believers are so children of the promise. For as the entail visibly took in all the seed of Abraham, Ishmael as well as Isaac, so Esau as well as Jacob, Cain, as well as Abel, Ham and Japhet as well as Shem, yet the seed by promise comes in by way of entail, to the children of promise. As the covenant was entailed from Adam to Seth, Enos, Kenan, so to Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, and up to Abraham; and then to Isaac, Jacob, and his twelve sons, but so in Judah it continued to Christ▪ see Luke 3. to the end, compared with Mat. 1. to 17. where you shall find a spiritual entail by promise, and were it not so, what encouragement could it be to believers to be Stoickt in family duties, had they not a promise to rest upon, as touching family blessings? Which place in Luke 3. is so clear that Mr Patiented to evade the strength and dint of Scripture, makes this whole line to run in a covenant of works: the contrary whereto is already proved that no such covenant is made with man since the fall; therefore see these Texts which prove an entail, Deut. 4 37. Because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, So ch. 10.5. the Lord had a delight in thy Fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, compared with Rom 11.28. as touching the Election they are beloved for their father's sake 
* D●ut. 30.19. Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live. : Hence it is that we find the Parents saith drawn forth to believe their seeds interest in the covenant. Thus did Eve in the place before mentioned, believe the covenant-state of S●th, as soon as born. And therefore she calls him another seed instead of Abel. The like also we find of Lamech, Gen 5.28, 29. who concludes that though God would destroy and curse the earth; yet upon the birth of Noah, he should be a comfort to the Church: Thus was David drawn forth to believe. That because of that Everlasting Covenant God had made with him, he should in time have his house to flourish, though yet God made it not to grow, Psal. 89.29, 34, 35 compared with 2 Sam. 23.5. The like ground of believing is to re●ch to these days, and to the world's end concerning the seed of believers right to the covenant, as Psal 102.28. the children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee; How long was this seed to continue? See for 26, 27: So long as heaven and earth should remain. Hence it is that God hath promised, to be the God of all the families of Israel, Jer. 31.1. & Isa. 65.23. That they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off spring with them. Which blessedness relates to more than externals, as by that 102 Psal. appears. For the heaven and earth was to be folded up as a garment and to wax old; but the seed and offspring of his children should remain, and have greater blessings.  
That place Gen. 1●. 3. Mr Patient doth acknowledge to be Gospel, but in such low and general terms, that in ●ff●ct he denies it; For saith he, all Nations that are in Christ are blessed. When yet, he will not acknowledge that ever any Nation were so blest, no not the Jews hemselves; but only a remnant. And the reason of hi● mistake ●s, because he considers not that there is a visible being in Christ▪ ●s in that pl●ce, Joh. 15 41. Abide in we and I in you; he that abideth not in me is cut off as a branch: So that he confines the meaning of ●●e promise, in thee and in thy seed, to Christ only; contrary to t●e due some of the w●rds F r by thy seed is also meant believers, and so Changed ●st mist ●dly in head & members is to be understood, Gen 13.5. look towards heaven and tell the stars if thou art able, so shall thy seed be: Mr Patient I hope w ll not make so many Christ's, and ch. 17.7. I will establish my covenant betwixt me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations; so if Abraham had a seed in every generation which were to be a blessing thereto: So Gen. 22.17. In blessing I will bless thee, and will multiply thy seed, and thy seed shall possess the gates of his enemies, meaning the conquest of Canaan which could not be in Christ personal, because the Land of Canaan was conquered many hundred years before he came, and since 'tis destroyed. So in thy seed all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed, for 8. i e. in the multiplying of Abraham's seed as the stars, they should at last come to be a blessing to all Nations; by all which places it is clear that the word seed which he confines to Christ, is meant of all believers to the world's end: and indeed to deny this sense of the place, is to deny that Abraham had any Gospel preached to him, as any judicious reader may easily observe; for that which the Apostle Rom. 3.18. speaks of Abraham's faith to justification, is referred to Gen. 15.5. So shall thy seed be, that is, as the stars of heaven for multitude, which Abraham believing, it was imputed to him for righteousness; This Exposition therefore being granted, the other will appear but lame and maimed.  
3 The covenant saith Mr Patient, is not entailed as circumcision was.  
Answ. Though there hath been enough said to satisfy men of reason, yet I shall here, as in many other places, be forced to repeat what before hath been spoken: If therefore Circumcision be not a covenant of works, than it must be the visible part of the covenant of Grace, and then it must run upon entail, as Mr Patient here grants; Therefore let the Reader observe it hath been already proved, The covenant had two parts; one for spirituals, the other for temporals, in giving Israel rest in Canaan, and all the good things thereof: the first part is proved to be Gospel from Gal. 3.8. and that the second also is Gospel, see Heb. 3.18. compared with ch. 4.1, 2 to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not, speaking of the rest in Canaan, which Israel was cut short of in the wilderness. And ch. 4 1. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us, We also fall sh●rt, For unto us is the Gospel preached as well as to them. From whence it is clear that Israel never had rest in Canaan by works, but by grace; and therefore it follows, If Israel did not enjoy Canaan by a covenant of works, and yet they did enjoy it by the covenant of Circumcision, than Circumcision was not of works, but of grace: so that we see our opposites must be forced to acknowledge the visible part of the covenant of Grace to run upon entail to believers and their seed. Thus we have done with this first head, and have answered all his material Scriptures; which indeed doth also answer the next following, or any t●ing material in his book, and though I have undermined his foundation so, as that the whole structure is fallen; yet because I would separate the stones, from the other rubbish, I shall therefore come to his next general head.   

CHAP. VIII An answer to the second general head touching the Covenant.  
PAg. 42. The next general head by him laid down to prove, is, That Circumcision is no covenant of grace, but of works, called a covenant in the flesh, Gen. 17.13. but before he comes to his Arguments, he opens the meaning of the word everlasting, which is to be understood of the ever of the Law, especially when it comprehends with it their seed in their generations, and this he lays down as a maxim; to prove which, he brings Leu. 16. Num. 25.13. Exod. 40.15. ch. 30.20, 21. all which places speak of the Levitical Priesthood, either of the line in which it should run, or the way by which they were instated into their office, by anointing, or the manner by which they approached constantly into the Tabernacle, or of the manner of their atonement for the people, all which should remain as an everlasting statute in their generations.  
A. That by everlasting we are to understand the ever of the Law only, is no sound maxim: for though it be so to be understood in the places quoted, because it related to the Priesthood, and Tabernacle worship; yet if that covenant in Gen. 17. Which Circumcision sealed then, upon which God promised the Land of Canaan as a type of heaven, remains still as an everlasting covenant, than his maxim is broken: see therefore that parallel Text, Psal. 105.6 to Gen. 17. O ye seed of ●braham his servant, he is the Lord our God, he hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which covenant he made with Abraham and his oath with Isaac, and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, To thee will I give the Land of Canaan, etc.  
From which it appear, that the word everlasting is to be understood to a thousand generations, i. e. to the world's end; because the giving Israel Canaan, was a type of heaven, and from Abraham's days to Christ was but forty two Generations. Therefore this difference is to be observed; that when he speaks of statutes everlasting to be observed in their generations. 'Tis meant of those Statute Laws, that God gave to Israel for worship; and so as Mr Patient observes it is to be understood for the ever of the Law. But when the Holy Ghost speaks of a covenant, everlasting, as in Gen. 1●. 15. 'Tis such a covenant that is to continue▪ so long as the heavens and earth shall continue, so Paul calls it, Heb. 13.20. The blood of the everlasting covenant. And this in Gal. 3.17. was that covenant that Christ confirmed to Abraham and his seed 430 years before the Law, and called everlasting, in that place of Genesis befo e quoted, which everlasting covenant ●o●k in an everlasting seed and is called a Gospel-preaching to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. and by John, Rev. 14.6. is also explained to be an everlasting Gospel: from hence also it is that Paul in Heb. 6. when ●e speaks of God's blessing Abraham and multiplying his seed, which he c ls ●he h●rs of promise, calls it his immutable Counsel, as relating to both the covenant, and the seed of the covenant. Now if there be an everlastingness in the covenant which takes in such a seed as it did to Abraham, then must it continue longer than the Law, or else there must be a mutability. So again, if the persons row covenanting were changed, i. e. If God were not the same to believers and their seed now, as ●e was t●en, or if believers should now covenant only for themselves, and leave out their seed; then there is a mutation of the covenant: therefore David in Psal. 102.26, 27, 28. before quoted, speaking of the infant seed of the Church, tells us, that though the heavens and earth should wax old and perish as a garment, (which words are quoted by Paul, Heb. ●. 1. to a Gospel-●h rch) yet that Church s●ed should continue, so also Psal. 103.17 18. from everlasting to everlasting, and that by virtue of t at everlasting covenant: therefore what feeble maxin s this new Doctor teacheth, and how ill he compares Texts we may here see:  
Pag 4●. The next thing he opens is these words, I will be thy God, and thy seeds God, and that two ways; the o●e b a covenant of Grace, the other by a cov●nant of Works; the first absolute, the second conditional, and so God gave himself to be Abraham's God by a conditional c●v●nant of Works.  
A. That this is strange Divinity, that God should be a people's God by a Covenant of Works since the fall, I doubt not but it will appear to sound Ch istians, from what hath been already said: I shall therefore pass it, to come to his confused Arguments, some of which I have contracted into form, to take the better prospect thereof.  
P. H●s first Argument runs thus. That covenant that runs upon conditions, is a covenant of Works: but so doth Circumcision, therefore.  
A. To which I answer, The first proposition is denied and disproved, and it is by him confessed that faith and repentance is a condition of the covenant. So that by this he affirms pro and con and may as well say plainly, that the covenant of grace is a covenant of works, because it hath conditions: therefore his foundation is too weak, and rotten for such a building.  
P. In pag. 45. he would prove the land of Canaan to be given to Abraham and his seed by a covenant of works, and so would be their God, and then his Argument runs thus. If God g●ve the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed upon the condition of Circumcision, and keeping the Law; then he gave the land of Canaan by a covenant of works: but God gave the land to Abraham upon condition he would circumcise his seed; Therefore.  
A. This hath been already cleared, that circumcision and keeping of the law was man's part of the covenant of Grace, in which the Church was to walk with God, being bound up to visible duties then, as it is now: and that Canaan was not g ven Israel by works, my answer to the preceding head makes clear, to which I refer the Reader, yea it is directly against these Scriptures before quoted, Deut. 9.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ch. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16. Exod. 3.24. Heb, 3.18. ch. 4.1, 2. ch 11. 8, 9, 10. yea so to affirm is to put an affront upon God himself, and to make him ashamed of that title of being Abraham's God, Heb. 11.16. See also the twelve Scripture-considerations before mentioned.  
P. In pag 45, 46. he brings several Scriptures to prove that Circumcision bound to the keeping of the Law. But not one of all those places by him quoted, speaks that they were bound to keep it as a covenant of works, but as the Law of Christ, and so Israel's Gospel, in which Justification was conveyed; and therefore when we read of the Primitive revoltings from Gospel-Ordinances, to Circumcision and the works of the law, as the Church at Rome, and Galatia did, it was upon the like mistake of this Author, who thought the law had been given them as a Covenant of works, which was not so intended, and by this means they came to rest in the law, and are condemned for it by the Apostle, Rom. 2.13, 17. Gal. 5.1, 2.  
2. Consider, that Baptism now, binds as much to keep the law Moral and Gospel-Ordinances as Circumcision then, did bind Israel to keep the same moral law, with the legal Ordinances; and he m●ght with as much evidence of truth argue, That because Baptism binds to keep the law, therefore the Churches of Christ now are under a covenant of works.  
P. page 47 he winds up thus: Abraham, as if God should say, I will be thy God, and thy seeds God, to protect, defend, deliver and bless thee; with the blessings of Canaan, in the fruit of the womb in thy basket and store, and with all outward blessings, upon condition that thou wilt be circumcised, and keep the law as a covenant of works.  
A. A poor Argument, was it not? to prevail with Abraham when he might have replied, Lord there are many that do possess a far greater portion in the world, yea thou hast said that my son Ishmael shall have twelve Princes rise from him, and that he shall be a great man in the earth, yet none of them are bound up to such strict obligations. And when thou gavest a covenant of works to Adam, he should have had heaven, and eternal happiness and glory. And shall I be content with an earthly portion upon such hard terms? And upon this account it is, the Author to the Hebrews doth so argue. That God would have been ashamed to be called Abraham's God, which yet Mr Patient is not ashamed to tell the world in print that he was Abraham's God by a covenant of Works:— Horrid stuff:—  
The like answer is to be given to that place, Jer. 11.2, 3, 4, 5. cursed be the man that obeys not the words of this covenant which I commnnded your Fathers, When I brought them from Egypt, saying, Obey my voice, so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God, that I may confirm the oath which I swore to your Fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey; the Land was given by grace, and the covenant he speaks of was a covenant of grace, not of works; but as faith leads to works, so the covenant leads man to h●s duty, in keeping the commands of God; it was so then, and so it is now, and in this sense, that place is true, Psal. 6. he rewardeth every man according to his works, not for his works. And we are at this day God's people, and be our God upon the same terms of works, as then, See 2 Cor. 6.17, 18, come out from amongst them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and then I will be your Father, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, so that God becomes ours upon conditions still, and yet by no covenant of works.  
P. Page 48. The last thing with which he concludes this first Argument (if such it be) is this. Abraham had a covenant of Grace made with him, twenty four years before that covenant of works, and his happiness with all his spiritual seed was in that absolute covenant.  
A. Had M. Patient's memory been good, he would not so have contradicted himself, For first, this covenant of works he hath made to begin from Adam, and so descended to Abraham. For he hath long before proved that the Law which was given from Sinai was in force before the days of Noah, how then is that like to hold with this, that the covenant of works was not given to Abraham? 'tis twenty four years after that of Grace.  
2 If he make Circumcision the covenant of works, that he means: than it implies that Abraham had two covenants of works; one by descent, and the other made afterwards.  
3 Where he tells us, the happiness of his spiritual seed lies in the absolute covenant; I answer, what spiritual seed had Abraham if it was not Isaac? And yet Isaac was the line in which the covenant of Circumcision was to run, and not Ishmael, Gen 17.21. So that look what happiness the promise gave him of Gods being his God, was conveyed in that covenant: and either Mr Patient must say, it was no happiness to him, to have God to be his God; or else if it was a happiness: then he must acknowledge it in that covenant. Thus we see how sadly he is be errored: certainly had this Doctrine been brought in the Apostles days, he would have looked upon it as another Gospel, ●nd it is a sad curse that he gives to the preachers thereof.  
P. A second Argument, though very improperly so called, to prove circumcision a covenant of works, is, because it was a national covenant in the flesh.  
A. The prudent Reader may easily observe what a poor shift this is to maintain Circumcision a covenant of works; as if a covenant of Grace could not be national: and though what hath been said to prove Circumcision a covenant of pure Grace, be sufficient; yet I shall briefly add: If the promise made with Abraham, was a Gospel promise, in which were contained national blessings, in thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; If the Jews shall be re ingraffed as they were cut off; If by the stone cut out of the mountains, that shall fill the world be to be understood the Church and kingdom of Christ; If the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the seas; If there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth, wherein shall dwell righteousness; If the kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to another Nation:  
If the Church now coming out of the wilderness, holds parallel with the Church in the wilderness, under the Law; If the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of the Lord Christ, if that Commission, Mat. 28. in order hereunto, be to teach all Nations, etc. If that Nation and kingdom that will not serve Christ shall be cut off, Isa 60.12. Then are the blessings of a covenant of Grace national blessings; and what God intended in Abraham's covenant was national: I need say no more.  
P. In pag. 49, 50, 51, 52. he runs into a large field of discourse, and overruns the old Scriptures again (as it is usual with him) to prove, that though the Jews had the covenant of Circumcision given them by entail, yet as to matter of Justification they were as far off, as Pagans, and heathens: and what Justification Abraham had, was while he was uncircumcised, and yet withal granting, That the Jews had the advantage of other Nations, by having those Eminent tenders of the Gospel held out amongst them. And notwithstanding that covenant in the flesh: yet they were all sinners, and therefore there is but one way of Justification, which is by faith in his blood; therefore Circumcision must needs be a covenant of works, for if it had been a covenant of Grace, it would have administered Justification with it; This is the full sense as near as I can collect, out of such straggling discourses.  
Though the Scriptures he brings in these pages to prove what he asserts were before omitted, yet I shall here take them in, as most fit in this place, because the running over things so often, would otherwise make the Answer so bulkish, and therefore,  
A. Though he saith, Justification by faith was not given by Circumcision, i. e. by the act done, as neither is it now given by Baptism, yet Justification was given in that Covenant of Grace which Circumcision sealed, and so the Elect did obtain it, Rom. 4.11. He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of Faith, that he might be the Father of all that believe, though they be not Circumcised. So that Circumcision was the covenants seal, and not the seal of his faith, out of which the Gentile Nations were excluded, till that Jewish Church was cast off, so that the Jews were nearer then Pagans and Heathens, notwithstanding any thing he affirms, because the one was under the call of the Gospel and the tenders of Grace, when the other was a far off, Aliens and strangers, Eph. 2.11, 12, 13. But when the Gospel came amongst them also, than they were made nigh by the blood of Christ. The Heathens in New- England, will any sober understanding Christian say, they are as near to a state of Justification as those that are born and bred up, and dwell under the sound of the Gospel? yea Mr. P. himself doth contradict what he in this affirms, in acknowledging that the Jews were privileged before other Nations, in having such precious tenders of the Gospel, p. 49. so that we see he doth not stick fast to his own judgement in any thing. But wherein these precious privileges should lie, or how the Gospel should be tendered, if they were not visible under the covenant of Grace, and so nearer than Heathens, I cannot see, nor, I am sure, he himself: for had not Justification run in the Jewish Ordinances, more freely than it did to the Gentiles, that had them not, they had instead of being privileged, been more in bondage and slavery than any Nation in the world.  
2. There is not any one place, or Text or syllable in the 2, 3. or 4 to Rom. or in 12, 15, 17, 18, 22. of Gen. or 3, 4, 5. Gal. that saith, Justification by faith was not given in the covenant of Circumcision, or that Justification by faith is opposed to Circumcision, or that because Abraham was Justified, before circumcised; therefore Circumcision is a covenant of Works. But this the Texts say, that justification is to be had in the covenant of Circumcision, which were it a covenant of works, would not there be found, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3, 30. But  
3. And because he tells us in pag. 55. That there is no Text in all the Scripture more clear to prove the covenant of Circumcision to be a covenant of works then this 4. Rom. setting Faith and Circumcision in opposition, showing that Abraham's spiritual seed, had their justification in another covenant, and not in circumcision; I have therefore taken it into this place, because one answer will serve both.  
To clear this place therefore from this cloud of error cast upon it, I shall stay some time, to search into it. The words are these; What shall we say then, that Abraham our Father as appertaining to the flesh hath found? For if Abraham was justified by works, He hath whereof to glory, but not before God; but Abraham believed God, etc. And how was it then reckoned? when he was in Circumcision, or in uncircumcision? not in Circumcision, etc.  
A. By comparing this with the preceding chapter, as also with ch. 5, 6, 7, 8. we find the Roman Church that had embraced the Ordinances of the Gospel, were then falling back into the works of the Law, and those legal Ordinances, in them to gain justification. And therefore they would be listening after those false Teachers that preached up Circumcision after the manner of Moses, which was the prevailing error in that Church, and is at this day, it being so fallen that they maintain good works, do justify. Now the Apostle to bring them off from this error, bids them look upon Abraham, whom they acknowledged to be the father of the faithful; and see how the case stood with him, how he was justified; secretly implying that if he that was the Father of all believers was not justified by works, than it would be unreasonable in his children to think that they were; and therefore it was their duty to follow him: by which we see Abraham is held forth as a public person in the Gospel, to which Gospel-Churches are to have recourse, to rectify errors in doctrines of Faith; and if upon search they found that Abraham was justified in urcircumcision, than they should not think that Circumcision was of absolute necessity to justification; and therefore tells them it was their mistake, the Law was never intended by God to justify any, but ch. 3.9. both Jew and Gentile are all under sin, and ver. 20. therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh can be justified, for all have sinned, and are therefore justified freely by his Grace without the deeds of the Law, ver. 28. upon which the Romans make this Objection, Rom. 4.1. What benefit or advantage than hath Abraham found, to whom the covenant was made? The meaning is because Abraham had not his justification by circumcision; therefore they could not see any Gospel-benefit that came by that Ordinance at all; so much is employed in the words: the like also ch. 3. what profit then is there of Circumcision? and it is the same objection in effect that M. P. makes, only a little changed, For thus his runs: If Abraham was not justified in the covenant of Circumcision, then is Circumcision a covenant of works: both which the Apostle answers, that though Abraham and his seed were not justified by the Law, as a law or covenant of works; yet there was a considerable advantage the Jews had by circumcision, and chief, because unto them were committed the oracles of God, and ch. 9.4. who are Israelites, i. e a peculiar Nation enclosed by God himself from all the Nations of the world, to them appertains the adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the Promises, whose are the Fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came; As if he had said, all this heap and bundle of benefits came in to the Jews and that Nation, which no Nation under heaven had besides, and yet for all this there were many that did not believe, ch. 3.3. For what though some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the Faith of God without effect? God forbidden; as if he had said, The end for which God did so much privilege them above others was, that all his might believe; but yet some did not; implying that some did, i. e. many of them were justified. Therefore ch. 4. 9 he draws towards a result, cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? how was it then reckoned? i. e. If Abraham was justified in uncircumcision, than the righteousness of Faith comes not upon the Circumcision only: and ver. 12. To them who are not of the Circumcision only: and ver. 16. Not to that seed only which is of the Law And then the Apostle concludes, ver. 23. that it was not written for Abraham's sake alone that righteousness was imputed to him, but for us also, i. e. Rom. and all other Gentiles, if they believe, to whom Abraham is as well a Father, as to the Jews.  
So that this triumphant place gives not the least continuance to his opinion; either that Circumcision was a covenant of works, or that it stands in direct opposition to saith, or that God gave a covenant of works to Abraham, to seal a covenant of Grace, as he consequentially affirms, p. 53. Therefore such an interpretation as he hath given of this place is most unsound.  
The like answer is to be given to that place, Ph●l 3.2, 3, 4. which he brings in pag. 55. as an Appendix to this second Argument; the Philippians were also revolting to seek after Justification by the works of the Law, the teachers of which Doctrine the Apostle calls dogs, and evil-workers. And if any had cause to boast of the law of Works, he had more; yet to him it was but dung and dog's meat, all his privileges of being a Jew, a Pharisee, Circumcised; one that concerning the Law was blameless. All this saith Paul, I can boast of, but what is this as to matter of justification, which is by faith alone in Christ? The like plain answer also is and may he given to that other place, Gal. 3.3. which Church also were back sliding into the same error, and therefore he calls them fools, and tells them they were bewitched ch. 5.1. And if they would be seeking Justification by works, they should find they were mistaken. For as many as sought to be justified by the works of the Law, were under the curse. And that no man by the works of the Law was ever justified, is evident, because the just shall live by Faith, ver. 10, 11. And therefore he sends them also to Abraham's covenant, For to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And ver. 18. he shows them the ill-consequence that would follow, if they thought to be justified by works, For then the inheritance must be by works, that is the inheritance of Abraham's promises, both for the Land of Canaan, and all other spiritual blessings. If it were by the Law then it is no more of promises, But God gave them to Abraham by promise, And not by a covenant of works, remember that Mr P. upon this again comes with the old Objection, Wherefore then serveth the Law, If a man may not be justified and saved by the works of the Law? to what end and purpose than was it given? The answer is, it was added because of transgression, that is, to make sin look like sin; and thereby to engage God's people then, to walk close in the duties thereof, and in ver. 21. The Apostle directly confutes Mr. Patient's Doctrine. Is the Law then against the Promises, or in opposition to the Promises? God forbidden. By all which it appears that the Law was no covenant of Works, nor is Circumcision or any part of the Law opposed to Faith, as he would make us beheve; but this was the great mistake of many in Primitive Churches by false teachers means. And so of all Israel, as it is also of Mr P. that the Law was given to the Church of the Jews as a covenant of works, which God never intended to any such end or purpose.   

CHAP. IX. The next thing we come to is the several Arguments he brings in p. 53. to prove Circumcision only a seal to Abraham, answered.  
I. FIrst, because the righteousness of Faith which it sealed, Abraham had it, before the seal was given, but his posterity could not be said to believe at eight days old: Therefore it was a seal to him, and not to them.  
A. The seal was not annexed to Abraham's Faith, as abraham's, but to God's covenant made with Abraham; therefore it is called the seal of the righteousness of Faith. So that what it sealed to Abraham was, as he was an heir of the same Promises with Isaac and Jacob, Heb. 11.9. therefore what it sealed to him as an heir, it sealed to Isaac and Jacob, and so to all believers as coheirs of the same inheritance, Heb. 6.17.  
2. If it was a seal of Abraham's Faith only, than it must be either as it was a weak faith, or strong faith.  
1 It could not be the first, because Abraham's faith is by the Apostle said not to be weak, Rom. 4.19, 20.  
2. If it had been given as a badge of honour to Abraham's Faith (as I have seen it affirmed in a piece or C. B.) as a strong faith: than it should have been given to Adam and Noah, who had as strong faiths as Abraham; and less Gospel-light than Abraham had to work it.  
3. There was no necessity to have Abraham's justification sealed, more than Adam's, Seths, Noah's, or any of his predecessors, especially if it be considered what M. P. himself grants, that he was justified twenty four years before this seal was given, therefore  
4. Had it not been a seal to Isaac, as well as to Abraham, and so not only a seal of Abraham's faith, it might have been given upon the birth of Ishmael, and Abraham need not have stayed for a son of promise, for it would have sealed as much then to Abraham, as it did after, if it was not the covenant-seal.  
5. Had it not been a seal to Isaac, and so a part of the covenant, than Isaac's not being circumcised had been no breach of the covenant; directly against that place, Gen. 17.10. For a seal the Apostle calls it, and a sign God calls it. So that had it only been a seal of Abraham's Faith, the covenant had not come sealed to Isaac; because the seal reached only the Faith of Abraham, and when he died, the seal was broken off. Therefore  
6. It is a clear truth, that as the blessings of the covenant were made to Abraham by Promise, and to his seed, so God's main drift being to make those covenant-blessings sure to all the heirs of Promise, Heb. 6.17: he therefore deals as a man that would be believed. First he promise●, secondly, he swears to confirm that Promise, Thirdly, he seals what he hath promised. So the seal becomes the covenant-seal, as the oath is the Covenants oath: and what God promised to Abraham, he promised to his seed; and what he confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed to his seed; and what God therefore sealed to Abraham, he sealed also to his seed. All which was to show the immutability of his Counsel to the heirs of Promise, not only to such as were heirs under the Law, but to the world's end, as the Apostle tells us before, in the place quoted.  
II. His next reason or Argument why it sealed only to Abraham is, because it is said, he received it, that he might be the Father of all that believe. Which could not be said of Isaac, because he was but a child.  
A. Though Abraham was made the Father of the faithful, by having that seal given him; yet he could not have been such a father without such a son, because they are relatives, not only in the natural relation, but in the promise, for though Ishmael was born thirteen years before Isaac was promised; yet had God given him circumcision then, Abraham had not been the Father of the faithful, because Ishmael was not a faithful child. So that, that which was required to make Abraham a father of a faithful son, was required in Isaac to make him such a son of a faithful Father: Therefore that seal that was given to Abraham as a father, was given to Isaac as a son.  
III. His third Argument to prove it a seal only to Abraham is Here is the spirit of God affirming the sealing use of Circumcision to Abraham only, upon a reason special to him; therefore where the Scripture hath not a mouth to speak, we must not have an ear to hear.  
A. The spirit of God speaks no such thing, but the spirit of M. P. for where is it said, it was a seal to him only? no such Text is to be sound in all the Scriptures, for as is before said, what it sealed to him as a father, it sealed to Isaac as a son of that Father, for the covenant related to posterity. I may therefore say of him as the Prophet said of the false Prophets, who said the Lord saith it, as here M P. doth, when indeed the Lord hath not spoken: therefore the Scripture hath a mouth to speak, if he had an understanding heart to know when and what it speaks: let such therefore who have ears to hear, hear what the spirit speaks to the Churches.  
IV. P. A fourth ground or reason he gives that Circumcision sealed only to Abraham, is drawn from Rom. 4.13. The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to him and his seed through the Law, i. e. saith M. P. through the covenant of Circumcision, But through the righteousness of Faith. For if they that be of the Law be heirs, than Faith is made void.  
A. 1. He here again supposes that which is denied, and the contrary proved, i. e. That Circumcision was not a covenant of works.  
2. When it is said the promise of his being the heir of the world was not made to Abraham through the Law, The Apostle means, that it was not to be confined and shut up to the generations of the Law only, and so it was not to his seed through the Law only, but through the righteousness of Faith; that is, his Patrimony came upon such high terms as would reach to a thousand generations, Psal.. ●05. even to the Gentiles under the Gospel to the world's end: and that this is his meaning is clear, by the following words, For if they which are of the Law be heirs (i. e. They and they only, but heirs they were, Faith is made void. That is, the faith which Abraham had, by which he did believe the multiplying of his seed in all Nations upon the grounds of the Promise, that faith is quite frustrated, because it went no further than the generations of the Law; And therefore it is of faith that it might be by Grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, and then he fully explains what he said before, Not sure to that seed only, which were of the Law, where the word only doth suppose it was sure to the legal seed, therefore it cannot be meant of a covenant of works, for so the promise was never sure to any from the Creation to this day, or ever shall be.  
3. If the place were to be understood in his sense, namely of a covenant of works, Than it confutes in direct terms w●at he hath so much pleaded for in his book. As that Canaan should be given by a covenant of works. For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, (in which that land was included) was not to him and his seed through the Law, i e. saith Mr P not by the covenant of Circumcision, but through the righteousness of faith. And if the Apostle saith, not by that covenant, then why doth Mr P. so often affirm elsewhere it was?  
Thus we see, there is nothing in all he hath said, that proves Circumcision either a covenant of works or seal to Abraham only, but enough to prove it a seal to all the heirs of promise, even whilst they are infants: All ye therefore that belong to the covenant of Grace, fear not to give your infant-seed that Ordinance which now is the seal of the covenant.  
P. The last Scripture he here brings to prove Circumcision a covenant of works is Gal. 4. latter end, where the Apostle compa es the two covenants to Sarah and Hagar, the covenant of Circumcision is held forth to be the bondwoman, ch. 5.1.2, 3. ch 6.13. wh●ch place doth prove, the covenant made in the fleshly line of Abraham is a covenant of Works. And that which the Gospel is set in opposition to, For the covenant of Grace is, I will put my Law in their hearts but the covenant of Circumcision is not in the heart, but in the flesh.  
A. The diligent Reader may easily observe the palpable contradictions that are here to be found. Hagar types out the covenant of works. Sarah types out the covenant of grace, and the fl●shly covenant of Circumcision (as he calls it) which is typed out by Hagar, is made in the fleshly line of Abraham which must be Ishmael. And then he contradicts what he hath been all this while maintaining, i e. that the fleshly line is Isaac and Jacob, in which the covenant of Circumcision was to run: and so also he opposeth the Apostle Gal. 4 23 But he that was born of the bondwoman, was born after the flesh: but he of the freewoman was by Promise; so that what Paul calls the children by promise, he calls the children of the flesh. Thus men leaving truth making wise, God leaves them to publish their own folly.  
That place Gal. 1.2, 3. is already answered, they were such that were falling back from Grace to be justified by works through their gross mistake, thinking as Mr P. doth, that the Law had been given for a covenant of works.  
Lastly, Though God hath promised to write the new covenant in the heart, yet the seals of that covenant are written in the flesh: so it was then. For God writ the new covenant in the heart, under the Law, and yet circumcision was no covenant of works. But a figure of what God did within, Deut. 30.6. Rom. 2.28, 29. by which places we may see Circumcision had the same promises attending it then to believers and their seed, as baptism hath now. And it may with as much evidence of truth, be said, that baptism is a covenant of Works, because it is administered upon the flesh; as Circumcision was then. Therefore all his Arguments and Scriptures he hath brought hitherto to prove Circumcision a covenant of works, have been ill drawn, and worse applied.   

CHAP. X. Wherein his 3, 4, 5, and 6, Arguments are answered to prove Circumcision a covenant of Works.  
III. P: pag. 58. WE are now come to his third Argument, and that is, because there is no promise of eternal life in it, but only a temporal blessing in the Land of Canaan, as protection and provision, and the like, to prove this he quotes Heb. 8.6: Jer. 11.2, 3. Deut. 7.12, 13, & 30, 13.  
A. 1. That Circumcision, had no promise of eternal life attending it is false, for eternal life was promised in Gods telling Abraham, he would be his God; it is such a blank, that a believer may write what happiness he will in it: God could not say more, nor a believer desire more.  
2. It had the promise of the heart-Circumcision in order to prepare a soul for heaven, as the places above cited prove. Therefore it had the promise also of eternal life.  
3. If it had not had the promise of eternal happiness, but only an earthly Canaan, and protection therein, then in vain doth S. Paul say, God was not ashamed to be called Abraham's God, Heb. 11.16. And in vain also did he with Isaac and Jacob walk as Pilgrims in that land, expecting a better Country, i. e. a heavenly, Heb. 11.8, 14, 16.  
4. As to those Texts he mentions, there is not one of them proves that God only promised Abraham's seed prosperity in Canaan, though that also was included, upon their obedience to God's covenant, which was of Grace, not works, as hath been before largely proved We see therefore how well he hath distinguished the Covenants.  
P. IU. His next Argument to prove Circumcision a covenant of works is, because a man by laying out a little money might have bought a heathen into this covenant, and have interessed him into all the privileges thereof.  
A. The covenant had two parts, one external, relating to man's duty in forms of worship; The other spiritual, relating to communion with God in those forms, as hath been often mentioned; into the first of these, all the persons born in Abraham's house, or ●ought with money were to be admitted, and the reason is, because all Abraham's family so qualifyed were the visible Church, and such a taking into his family was a taking into the Church: which also w●s a type of the purchase that Christ should pay by his blood. For the Gentiles, we e to be brought into Church-communion, of which that was the first fruits, both to them and ●heir seed; for doing whereof, Gods command did bear him out. And this was to be a standing rule to Israel when they came to be a kingdom, because the foundation of the kingdom was laid in Abraham's family, Therefore,  
2. When he saith, that all so bought, were purchased into all the privileges of the covenant, it is a gross untruth: for justification, and salvation were the choice privileges of that covenant wh●ch they could not be bought into, and in that sense Peter's answer to Simon Magus, Thy money perish with thee, had been properly applied though yet in the other consideration, what he did was an Ordinance of God.  
V P. His next Argument is, because men out of this covenant might be saved, and such as were in it might be damned.  
A. Here is still the same distinction to be noted as before, for those that went to hell were never interessed in the spiritual part of the covenant, but only into the external forms of worship; the l●ke instance we have in the Apostles days, Judas, Simon Magus, with the rest of those hypocrites, and Apostates, were all interessed in the external part of the covenant, and yet went to hell: this likewise was the condition of the foolish virgins, who because they had lamps lighted, thought themselves well enough, and there rested: in this sense also are the words of Christ to be understood. [The children of the kingdom shall be cast out.] I would a little return this Argument to M: P. How many dipped Apostates have fallen quite away from all grace and goodness of late years, both from them and us? Surely it cannot be denied, but they were visibly once in the covenant; therefore all those Scriptures and examples by him brought in, pag. 62, 63, 64. are by this distinction answered, and the false varnish by him put upon them is hereby washed off, that so they may be seen in their glory and splendour.  
2. It also appears that it was the same covenant of Grace that justified Lot, Job, and all Jobs friends that were godly, though dwelling in another Country, that justified Abraham and his seed: for though they had not the seal of the covenant, because Abraham was the person pitched upon, to whom it should be first administered; yet they were worshippers of God in a solemn way of sacrificing: the like we may charitably think now, that many in the world who have not the same means of Gospel-Ordinances, may yet have sincere hearts to God, and be as a scattered seed of some gracious predecessors; and yet not be within the visible pale of the covenant.  
This also duly considered, is a full answer to the rest of those instances, of David's sons, and Abraham's sons, with the whole lump of Israel, of all which many were damned, because only in the visible part of the covenant. We may therefore see hitherto what feeble Arguments Mr. Patient brings to prove Circumcision a covenant of works.  
VI P. His sixth Argument for the ends abovesaid is, because this covenant of Circumcision may be broken, Gen. 17.14.  
A. Still the former distinction kept makes the answer easy and plain; for such who broke the covenant, broke but the external part thereof; the other part could not be broken, and in this sense also the covenant in Gospel days is broken, and as God unchurcht Israel for breach of covenant, so he doth still, when a Church or people do apostatise from his Ordinances: The Apostle tells us so, Heb. 3.6 Whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm to the end, his meaning is, we are his house if we keep to the Ordinances of worship: implying, That if a people once cast off the Ordinances, they have broken the covenant, and stand related to Christ no longer as his house. I am sure that the extent of this Explication will reach Mr Patient, who hath broken the covenant of God, by casting out of his seed. And upon this very hinge it was, That all those examples of God's judgements upon Israel are given, when they revolted from God, and broke this covenant, than God plague's them and cuts them off; and when they renewed their covenant, fasted, humbled their souls and repent, God shown Mercy; all which agrees to that remarkable place, which proves the covenant of Grace conditional, Gen. 18.19. For I know Abraham will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the Way of the Lord, to do Justice and judgement. That the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him; clearly implying, that if Abraham's seed did not walk close in their duties, they should fall short of their expectations, as we afterwards find Israel did.  
Therefore whereas M. P. saith it is impossible the covenant of Grace should be broken, it is false. For the external part may be broken, which is part of the covenant: but the inward part of it can never be broken.  
P. Pag. 67. He comes to answer this distinction of the covenant as an Objection, but so poorly, that it seems he would gladly favour his own opinion; persons saith he, may profess outwardly, to be in Christ, and so in the covenant of Grace by profession: but because it was but a profession only, and not in truth; therefore they profess to be in that wherein they never were.  
A. We are now speaking of persons being in the covenant as the Scripture holds them forth, to be within it; And as men may in the judgement of Charity believe persons to be in it, in order to Communion of Saints in the world. If therefore the Scriptures tell us there is a twofold being in it, than persons are in the covenant that are within the visible part of, as hath been sufficiently proved, and as his own practice doth acknowledge: so that in his answer to the Objection, he rather works like a ferryman, than a preacher; he seems to look towards an answer, but rows the other way: therefore whereas he saith, we have an infallible rule to judge Abraham and his seed to be within the covenant of Circumcision, because God saith it, and the Objection before is groundless.  
A. It hath bean already cleared, that Circumcision was part of the covenant of Grace; and therefore by this he confesseth that persons are visible within it, because the infallible rule of the word of God saith it; and so was the seed he speaks of infallible (as he calls it) within the Covenant: The like now, all that by profession, are admitted into Gospel-Churches. We have the same rule to judge by. That they are as really within the covenant as the seed of Abraham was then; By which we may see the Objection stands in force, notwithstanding those puffs of wind, he hath given at it.  
2. Neither doth his bringing in that great Catalogue of Israel's sins at all help him; For though it is not denied but the most part of them were wicked and profane, yet as a separated people God had chosen out, from the rest of the world, to be a Church, to whom he committed his Oracles, in that sense they were a people in covenant, and so stood till they were divorced, and cast off from being a people. For which see Rom. 9 at large. And the reason why they were so wicked and profane, may be gathered from that place before mentioned, Gen. 18.19. because they kept not up family duties, grew carnal and lose in their Judgements; and therefore looseness in practice and conversation followed; a needful Item to all God's people in these days.  
The like answer is to be given to Joh. 8 40, 44. by all which then it appears, that not one Argument he hath hitherto brought, proves Circumcision to be a covenant of works: we are now arrived at his last Argument, and that drawn from the many inconveniencies that will follow, if it be maintained a covenant of Grace: therefore so to understand Scriptures, as to cross any fundamentals, cannot be agreeable to the mind of God.   

CHAP. XI. Contains a vindication of the First, Second, and Third Fundamental.  
P. pag. 71. IF the covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and his seed, and those also that were born in his house, or bought with money amongst the families of Israel, were a covenant of Grace, than it interessed all persons by nature or practice, into the choice privileges of Adoption, sonship, justification, the inward work of sanctification; all which i● asserted by those who hold Infant-baptism. And then this fundamental in Religion is denied, That all mankind by nature are children of wrath, and that all men are not charged under sin, both Jews and Gentiles, and that none is righteous, no not one. But saith Mr P. be it known to you, it was a truth through Israel in their Generations, and then he brings in many Scriptures to prove that men by nature are children of wrath, etc.  
A. 1. And be it known to you again, That this fundamental truth is such that we all vail to, and therefore, it is not so much as touched, much less rooted up by our Doctrine or practice, in maintaining Circumcision a Covenant of Grace, which I now come to make appear, and still by the former distinction; Therefore I shall desire the Reader to give me his hand, that we may not break company till the storm is over.  

1 There is a twofold Adoption, and therefore  
2 A twofold sonship,  
3 A twofold Sanctification,  
4 A twofold Justification.   
These and all these, outward, and inward: so that, by virtue of the extent of the covenant made with Abraham, persons are born into those outward privileges, though not into the spiritual part thereof: and thus were Israel adopted, Rom. 9.4. For it is one of the first privileges that St. Paul reckons Israel had, to whom pertained the Adoption and the glory, etc.  
By which we see that the Adoption appertained to all Israel, that is, God made choice of them, to make them his peculiar sons and people, by taking them into the visible pale of the covenant of grace, when all the Nations of the earth besides were passed by. So that no people, or Nation in the world could say God was their father, but the Jews; which is the benefit of Adoption in either respect. But inward Adoption runs more spiritually, therefore called the spirit of Adoption, Rom. 8.  
Thus also, all Israel were the sons of God, for which the Scripture is so clear. That such who deny it do but discover much ignorance. See therefore these Texts, Hos. 4.1. ch. 11.1. Joh. 8.41. Ezek. 20.21. And thus they are called the firstborn, Exod. 4.22, 23. And they had all the service of sons to do to God in the wilderness. The like also of sanctification, when persons are by God's appointment separated and set a part to a holy use, of which, divers instances might be given, before and since Christ; so also Justification, outward before men, as well as inward, or how else should there be any communion of Saints on earth? Thus Hagars son, though by nature born under a covenant of works, was a Church member. And he could call Abraham father, as Isaac could, though not under such a spiritual consideration, for still the in-works of Adoption, Sonship Justification, and Sanctification, have run by promise's, in a close hidden and spiritual way, working upon and changing the heart: And though Isaac, Jacob, and the rest of the line, were all born in sin, as well as Ishmael, and Esau, yet the Promise takes time to work, and brings in the Elect of God, some later, some sooner; yea, let us bring down this again to a parallel, and compare it to the practice of M. P. Sure I am, he cannot say, that all, he, and others with him plunged upon their profession of faith, are the real Adopted sons of God, or real●y holy, or really justified or sanctified, that is spiritually; But this they may say, they are visibly such, and some may be such also spiritually; but who they be, is unknown to man, and yet all were alike by nature born in sin, and children of wrath.  
2. And thus all those Scriptures, Ephes. 2.2. by nature children of wrath, Rom. 3.9. none righteous, no not one, are answered. This was also the equal condition of Paul, David, and the rest born and conceived in sin; and yet, as Abraham's seed, they were interessed in the covenant then, as believers and their seed are now. We may then see how his heap of chaff cast upon the truth, gins already to be blown away:  
II. P. The second fundamental which he proclaims to the world, that our practice overturns is, stability in a covenant of eternal life; for if all Israel were born in the covenant of Grace then all should be saved, but there were but a remnant of Israel saved, all the rest damned. Isa. 10.22, 23. Rom. 9.22. And if so born, they must needs fall away from Grace.  
A. As stability in Grace is a glorious truth, so neither doth this touch it. For it only makes the outward part of the covenant instable. That is a falling away from their visible being in the covenant, for as hath been said, a man may be in the covenant, yet not in the Grace of the covenant. Thus Israel and all those Gospel hypocrites mentioned, fell away, but the election still remained: so the branches that were in Christ, Joh. 15. that bore not fruit, were cut off and withered: and thus all those Texts that speak of a falling away are to be understood. The like now; though many Apostates fall from the ways of God, yet the covenant remains stable, and the same for ever.  
III. P. The third foundation he pretends to be shaken, is the necessity of conversion, and regeneration which is a Doctrine eminently confirmed by Christ in the Gospel, for which he brings several Texts of Scripture: but to hold a covenant of life to run upon the carnal seed of believers opposeth this: for then when Christ said, Except a man be born again, ●e cannot enter into the kingdom of God, Israel might answer, that's not true, we have an interest in the covenant of Grace already, and except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. they might say again, that's not true, for we know another way ●o heaven then by believing, and 1 Joh. 5. He that hath not the Son hath not life. This error replies, there be thousands interessed in life, without having Christ, by carnal generation. Thus far he, with much more of the like stuff, with which he fills three pages together.  
A. Neither doth it at all entrench upon this Doctrine, as falsely suggested: therefore to clear this we are to consider, first the ground of this mistake of his from whence it riseth, as any man may easily see; namely, that the Doctrine of Conversion, Repentance, and Regeneration, is to be preached only to such as are without the Church, and Kingdom of Christ: for his argument runs as taking it for granted, that such as are the subjects of the kingdom, are such in reality, when as by the former distinctions, it is most apparent, that some are such visibly only, and some really.  
2. Therefore consider, the Doctrines mentioned are part of that Gospel, which is the kingdoms Gospel, as Christ calls it, and hath been ever preached to the subjects of the kingdom, so it was to Israel of old; and though believers and their seed were taken into the covenant (already proved to be of grace) yet this Doctrine of the new birth was preached to them; which is abundantly clear from Christ's words to Nicodemus, Joh. 3. a place by himself quoted: Art thou a Doctor in Israel, and knowest not what the doctrine of the new birth means? implying, That he shown himself very ignorant, when he knew not that which was preached amongst Israel: adding this also, That the Ordinance of Circumcision so frequently used, was but a Type of the Circumcision upon the heart, yea the whole tenor of the old-Testament runs in such terms that clearly show their blessedness lies in repenting and turning to God in pardon of sin, in setting their delight in the Laws of the Lord, trusting in God, and setting their hope in God, the book of Psalms is full of it. So also in those primitive Churches planted by the Apostles themselves, who in admission of members, had a better insight to the truth of grace upon the heart, than any since, and yet this Doctrine they preached to the Church, 2 Cor. 5.17. Rom. 2.29. ch 6.11.8.10. Gal. 5.19. Eph. 4.23. therefore such as think the Doctrines of Repentance, New-birth, etc. should be preached to the world only, may hence see their mistakes, amongst which number Mr P. is one, I shall still draw down the parallel to his practice, which I judge to be a good way to convince our dissenting friends of their error: can he think, that all that runs in the same ra e with him, I mean into the water, that they have no need of preaching Repentance or the new-birth amongst them? surely if that be his judgement, he discovers more ignorance and weakness then ever Nicodemus did. Therefore  
3. Let us glean up his Scriptures, The reproof that John gave the Pharisees, was not for pleading a title to Abraham's covenant as his seed, for it is evident he baptised upon that account: for had not the Pharisees claimed the Ordinances as Abraham's seed, because the rest did so, the reproof given them had been little better than nonsense, but he checks them for their wickedness, in not walking as became Abraham's children. So also Joh. 8.32. The like also Luke 16. a place M. P. much delights to name, thinking it makes for his opinion because Dives in hell owned Abraham as a Father, and Abraham owned him as a son, but yet for all that saith Mr. Patient, he was damned.  
A. There is none denies, but Abraham had more children damned then saved, yet nevertheless such as were saved, were Abraham's children and saved by Abraham's covenant. And it is impossible that M. P. himself should ever be saved out of that covenant, though at present he so much slights it: The reproof therefore that was given to Dives, was not because he called Abraham Father, as one of his sons, but because he lived as an Epicure and a glutton, as the whole parable makes evident. And methinks Abraham's Charity should be a sufficient reproof to Mr. P. for his want thereof: whereas therefore he tells us we have found out a newer way to heaven, then by the Doctrine of regeneration, it is but a taunt, wherein he discovers by what spirit he writes and speaks; Let therefore such ingenious spirits to whom he makes his appeal, judge righteous judgement.   

CHAP. XII. Wherein the fourth and fifth Fundamentals are maintained.  
IV. P. pag. 79. THe next Fundamental he tells us we destroy by maintaining Circumcision a covenant of Grace, Is the Doctrine of the new covenant, the nature of it, and the manner of Gods making of it with the soul, in which he writes his Laws in the heart, and pardons their sins, infuseth Faith, binds himself over to be their God without any condition in the creature, And thus and no otherwise, doth God make a new covenant with the soul, whereas this dream would make us believe that a whole Nation may be in the new covenant, and yet have no work of Grace wrought upon the heart.  
A. That the new covenant hath conditions, hath been already proved. God neither pardons, saves, nor justifies any man, without the condition of the covenant, which ever was, is, and will be. Faith and Repentance, which two are of a large extent, and brings in a close walking with God in his Word and Ordinances, and leads to a holy life, without which none shall ever see the face of God. Look back to Abraham's covenant, was it not made with him as a believer, Rom. 4.3? what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, Had not Abraham been a believer, righteousness had not been imputed to him; and that this is a condition, the Apostle makes it clear, ver. 23, 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him: But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe. So that faith is clearly held forth as the condition both to Jew and Gentile, Isa. 56.6. He that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold on my covenant, Him will I make joyful in my house of prayer. For my house shall be called the house of prayer of all Nations: what covenant is this, that a man must lay hold of but that of freegrace, which relates to his house of prayer in all Nations? For his Gospel-house, with whom that covenant is made, is as well called the house of prayer as the Temple: so that look how far the house of prayer goes to that people and Nation, both the Sabbath and Covenant goes also; so as they must keep the one, and take hold of the other.  
Obj. But saith the opponent, though Faith be the hand, yet it is God that gives the hand, so that still the Covenant is without conditions?  
Ans. This is still to argue pro and con. For if Faith be the hand and condition of the covenant, than it is on the creatures side, that it is so, and not on Gods. And the covenant is not made with any creature till they have a hand to receive it. And though it be given by freegrace, yet when it is given, it is the creatures hand; as the hand and eye of my body, it is freegrace that gives them, but when they are given, they are my hands and my eyes. And thus the Apostle argues, it is of faith that it may be by grace; and hereby grace doth abound, that God should give the Gospel, and Covenant upon conditions; and when these conditions are wrought by his Grace, yet he should look upon them, as ours; yea Mr Patient hath before acknowledged, That faith is the condition of the covenant, and therefore whereas he here tells us God infuseth faith, and binds himself over to the soul without conditions, it is a mere contradiction; because that faith so infused, is that condition which takes hold on the covenant: and by this new covenant, were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Nathan, and all the people of God under the old-Testament, justified and saved; into the visible part of which covenant, all their seed was taken, yea the whole Nation of Israel. And that they shall be so taken in again, see Rom. 11. at large compared with Jer. 31.1. therefore for him to call it a dream, is not only a discovery of his shallowness, but also an affront put upon those holy worthies before mentioned, by which he doth manifest it to the world, affirming that the Covenant of Grace hath no conditions, that he is a high Antinomian, as well as an Anabaptist.  
V P. pag. 80. His next Fundamental is the doctrine of Justification by Faith; which this opinion of Circumcision to be a covenant of Grace destroys, in that it holds forth another way to obtain Justification by, than faith, which is by carnal birth of believing parents. For if a soul be admitted into a covenant of life thereby; I hope you are not ignorant, that justification by faith is the great privilege of the new covenant, and really the portion of all that are in that covenant.  
A. He here affirms two direct untruths: But what's that, when there is nothing else to be found in his whole book?  
1 He tells us we hold another way of justification than faith, by carnal birth, etc. which we abhor.  
2 Another gross untruth is, That Justification to life is the real portion, of all within the covenant of Grace.  
Therefore let the former distinction be still minded; and than it is apparent, that we affirm no more, but that believers seed have right to the external part of the covenant of grace, which Circumcision was a part of, as hath been proved: as for the spiritual part of the covenant, namely, that justification by faith, which he speaks of; it hath ever been conveyed in a secret way of the spirits working upon the heart: from which it is evident, that persons may be visibly within the covenant, and yet have no real work of Grace in their souls, so as to be justified, as those examples beforementioned do abundantly prove, for then Judas had been really justified. Take in also the parallel; then all the members of their dipped societies, would be really justified; had we nothing else to plead, but the sensible experience of these times; it would be enough to show the falsity of such an assertion: for how many not only of them, but of others also have fallen away to diabolical delusions? Thus far therefore we see those foundations, by him pretended to be shaken, remain, notwithstanding his high swelling language, untouched, and unmoveable:— again   

CHAP. XIII. The sixth and seventh Fundamentals maintained.  
P. pag. 80, 81, 83. THis opinion destroys the doctrine and foundation of Gospel-Churches. The matter thereof, which is Saints by calling, spiritual worshippers, joh. 4.23. lively stones, 1 Pet. 2.5. persons redeemed from a vain conversation, 1 Pet. 1.18. brought out of darkness into his marvellous light, 1 Pet. 2.9. Now this opinion brings in a whole Nation to be a Church, all born of their body, their seeds seed in their generations. This is a setting up the partition wall again, betwixt the natural branches, and those that are wild by nature.  
2 The manner of gathering is destroyed, and the Lords baptism neglected, and a counterfeit baptism set up in the room thereof.  
A. Though this head would require a larger answer, yet I shall contract as briefly as I can, therefore  
1 As to the matter of a Gospel Church, it is believers and their seed, which I thus prove: the Church of Christ is his kingdom in the world, to which the tenders of Gospel-Grace and mercy belongs, it is therefore called the Gospel of the kingdom, Mat. 13.19. before touched upon.  
It was so before the coming of Christ, and it is so since. If Grace therefore once took in children to be subjects of this kingdom, who then casts them out? not Grace, for that is unchangeable, and thereby they were taken in; 'tis the Argument of Paul, If God justifies, who shall condemn, Rom. 8.31, 34. If God be for them, who shall be against them? If grace makes them holy, by separating them to a holy use, who shall make them unclean, and cut them off? And that the same bowels of Grace and tender affection remains in Christ to little babes is clear, under the Gospel, for of such is the kingdom; he doth not say of such was the kingdom. For that indeed would have been quickly made use of as a plea against us. But of such is the kingdom, As if he had said, My Kingdom is made up of the same materials, as the Kingdoms of the World are, not only of men and women, but of children also, of such is the kingdom, would it not be ridiculous to say, there may be a kingdom without children? and that this is a metaphorical allusion, to the kingdoms of the world is clear, not only from the words or phrase there used, but also from other Texts, The kingdoms of the world, shall become the kingdoms of Christ. And Abraham's covenant tells us how it should be, namely, by multiplying of Abraham's seed in all Nations, so as that power at last shall naturally divolve into their hands, as it is worthily observed by an eminent Minister of these times, Mr Carter upon Abraham's covenant.  
2. Consider, the foundation of this kingdom was laid in Abraham and his seed. For though God had his worship before, in families, from the beginning upon the first promise of Christ, yet it came not to a kingdom-worship till the promise was enlarged of multiplying the seed as the stars of heaven. And so Isaac was taken in as a subject with his Father, though but an Infant-subject; and that covenant which took in them, was the kingdom's covenant; and the seal of the covenant, was the seal of the kingdom, which reaches as well Infant-subjects, as their Parents. If then the foundation of the kingdom were parents and children, than the building upon that foundation must be also parents and children, because it is not a new but a continued kingdom, Mat. 21.43. This being duly weighed, it will also reach to that other relation, the Church stands in to Christ, of being his house. And so takes in the place quoted, 1. Pet. 2.5. And ye as living stones are built up a spiritual house, etc. Look what materials therefore were laid into the foundation of God's spiritual house, of the same is it carried up, till the top-stone be laid; with shoutings, Grace, Grace; And that God's house, under the Law, was a spiritual huuse, and their worshippers, spiritual worshippers, is c●eer; because Israel were a sepa ated people, from all Nations; and were also to be separated amongst themselves from all moral and typical uncleanness; either in persons or things, in order to a spiritual enjoyment of God in his worship, they being then as we now, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God, holy and acceptable, See 2 Cor. 6.16, 18. compared with Leu. 26.22: Isa 52.11. Ezek. 37.27. ch. 44.7. And, the having children in that spiritual house, did not at all diminish from the worship, to make it the less spiritual, Isa. 56.7. the allusion of the spiritual house under the Gospel, is drawn from the nature of God's spiritual house under the Law, My house shall be called the house of prayer of all Nations, It was not so called, from the walls and stones of the Temple, though that also in a sense might be so called, but from Israel's meeting there, who was the praying people that God had then in the world, and the children were also carried up to be presented before the Lord, Exod. 13.2 Levit. 12.2, 6. Luke 2.22, 23, 24, 27. Therefore, what ranks or degrees of people there were in the house of prayer then; the same was also the house of prayer under the Gospel in all Nations to consist of: namely, of men, women, and children: therefore the Apostle calls the Church the household of faith: in which are taken in believers seed: this doth also answer that place, Joh. 4. spiritual worshippers, for such they were under the Law; and yet their children also were included. The word is there used in opposition to this or that place, which they looked upon themselves bound up to, though Christ was come; as also in opposition to their manner of worship; which was then more carnal, Heb. 9.10. Truth was also opposed to the Idol worship of the Samaritans; but nothing at all can be gathered to take away the right of children: or that imports children not to be fit matter for a Church, kingdom, or house of God; especially considering it was the same covenant of Grace then that took them in, as it is now; and if it be an immutable covenant to believers and their seed, as no sound Christian can deny, then are believers seed still in the covenant. And thus also children may be truly called Saints, and sanctified persons; holy, because set apart to a holy use in the service of God.  
3 Whereas therefore he saith, this opinion brings in a whole Nation of believers, it is his mistake; for till God brings them in, the opinion and practice doth not; for it is but the incorporating of the families of believers, into Congregational Societies and Churches, unless there be so many families as fill a Nation, and then I think without offence, they may be called a Nation of believers; and for aught I can see, not improperly a National-Church; neither are we hound by Israel's practice of Circumcising, to their succeeding generations, who had a command for it, (though I believe they were much corrupted in that Ordinance, as appears from that place, Ezek. 44.7.) therefore to baptise our children to succeed●ng generations, i● the Parents wicked, because the visible unbelief of Parents cuts off their seed, and their visible believing ingraffs them in. And thus we find John repulsed visible unbelievers that came to be baptised upon the account of Abraham's covenant: so that it appears that M. P. is a● ignorant of the ground of our practice, as he is of the truth of his own.  
4 Neither is it the setting up again of the partition wall betwixt the natural branches, and those that are wild by nature. For the partition wall was the legal-Ordinances, Eph. 2.14, 15, given to the Jewish Nation only: and shu●ting out all Nations besides: so much is employed by Paul, Rom. 9.4. To them appertained the giving of the Law and the Oracles, that is, to them and none else, so Rom. 11.12. Mat. 28.19. which Commission was enlarged upon Christ's taking away that partition wall, and copied out according to the tenor of Abraham's covenant, Gen. 12. In thee shall all Nations of the earth be blessed.  
Therefore go teach all Nations.  
Therefore also by natural branches, we are to understand the Jewish believing Parents and seed. These were the branches of the covenant, cut off for unbelief, His blood be upon us and our children, Mat. 27.25. and Rom. 11.15, 20. because of unbelief they were broken off: What, they? The first place tells us, Parents and Children; and ver. 17. (and if some of the branches were broken off implying that as Parent and seed were branches, so some of those branches were not broken off, but still remained in Abraham's covenant, Therefore  
2 By wild branches, or branches wild by nature, we are to understand the Gentiles, Parents and seed, called wild by nature; because Israel that were God's Vineyard, Orchard, Garden, and so enclosed, were dressed and pruned by Christ in his Ministry, who was the vine-dresser thereof, when as the Gentiles grew wild as a Tree in a wilderness, and so were without God in the world, thus the natural branches were cut off, That the branches wild by nature might be graffed in. The Sun at noon day hath not so clear a light, as this Scripture hath to prove the covenant right and interest of believers and their seed. In what therefore he affirms in pag. 81. that taking in of children is a setting up the partition wall betwixt the natural branches, and branches wild by nature, he shows himself more blind than that poor man that saw men as trees walking. For by natural branches he understands only adult professors: and by branches wild by nature, little infants; when as the word of God tells us, that we are to understand by branches, Parents and Children. By all which, it is apparent that he understands not what the partition wa l is, or what the natural branches or branches wild by nature signifies. Thus far we have examined the t uth of his Church-matter. The next thing is the form, Therefore  
P. The holding of this opinion that believers seed have a right to the covenant, makes people live in a neglect of the Lords baptism, contenting themselves with a counterfeit baptism instead thereof and thus the Church comes to be constituted of good and bad promiscuously; and then he calls for our rule to justify it.  
A. The Reader may here observe, to what height of spirit this man is swelled, that he durst charge all the Churches of Christ through the world, with a counterfeit baptism, as if the only light of this truth did shine in Rivers. It hath been already proved in answer to his Essentials, that the Lords Baptism was not by dipping.  
Therefore believe him not, yea the Lord Christ will be a swift witness against him, that he abhors such a practice, for the reason before laid down. And whereas be saith that it makes the Church a promiscuous body consisting of good and bad: I answer.  
1. So doth Christ himself, Mat. 13.47. where he likens the kingdom of heaven, i. e. the Church, to a net let down into the sea, which gathered of all kinds, both good and bad; yet I hope he will not be so bold, to say a charge of imputation upon Christ himself.  
2 It hath been also proved, that such a mixture as is made by taking in believers and their seed, is no more than what the word of God bars out, upon the account of Abraham's covenant: and to call it a mixture is to call that common which is clean.  
3 Neither do I believe, but if their own Societies were sifted, there would be found more chaff than wheat, and that their Congregations would not appear more strict than ours; I speak not this by way of boasting, for I doubt, we have not so much cause on either hand.  
But let him that glorieth, glory in the Lord.  
P. p. 82. He tells us of going in an untrodden path, because we baptise children, and receive them into the Church as members, and yet deny them the Sacrament. And then asks us when we will give it them? or why they have a right to one privilege, and not to another?  
A. Though a child may not be fit to sit at the father's Table, yet he may be fit to suck at the mother's breasts. And if you will know when they shall come to the Lords Table, the Apostle tells you, when they can examine themselves, 1 Cor: 11.28.  
Look back to Israel, though their seed did receive the seal of the covenant, and were admitted then in Christ's kingdom, yet they were not presently fit for the passover, which was also a spiritual feast, and a prefiguration of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor 5.7, 8. as the Israel of God then, in which children were included; was a prefiguration of God's Israel now; therefore though baptism, and the Lords Supper are both privileges of the covenant, as Circumcision and the Passover were then; yet the infant-seed of the kingdom may be fit for the one, though not fit for the other; as the infant-subjects of the kingdoms of the world: they are subjects, but not fit for all the privileges of a kingdom, which consideration doth answer his cavils; though much more might have been added upon another account. As to that Scripture Act. 2.41, 42. That all that were baptised continued in breaking bread. I answer, They were such there spoken of, that were capable of hearing the word, and which gladly received it; that were converted from Judaisme. The like to which is practised upon the conversion of any unbaptised persons at this day: and this makes therefore for us, for though their children were admitted in upon the account of Abraham's covenant, The promise is to you and your children; yet we do not find they were admitted to the Supper: because the same promise belonging to them and their seed under the Law, yet the seed were not capacifyed for the Passover. By all which, therefore it appears our path lies plain and open, that we may see which way the footsteps of the flock have gone before us; whereas if the blind lead the blind, they both tumble into a ditch or River. And thus both the matter and form of a true Gospel-Church is maintained by our doctrine and practice.  
VII. The last head of Fundamentals, which he saith our doctrine and practice destroys, is  
P. That persons may have a right to a covenant of life, without an in-being in Christ by faith, and is it not therefore a sad thing, that persons that profess themselves Ministers, and to have knowledge in the Gospel, should be so blinded as to misled people in so weighty a point as this is, and that they should endeavour to leaven thousands of people with such a sad error as opposeth itself against the substance of the Gospel, etc.  
A. It hath been the main policy of Satan in all times of Reformation, to endeavour the subversion of the Ministry of Christ, and by all means to make them fall as stars from heaven, because he than knows how to carry on his kingdom, works of darkness. And if Israel cannot be overcome when they are united to one God, in one way, in one Commonwealth; he will then divide them, because than he knows his work will thrive in the hands of Jeroboams Priests.  
We may here see what a height the false Prophets of this Commonwealth are come to, that they can without check smite the Prophets of God upon the face, with reviling words, dragonlike, casting a flood of waters out of their mouths, that so their may not escape; we may doubt such words are but preludiums to a remaining Tragedy. I speak the more in this, because I have also seen a piece called the Kings of the East, which may be rather called the devils pleading for a Pulpit; in which, when he speaks to the Ministers for licence to make use of them, he tells us if they will not give leave, they shall be prayed down and pulled down. But I hope they rage's the more, because they have but a short time.  
But to come to the answer:  
What he hath here said, is of the same nature with what he hath spoken before, and so hath been already answered. Before he charged our baptism to be a counterfeit baptism, and here again our Ministers are blind, and mislead thousands to oppose the substance of the Gospel. What taunting bold language is this, and how unfit for a man of his threadbare knowledge and profession? I hope the reader will excuse me, because it is to speak a word for those choice leaders of Christ's flock; who are as sheep dumb before the shearers of our times.  
2. The former distinction of the covenant must be still minded, and then it is apparent, that the charge put in against our Ministry is false. I have been one of their followers above this 12 years, I bless God, I never heard such a doctrine delivered: That propagation gave an in-being in the spiritual part of the covenant of Grace, which is that M. P, intends by the covenant of life. Therefore what the Prophet said to Ahab, is not mis-applyed to him; It is he, and such like as he, That are the troublers of Israel, That leavens the Nations with errors. That run before they are sent: for he whom God hath sent, speaks the things of God; he speaks not the things of God, because he understands them not, as hath been made appear hitherto, he understands not the covenant of Grace from works; what the new covenant is, the extent thereof, how to baptise, or whom to baptise. And therefore with the false Prophets, he teaches to revolt from God and his ways.  
The Reader may by this time see, what wood, hay, and stubble he hath built, that not one Argument hitherto, either to prove our practice to overthrow the forenamed Fundamentals, or Circumcision a covenant of Works, hath been made good. Therefore it is evident That they remain unmoveable and untouched, notwithstanding those horrible outcries, wherewith he chargeth our doctrine and practice withal, pag. 83.   

CHAP. XIV. The Third general head answered.  
P. THe third head propounded to be proved by him, was, that none but believers had or shall have a right to the covenant of Grace; to prove which, he tells us that so soon as the seed of the woman was promised to our first Parents, after the fall, the Lord immediately made an outward covenant of Works, which was typical and entailed upon the flesh, out of which Christ was to come; which was more dark till Abraham's days: then till Moses more clear: and then from Moses it broke forth clearly; and so continued till Christ, in whom it ceased and ended.  
A. That those typical Ceremonies by him called a covenant of works, was part of the covenant of Grace, hath been fully proved; Therefore let's keep the old distinction, and hold fast the form of sound words, to cast off which is of as dangerous a consequence, as to strip the Bark from the Tree, and then let the other grow if it can. Besides, note what must necessarily follow: 

I. God made a covenant of works with Adam, which he broke.  
II. God made a covenant of Grace after he fell:  
III. God made again another covenant of Works: so that here is employed, either    
1 That the covenant of G●ace was incomplete, and had not a Table sufficiently furnished, to accommodate all parts of man. And therefore he must be left to a covenant of works for temporals, so to help out what the other wants, or  
2 That man's happiness in a state of Grace, was so imperfect and unstable, that he fell back into a covenant of works, or  
3 That God after he had made a covenant of Grace with man, upon better consideration, took that away, and re-stated him in a covenant of works, or  
4 That a believer, as before observed, may be in two covenants at once, or  
5 That God had rather all men should be damned, then saved, And  
6 That upon Christ's coming, the conditions of the covenant of Grace, (by him called of works) being abolished as such a covenant. Therefore, now man either stands lose or free from all Ordinances and Sabbaths, or else the observing the Sabbaths or keeping to them must be a new covenant of works. Thus it is apparent what a rock of error, and heresy, we should at last split upon, by embracing such fantastical notions as this patron of plunging, would dowse us into; Therefore let the Reader observe that Heb. 11. and he shall find the typical worship was then made acceptable to God by believing, as our Ordinances are now; which had it been a covenent of works, it would have stood directly opposed to faith; therefore it was of faith, that it might be by grace. But when he speaks of a covenant of works, then, If it be of works, it is no more of Grace, otherwise Grace is no more Grace: And take also a brief touch of the parallel of that administration, which was the old covenant, and so of works.  
Then, as before, the Gospel-administration must be a new covenant of works. And so what M. P. doth (though only a pretender to Gospel-rule) in wading into mill-pools and Rivers must be, as indeed it is, a branch of such a covenant of Works. Therefore not of Grace:  
P. pag. 87, 88 The reason why God made choice of Abraham's family, and not Lots, or any of the rest of the godly families in the world, it was not because Abraham was any more a believer or his Family; for then Lot and his family, and the rest had been taken into the covenant of Circumcision, because they did believe as well as Abraham. For this is a sure rule, If God gives a promise or command to a person as a believer; than whosoever believes, that command and promise belongs to them: and for this he brings the example of Joshua, I will not leave thee, which the Apostle applies to the Church Heb. 13.5. now the covenant made with Abraham, was therefore to show the world that Christ must come out of his flesh, etc.  
A. Though I grant that Abraham was not pitched upon as a believer barely; yet had he not been a believer, he could not have been the father of the faithful.  
2 If that had been all, to point out to the world from whence they might expect the Messiah; then Circumcision might as well have been given to Seth, Enos, or Shem, etc. and so have distinguished the whole race; yea God must afterwards have given some distinct sign to Judah; because all jacob's twelve sons were circumcised. So that the world would be at as great a loss, to know in which of all these twelve the line was to run. Therefore if we do but look into the grounds of the Promises, we shall find, there were many other main and choice ends; as namely, By the multiplying of believers, as the stars of heaven; who also are called the seed; they might thereby become blessings to families and Nations. For as Jesus Christ was the great blessing, so every believer was also to be a little blessing; According to the promise, I will bless thee, and thou shalt be a blessing: and by this means God makes use of believers to be as his leaven, to leaven the whole lump: so that in this way Christ's kingdom shall at last spread through the earth.  
2 To make Abraham a public Father, to the believing Gentiles and their seed since the coming of Christ, as he was to the Jews and their seed before Christ came.  
3 To seal the possession of Canaan to him and the heirs of Promise as a type of heaven, and to give them possession of that Land in a way of conquest, Gen. 22.17. Luke 1.73.  
4 To show the immutability of his counsel and purpose to the Gentiles, Heirs with him of the same promises, that so, we in Gospel days, might have ground of consolation in all straits and extremities, that the heirs under the Gospel might meet with, because they also have a wilderness to go through Rev. 12.6: and Canaanites to subdue and conquer Gen. 9.27. And a like rest with that of Canaan to possess Heb. 4.1. Therefore Abraham is held out as a public Father to look at, thereby to see and behold God's variety of deal with him, and with his seed after him, either in war, or peace; prosperity, or adversity, hereby to strengthen Faith in the like case: that so as David saith, one deep may call out to another at the noise of God's water-spouts, when the billows overflow.  
These, and all these, and more than these were the ends for which God made choice of Abraham to give the Promises unto, with the oath, and seal; all which do substantially continue to this day, being by Christ handed over to the Gentiles, with the old seal taken off, which as Lord of all, he had power to do, and a new seal added in the room thereof, to the same covenant, which amounts to no more than the taking off a seal of red wax from a covenant, and putting a seal of white wax in the place thereof; yet the covenant still remains.  
II. To that which he saith, that if a command or promise be given to a believer, as a believer, it then (as a sure rule) belongs to every one that is a believer.  
A. That's no true rule, therefore not a sure rule; because a promise that suits to one man's condition as a believer, doth not therefore suit with every believers condition: neither doth the end of God, in giving one believer a Promise, reach to the same end in all believers, unless so circumstantiated; as for instance;  
God gave Abraham Circumcision as a believer. And his end was to make Abraham a public Father: yet this did not therefore reach to all believers. For he did not intent to make any more public father s then one; the like we may say of that instance he gives of Joshua: The command and Promise given to him, was as a Captain General and believer; and so it could not reach to all believers upon those terms, for though he was commanded to be of a good courage, etc. and fight, and he should not be forsaken, yet that command doth not reach to all believers; because we see many believers have fallen in the wars, and their enemies have been the conquerors; yea such a command would then reach to women, because they are believers: And the reason why that promise was applied to the believing Hebrews, is because one promise hath several aspects. And so suits to several conditions, it being as a sprig of the whole bundle that suits all conditions. So, the several cures that Christ wrought upon persons as believers, and some in a way of promise, doth not therefo e instate all believers in such a promise, that they shall so be cured; when the holy Ghost tells us the prayer of faith shall save the sick doth this give all believers an interest into the direct intent of that promise? there is therefore much Christian prudence to be observed in choosing, and applying promises, to pick out such as are suitable to a believers condition.  
The Reader may therefore see, how sadly confident and ignorant this man is; who yet, is looked upon, as the Nicodemus of that party.  
P. pag. 86. For many pages he goes on to show that the whole line by promise, mentioned in Luke 3. it was only an external election into a covenant of works, and Cain, Ham, Ishmael, Esau, were therefore outwardly rejected from that covenant.  
A. It hath been already proved that all the line by promise are more than externally elected; yea so to affirm is strongly to suppose, that some of that elect line might be damned, because thousands so elected are never saved, and some of those so rejected might go to heaven though 'tis expressly against the scriptures: the naming of which methinks should be a sufficient confutation.  
As to the six sons of Keturah, which he speaks of in page 90, which were Abraham's seed, and sent away into the east Country:  
The answer is plain, that so long as they were in Abraham's family and Circumcised, they were all Church-members and visibly in the covenant, as their brother Ishmael was; but being turned out of the family, they lost the Church privileges, as not being heirs of promise; as for their being gracious, we have no ground to think they were, but the contrary. And had Ishmael, Esau, and Keturahs' sons, been kept within the covenant, there had then been no partition wall betwixt Jew, and Gentile. For the whole Nation of Israel came only from the line of Isaac:  
P. pag. 91, 92. He tells us that all the Nations of the earth were to be blest alike in him: i. e. saith Mr Patiented in the spiritual covenant. And Circumcision was but a choosing of one Nation into a Church covenant for matter of worship.  
A. He clearly confounds Abraham's covenant and blessings, for if all Nations were equally alike blest, as to the spiritual part of the covenant; To what end then should God pitch upon any people or Nation to walk in his Ordinances, when the spiritual part of the covenant was not to be conveyed in them, or if it was, yet upon such terms, that other Nations without such Ordinances, did enjoy as much? and then to what purpose should Israel be at such pains, cost, and charges in their Offerings, or spend time to hear, read, pray, or keep the Sabbaths, if all these were but as shell s without a kernel? yea had it not been a burdensome yoke? and might not God's people have said, why shall we spend so much time, and take so much pains, and be at such costs to worship God, when other Nations that do none of all this, yet they enjoy as much of the spiritual covenant, and so of Justification and salvation, yea as much of the world as we?  
I appeal to the Consciences of all our dissenting friends, whether this be not to preach up revolt, Apostasies, and backslidings, from the ways of God, and to make the hearts and spirits of God's people to disrelish them as an unsavoury dish? yea such a doctrine as this tells the world, that where God g●ves Ordinances, they prove a curse and not a blessing, whereas that holy Apostle tells us, Eph. 2.12: That at ●hat time we were without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of Promise, having no hope, without God in the world; And so David Psal. 147.19, 20. he hath given his word to Jacob, his Statutes to Israel; he hath not dealt so with any Nation— Therefore when God tells Abraham, that in him all Nations of the earth should be blest; he intends a time and order for this blessing to work, and not in all at once, nor in all parts at once. And so the Apostle after argues, To you first God hath sent his son, to bless you: and if the Jews first, than the Gentiles afterwards; yea when it came to the Gentiles, there was a divine order in conveying this blessing, falling like the showers of heaven, sometimes in one Country, sometimes in another. First it spreads about Jerusalem, than it Coasts up in Africa, by means of the Eunuch: then the light grows dark, and out it breaks in Europe, Spain, Italy, Greece; afterwards again, when Popery had overspread the earth, than it breaks out in France, Germany, Bohemia Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, England, Scotland, and Ireland: all which tells us that God's Ark of worship is Ambulatory, not fixed to any place, by reason of the wickedness of a people, as Christ tells the Jews, Mat. 21.43. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to another Nation that shall bring forth the fruits thereof; the Lord grant we find it not true in these Nations by sad experience, for there are sad symptoms; and chief when reproach and contempt is cast upon the Ministers of Christ without check or control: thus than we may see what desperate errors are like to come in at this watergate, if it be not kept shut; and all for want of a right understanding of the covenant made with Abraham. I shall not meddle with his typical election; because it runs upon the same foot with the former already answered: that place by him quoted, 2 Cor. 3. of the ministering of the spirit, meets also with the like quarter, by his false interpretations of the rest; for I must profess I have not seen throughout his whole book, any one Text brought but hath been either falsely opened, or falsely applied.  
In pag. 91. He tells us, that Jacob in the womb was no more the seed of a believer than Esau; which shall be easily granted, if his ingenuity will but grant also that Jacob was more the seed of Promise than Esau; which is a sufficient answer.  
P. Pag. 92.93. He again harps upon the old string thus: Circumcision was not given to Abraham and his seed, considered as a believer, but to show us that the Messiah was to come from Abraham, not from Lot; from Isaac, not Ishmael; from Jacob, not Esau; therefore here you may nakedly see how grossly they mistake, that think the covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, considered as a believer, and believers seed; therefore if a national covenant was made with Abraham and his seed upon this reason, before, than you cannot conclude that Abraham's covenant belongs to any Gentile; because when Christ was come, and the ground upon which the covenant was given ceasing, the covenant also ceaseth: so that now to defend a covenant in the flesh, is a doctrine virtually to deny that Christ is come: and hence therefore we may conclude that there was no covenant of grace made with any but such as did and do believe: that objection therefore, that spiritual privileges under the Gospel, are not less than they were under the Law, is hereby answered.  
A. I have here taken in the matter of these pages without mangling as near as I could, because this eclipse will make truth break ou● more glorious, and instead of seeing the naked truth, we may see rather his nakedness, and so his shame. Therefore  
1 If the covenant had not been made with Abraham as a believer, than it had not been made with him at all, as already proved, and so the Apostle tells us he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, etc. implying that if Abraham had not enjoyed that righteousness, he could not have enjoyed the seal of it.  
2: Had it been given him barely to proclaim Christ to the world, as to come from him, and so nothing else to be expected from that covenant then as before, there must have been another mark found out to show, in which of jacob's twelve sons the line was to run. For notwithstanding Circumcision, M. P. would be to seek, had it not been for Mat. 1. and Luke 3.— therefore  
3 We have it laid down before that Abraham's covenant in the blessings thereof had many other choice branches: which reaches into Gospel-days since the exhibition of Christ, to the world's end. For which cause Abraham is called the Father of believers under the Gospel, which could not be that we should be Abraham's children, If the blessing of Abraham's covenant reached only to Christ, as pointing at him; for so we must have been Christ's children, not abraham's.  
4 Then the Apostle knew not what he said, Gal. 3.14. when he tells the Church, That Abraham's blessing is come upon the Gentiles through Christ. For if it were only meant of Christ, than it would lose the title of Abraham's blessing. But though Christ be come, yet the blessing is Abraham's blessing still: yea Christ is come, that he may convey the blessing from the Jews to us, as heirs with them, and not distinct from them: and what blessing it should be, called abraham's, which Christ should hand over to us, if not the blessings of the covenant in all the veins thereof, is not to be understood. Therefore  
5 As the promise, oath, and seal, were joined together to make the blessings of Abraham sure, so were they all conveyed to us entirely, to show the immutability of his counsel, and purpose to us▪ as it did to the Jews, Heb. 6.18. that so the heirs of Abraham's promise under the Gospel, might have strong consolation. And upon this account it was the Apostle in Rom. 4. bids them cast an eye back upon Abraham their father, to see how he was justified, which had it not been so, they would have been sent to Christ as a pattern, not to Abraham; He should have been called their father, not Abraham: so, when he tells the Galatians, ch. 4.28. (in order to rectify their judgements in the like mistake of Justification) now ye brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. It had been to no purpose, unless Isaac's promise had remained, for they could not be children of that which was not. From all which we see into what mistakes he is got, and how sadly bewildered with his own notions, & upon what sl ght promises, he draws so high conclusions to make his ware vendible. For notwithstanding any thing he hath spoken, as Abraham's blessings and covenant do not cease, though Christ be come; so neither do we deny by this opinion of ours, that Christ is come, or do we expect another Christ to come, as he suggests. It therefore appears, the covenant of grace is of such extent, that it takes in thousands into the visible part thereof, that shall never be saved; so that still the objection which he saith is answered, remains in full force and virtue, that the privileges are not straitened more than they were under the Law: therefore as children were then in covenant, and received the seal, so are they still in covenant, and the Gospel seal is their due, and cannot be denied them.  
P. Pag 94. The new covenant was confirmed of God in Christ only, Gal. 3.17. therefore it cannot belong unto any souls out of Christ, 1 Cor 11.25. This cup is the new Testament in my blood: If the New Testament be in Christ's blood, than what hath any carnal unbelieving wretch to do with this Testament, that hath not faith in his blood?  
A. These Texts makes full against him. For that place, Gal. 3.17. tells us that Abraham's covenant which was 430 years before the Law, was confirmed in Christ's blood. Therefore the Law coming after, could not make the Promises of God of none effect: If then Abraham's covenant in which children were included, were confirmed in that blood; this new covenant being the same with abraham's, as himself confesseth, and confirmed by the same blood, Infants are still within the same covenant. For the covenant is in Christ, Yea and Amen to all the persons included in the covenant. As there is a double being in the covenant; internal, and external: so a double being in Christ, Joh. 15.3, 4 which being well distinguished, will clear all such doubts. Some of the seed are only in Christ externally, as Ishmael, Esau, and others; Internally also, as Isaac, Jacob, &c. and so in the covenant, whether Adult or Infants: the like to be said to 1 Cor. 11.25. That cup is the New Testament, or a seal of the New-Testament to all that are within that Testament. As Christ's blood typically sealed the first Testament to Abraham and his seed, so Christ's blood seals the New-Testament to believers and their seed; of which that cup is the Sacramental remembrance: the like also to Mat. 3 17. my son in whom I am well pleased, i. e. as God was well pleased with Abraham & his seed by promise, that were in the covenant co firmed by Christ's blood; so is he now well pleased with believers, and their seed by promise in the same covenant confirmed by Christ's blood. The same answer is to be given to all the rest of those places by him quoted, with which he fills many pages, to prove that none can be in the covenant of Grace except he be first in Christ.  
P. In pag. 95. He condoles the sadness of these times. That when the means of grace, and knowledge of the Gospel, is so plentifully held forth; yet we must be forced to bestow such pains to prove that men cannot be in a state of salvation, and acceptation before God in a covenant of Grace, without union with Christ by Faith.  
A. Alas poor man, he would fain be pitied for the pains he takes, but who is it that puts him to it, but his own erring spirit which makes him afraid of his own shadow? Is there any of us that affirms so wickedly, that acceptation is to be had in God, without union with Christ? If not; he deals the more deceitfully to suggest such things, as if our Ministry did it. Therefore  
2 Whereas he saith the means of Grace hath been plentifully held forth: It seems it is not by his opposites the public Ministers. For how can such hold forth the means of Grace, that shall affirm such an acceptation is to be had without such an union? which he affirms to be the principles of those that plead for infant-baptism: but blessed be God, If you have no better warrant to justify your irregular and unnatural practice withal, and condemn ours, than such calumnies; the experience of these days speaks aloud, who it is, that have held forth the means of Grace, and glorious light of the Gospel. It is evident enough from the budding and fructility of Aaron's rod, of whom it may be said, they preach with Authority and not as the Scribes, for their rods are dry and barren; because they preach not conversion, but subversion.  
I shall touch upon a Scripture or two more, leaving the rest for the Reader to answer in his own thoughts. For indeed not one of them proves any thing he asserts; Joh. 14.6. Mat. 7.14. He that hath Christ hath life, he that hath not Christ hath not life; we say the same: but he that hath not Christ spiritually, may have a visible right to the covenant of Grace, as those hypocrites had, so often mentioned. So in their own.  
P. So he quotes Joh. 16. that Christ calls the unbelievers in the national Church of the Jews, the world; I have chosen you out of the world; and their being circumcised, freed them not from being justly so called.  
A. The answer is, The words are directed to the Disciples, as a people that acknowledged Christ exhibited, and so were Gospel worshippers. And the unbelievers amongst the Anabaptists may as well be called the world, if the comparison relates to one that truly believes, as the Jews were called the world, when Christ's words related to his real believing Disciples. For the denying of Christ to be the Messiah, was that which distinguished; because such a denial led them to keep up a form of worship, that did directly oppose the Gospel.  
P. Another Scripture Rom. 4.16. It is of faith, that it might be by grace: but if the covenant was made to the seed; it could not be of faith, and so not of grace.  
A. Here is sad work made in his interpretations: was it not of Faith to Abraham that it might be by Grace, to him and his seed? for shame abuse not the Scripture so grossly: It was of Faith that it might be by grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed; and who this seed was, he tells us, little children, if we may draw it from Isaac's being a child, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And because the Gentiles shall know that the word seed reaches them, therefore he adds, not to that only which is of the Law, etc. So that as it was to Abraham by faith, that it might be of Grace to his seed: So is it now of Faith to a believer that it might be of Grace to his seed.  
So also he quotes Act. 15.4. He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.  
A. If God put no difference, how dared he do it then?  
P. So Gal. 3.2, 4. we are all one in Christ Jesus.  
A. How then can he answer it before God, to make us twain? For as Abraham and his seed through the Law, were in covenant, so are believers and their seed now: or else we are not all one in Christ, but two seeds.  
P. As for that opposition he gives page 99. That a temporal election into a temporal covenant, was a type of the spiritual election into a spiritual covenant:  
A. It is a whimsy of his own brain, that can never be made good, and therefore it shows a giddy spirit after notions.—  
P. Again, Heb. 11.6. without faith it is impossible to please God; therefore none can be in a covenant of Grace but such as believe. So Abel.  
A. We please God by Faith now, as those worthies in that chap. mentioned did then; for therefore the Apostle brings in them for an example: so the answer is still the same. Look how Abraham our Father pleased God, in circumcising his seed as in the covenant, in which there was an act of Faith, and how the contrary in Moses neglecting the seal displeased God; so are believers to please God by sealing their seed, and the neglect hereof provokes the wrath of God, as it is evident from this example: by which we see that if we would please God as Abraham did, we must then walk in the steps of Abraham: and it is agreeable, and not opposite to faith, or grace, to seal our Infants.  
Thus Christian Reader, thou mayst see all the Scriptures by himself quoted to maintain his opinions: they do like the stars of heaven in their courses fight against this Sisera.  
P. The last place is Rev. 21.8. The fearful and unbelieving shall have their portion in the lake of fire.  
A. Is not this well applied to the thing in hand, or doth he with one blast of his Nostrils turn all children to hell? The Lord rebuke him; even the Lord.   

CHAP. XV. The 2 Act. 3.1 Cor. 7.14. vindicated in answer to his last general head.  
Pag. 101, 102. WE are now come to his last head, to examine the answer he gives to our Scripture Allegations, and accordingly to reply. The first Scripture he quarrels with is Act. 2.39. The promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.—  
P. To which he saith, the promise is just to so many as God shall call; and by Promise, he opens the remission of sins, and gift of the holy Ghost, and then he makes this flourish; I pray take notice how evident the Text makes against this error, That the covenant of Grace should be made with the fleshly line of believers; and to confirm the meaning of the word call in his sense, he brings Rom. 8.30. and Heb. 9.15. and 1 Pet. 2.9. All which speaks of an effectual Call.  
Rep. We are here to consider to whom the words were spoken: 1. namely, to the Jews who were troubled in spirit about their condition, such who had crucified Jesus Christ; that had wished his blood to be upon them and their children, Mat. 27.23. The promise is to you and your children: this promise cannot be meant of the gifts of the holy Ghost, by tongues and miracles; for that would have been no solid cure to a wounded conscience, as theirs was. Judas had such gifts, but they could not m●ke his conscience whole, who was guilty of the same sin.  
2 This Promise was to relate to them afar off, that is, the Gentiles; it could not be therefore such Gifts, for they ceased in that age, and the Gentiles afar off never had them, though yet the Gentiles did repent and were baptised: therefore by this promise, called the promise, must be meant such a promise which they well knew, and were acquainted with; and therefore must be that of Abraham's covenant, made to him and his seed. So the Apostle, Gal. 3. To Abraham and his seed, were the promises made: ver. 16. not seeds as of many, but as of one, i e. the Jewish seed, and Gentile seed, make but one seed i e. Christ mystical, in his political body, 1 Cor. 12.27. So here again the promise is to you and your seed.  
Quest. But what was there in Abraham's promise to cure a wounded Conscience? For such were the persons mentioned: therefore the salve must be suitable.  
A. All good things were in it, that related to Grace or Glory. I will be thy God, what could be said more? what promise will cure a wounded Conscience, if this will not? 'tis a salve most proper to the ground of their distemper, they had crucified God the son. And this promise tells them, he was theirs notwithstanding For the words I will be thy God, imply personal promises: so the father saith, I will be thy God: and the Son, I will be thy God; and the Holy Ghost, I will be thy God; a promise sufficient enough to bear up a sinking world, suitable to Gal. 3.14. explained v. 8. before to be in order to their Justification, the thing these Jews wanted; so that Abraham's covenant conveyed in the bowels of it, justification by faith to sinners, & so most suitable to the distemper. The promise is to you and your children.  
2 Consider wherefore these words are brought in, namely as a strong inducement to repent and be baptised; and so it lies in the ●orm of a Motive for the Promise, etc. As if he had said, Let this encourage you to repent and be baptised, for the promise is to you and your children, i. e. you shall not only enjoy blessings, but your children also, if you embrace the Gospel: For the Apostle very well knew with whom he had to deal; and what Arguments would be most prevalent with the Jews, and had not this been the meaning of the Holy Ghost, the putting in the word children, had rather proved a rock of offence, and a stone of stumbling. For what could the Jews imagine upon a free tender of Grace to them and their children, but if they did repent and were baptised, the extent of Abraham's promise should be the same as formerly it was to them and their seed? especially when it came in their own Scripture dialect? The promise is to you and your children; And to them afar off, even as many as God shall call:— therefore. 3 To clear this latter part from this ●bsurd interpretation which M. P. gives, that the promise is restrained in the whole v. when he saith, Even so many as God shall call— I  
A. With Mr. Sidenham: we have in this verse an exact distribution of the world into two parts Jews, and Gentiles; and to these two ●●rts the Apostle distributeth the promise. Only he restrains it, ●●en he speaks of the Gentiles afar off (For so they are called Eph. ●. 1●, 13.) in bringing in these words, Even so many as the Lord ●ur God shall call; which words cannot be referred to the former ●rt of the verse, for in that he applies the promise to the Jews and ●heir children in the present Tense, because they were then under the call of the Gospel, as if he had said, Repent and be baptised now whilst you have grace and mercy tendered; for the promise is to you and your children: but when he comes to speak of either the ●en Tribes, as M. P. will have it, or the Gentiles, he turns the Tense in to the future; because they were yet afar off, and not called; the promise is to them also, as many as God shall call. So that if this clause should limit the whole verse, then to what purpose should the Holy Ghost bring in the word children? for that had been superfluous, because Jews and Gentiles comprehended the whole world. And then the words must have run thus: the promise is to you Jews, and to them afar off, as many as God shall call: or if the word children be kept in, as the Holy Ghost hath placed it; then thus: the promise is to you Jews, when God shall call you; and to your children, when God shall call them; and to as many as are afar off, when God shall call them; might not they have replied, why what need all this Tautology? If the promise belongs to us upon our being called, and to the Gentiles upon their being called; you need not tell us it belongs to our children upon their being called: for we knew that before. But therefore the word children is kept in to show the special privileges God hath given them when the parent is converted. And then the sense runs clear, Repent and be baptised, For the promise is to you and your children, and to them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, in a smooth Honourable stile becoming the Gospel: thus we see, that rather than he will make his sense stoop to God's word he will make the Holy Ghost stoop to his Nonsense.  
From which therefore we may gather (notwithstanding his insinuating persuasions, that this Text makes against us) it is abundantly clear that this promise here spoken of, is that of Abraham's covenant, which the Apostle Gal. 3. explains to be a Gospel-covenant, and was confirmed by Christ 430 years before the Law: so that still the result amounts to this, That if it be Abraham's covenant, it must convey the blessings of the covenant to all within the covenant, that is, to the spiritual seed, spiritual blessings; to the temporal seed, external privileges only: but still by one covenant.  
iv To come to the Scriptures before brought: his intent thereby was, to prove that the promise of remission of sins, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and so justification to life belongs to all those which God sh●ll call.  
A. He errs, not observing the Scriptures, nor the distinctions thereof. Gods call is two fold; External, and internal: yet so as that the latter is conveyed in the former: and sure a man must needs grossly mistake, to affirm that all that are called are justified, and their sins remitted: for then Judas had been justified, and Simon the Sorcerer saved (for they were both called, and both baptised) yea all that are called everywhere to repent, would then be justified; and all those Apostates that are in these days fallen from the truth, would be all saved, for they were all called; so the foolish virgins were called.  
2. Let it be considered, that the promise of Abraham's covenant is here held forth. Now all that are visibly called to embrace the covenant, are not effectually called; though nevertheless all that are effectually called are within that covenant. The Church at Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, the seven Churches of Asia, were all called visibly within the covenant, but we know they were not all effectually called; we may then still see how sadly M. P. mangles the Scriptures, when he brings proofs that relate to an effectual call, to prove that all that are called (without any distinction) shall be justified and saved▪ so that if he can but find out the word call in a Text; 'tis enough: no matter how it is applied.  
P. Pag. 130. This Text is clear to prove that those Jews and proselytes that then heard him, and their children also, the ten Tribes, and Gentiles afar off, the promise did belong to so many of them, as G●d should call; Therefore except souls be given up to a spirit of delusion, will any dare to affirm that the promise of the spirit, and remission of sins, and eternal life do belong to any other? or will they be so ignorant to judge those promises did belong to the generation of the Jews, though they were called or not called, & c?  
A. We never affirmed that remission of sins, or eternal life belonged to any but such as are effectually called; therefore the spirit of delusion and ignorance, yea the spirit of impudence hath seized upon him, so to affirm. But this we say, that all that are visibly called to embrace the tenders of the Gospel by a visible subjecting thereto, are within Abraham's covenant: for we cannot imagine that all the Apostles baptised were really called: for the Sorcerer before mentioned doth sufficiently confute it; therefore still he mistakes the question, which is thus, whether all that are called are really justified?  
2 Neither can it be reasonably thought, that there were no hypocrites amongst those three thousand mentioned, and that they were all so called as he speaks of; but the Apostles intention was to let them know, by what way they might get in to Abraham's covenant again, from which both they and their seed were cut off; Therefore Repent and be baptised, for the remission of sin; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and your children, etc. That is, remission of sins, and the gift of the Spirit comes still in the way of Abraham's Covenant, as it did before, Gal. 3.14. Therefore if you will get into the way of the Spirits working; you must repent and be baptised: he doth not say that all baptised do really repent; for upon the ground Mr. Patient goes, none should be admitted to baptism but such as really Repent, and are really called, and really justified; when as yet he forgets his own ignorance, That he is not able to discern th●m. Thus we have sifted all his cavils brought against this Text, as not to countenance Infant-Baptism. And upon the whole we find it to be a tender of Abraham's Covenant, in all the blessings of it, even to children of visible believers, either Jews or Gentiles; Therefore the seal of that Covenant is their due Right and Privilege.  
P. The next Text is, 1 Cor. 7.14. which he saith we abuse, to make it speak for Infant-holiness. Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. God takes persons into Covenant two ways, either by an external typical Covenant of Works, as he did Israel, and so a people may be said to be holy by separation, as the carnal Jew being separated from the world: and thus the vessels of the Temple were holy, and the Priest were holy.  
2 Secondly, A new-Covenant holiness when God writes his Laws in the heart, and sanctifies their Nature; and there is no other kind of holiness that relates to the new Covenant but this; Hypocrites may have this in appearance, but the Elect only have it in truth; therefore it is impossible, that a believers carnal seed should be so holy by Birth. And no other sanctification the Scripture speaks of, belonging to the new Covenant. The other was abolished by the death of Christ.  
A. Whereas he knows no other holiness belonging to the New Covenant, but real holiness; it is rather an Argument of his ignorance, than any confirmation of the truth of what he saith, for that New-Covenant had such a holiness of separation belonging to it from Adam, to Christ. And it is the s●me that we have, only the holy things are changed: yet so, as that whatever Ordinance God hath given his Church now is holy.  
Israel as separated from the world, was a holy people, so is the Church of God now, Act. 10 13, 28. 2 Cor. 6.17. Therefore the Apostle writing to the Churches as separated people, calls them Saints or holy ones, at Rome, Corinth, Galatia, etc.  
Not that they were all holy by an internal work of sanctification, for the Romans had many that were fallen to Judaisme, and Corinth had many profane persons amongst them; yet as they were a Church they all carry the denomination of holy ones: so that the Church stands upon the same terms of separation now, as then, from the world. Therefore the casting out of the incestuous person, was as one polluted and unclean, which is opposed to such a holiness as makes a person fit for Church-Communion: Thus also it was with Israel when there was either a Moral or Typical uncleanness, they were cast out as not fit for Communion: thus the bread and wine in t●e Lords Supper, and water in baptism, are holy by virtue of separation or institution: thus the function of the Ministry is holy, or else every man might preach, baptise, and administer the Supper alike. And notwithstanding ceremonies are abolished, yet a holiness of separation by virtue of divine institution remains still, or else the word of God were no more holy than another Book; Nor the Gospel-Sabboth more holy than another day: thus are the Infants of a believer holy, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy: yea let me add, that it is impossible that any man can be found in the faith, and amongst the rest Mr Patiented for one, either to Scripture Sabbaths, or Gospel-Ordinances, except they grant a holiness of separation, both in persons and things.—  
P. The words are grounded from Ezra 9 and Deut. 7. It being an express Law for a Jew not to marry with a stranger: therefore they were to put away their strange wives, because not lawfully married; and the children that were born of them were to be looked upon as illegitimate. The Church upon this writing to the Apostle to be resolved whether such of them a● had unbelieving yoak-fellows, might dwell together, and whether it was not unclean or unlawful; To this he answers, Let them dwell together, b●cause now there being no Law against it, the marriage was therefore justifyable, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the believing husband, that is set apart by the Law of marriage to him only; else were your children bastards, but now they are lawfully born.—  
A. There is no such thing mentioned in either place, that their children were Bastards. Then had Moses son by Zipporah the Egyptian been a Bastard; yea the contrary is evident, because the Scripture calls them wives. And is it not a wild expression to call her whore, that God's word calls a wife? And would it not be as strange, to think that so many Priests and Levites should be whoremasters, which yet must be, if such an interpretation were true, as Mr. Patient gives?  
But therefore the ground of putting away their strange wives, was because Israel was a separated people, and so not to have any affinity with strangers. And though it was Israel's sin, to many a stranger, yet it was not their sin to match with an Israelite, which had it been whoredom, the very light of nature would have condemned it, besides, this scruple did not lie betwixt Jew and Gentile. For this was a Gentile Church, a people converted from heathenism to profess Christ.  
They had therefore no ground to think that the marriage they had before conversion was unlawful. And had the taking in of the believer into communion with the Church, made the unbeliever a whore or a whoremaster, and the children bastards, or had any such ground of scruple been given, it had been enough to have frightened the heathens from being Christians. It cannot be therefore that any dis-satisfaction should rise in their spirits from those Texts by him quoted, considering also the nature of the phrase, the wife should be sanctified in the husband, and the husband in the wife; a strange word to be used amongst heathens, that every married couple were sanctified one to another: so likewise to put the word Holy in opposition to uncleanness of birth, is too high a term, and such a way of speaking as is not to be found in Scripture. Adding this likewise, that the holy Ghost would have spoken so, as not to be guilty of tautology, for then the words must have run thus: Else were your children bastards, and there it would have broken off; because the next words had been superfluous, but now they are holy: so that by this we see, what an unseemly unbecoming interpretation he gives, and what indignities he puts upon the spirit of God, whereas if we look upon the words in that other sense, wherein is employed a federal holiness by Abraham's covenant, which ever hath taken in Parent and child, it is a strong Argument inducing to embrace the Gospel, and carries with it a full sail of comfort to godly parents, Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Thus also this place stands immovable, notwithstanding any thing he hath said or can say to the contrary. If therefore children are holy, by virtue of Abraham's covenant, than you that are believers, get into the fold of Christ, that your children may receive the seal of the covenant, baptism, which is the mark of the flock.   

CHAP. XVI. Rom. 11. vindicated from false glossings.  
Pag. 110. THe next place he opens is Rom. 11.16, 17. but with what evidence of truth will be seen, when it hath undergone the Test: If the first fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; if the root be holy, so are the branches.  
P. He grants that by root is meant Abraham, but yet in a double capacity; Abraham as considered in the covenant of works. And so working Abraham is the root of all the natural branches: and so legally holy, as Abraham was, who was the first-fruits, and the natural lump, was all Israel so holy, till that covenant of works was abolished by the death of Christ, and then this covenant being put an end to, it must needs be, that such branches who were only natural must be broken off.  
2 Abraham is to be understood a root, considered as believing Abraham, in a spiritual covenant, and so in this sense holy: and thus only the spiritual branches are said to be holy; and by lump also, must be understood all the spiritual seed, in this spiritual covenant; these distinctions duly noted, will enlighten the soul to understand the place.  
Rep. These are wild notional distinctions, and not to be found in Scripture: it hath been already proved; that Abraham as a believer had never two covenants made with him▪ nor is there the least word of two covenants in the chapter, any farther than that gross mistake of the Romans, who were looking after a justification by works; as thinking the Law had been given by God to make men righteous legally: these distinctions therefore of believing Abraham, and working Abraham, a spi itual root, a carnal root, Abraham in a covenant of works, Abraham in a covenant of Grace, a carnal and spiritual lump, instead of enlightening the soul to understand the place, rise like a dark smoke out of the pit of error, that the truth is not to be seen in them: therefore I may say of him, as it was said of Reuben; Thou art the firstborn unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; the vanity of such stuff will appear by this that follows.  
1 If Abraham in a covenant of works be the root from whence the natural branches are broken off; then the Gentiles that are ingraffed are put into a covenant of works; because the Apostle clears it, that such who are ingraffed, are put into the same stock from which the other were taken ver. 17. and calls it a graffing in amongst them. So ver. 19 they were broken off, that we m●ght be ingraffed.  
2 Then also when God shall re-ingraff the Jews, they must be put into Abraham considered in a covenant of works, and so the covenant of works must continue till this day; because there cannot be an ingr ffi●g where there is no stock, ver. 24.  
3 If the covenant of works be made the root, or Abraham in that covenant, than the casting off the Jews from that covenant could never be called the reconciling of the world, because the world could not be reconciled by a covenant of works, and that the world was reconciled by that covenant is clear, ver. 11.  
4 If the covenant of works now be c●ast, since Christ's coming, as he implies, the Gentiles could not be ingraffed into the spiritual part of the covenant, till that was taken away; which indeed he having confessed in page 114. doth hereby contradict himself in what he hath before affirmed, pag. 91. with many other places, that Job and Jobs friends were all in the spiritual covenant, which was made as well to all nations as the Jews, and they had as much benefit thereby as had the Jews.  
5 If the engraffing of the Gentiles, be to be understood only of the spiritual lump as he saith, than also is that spiritual lump ing●affed into a covenant of works, from whence the natur●l branches were cut off. For none of that spiritual lump of Israel were ever c●●●ff, as himself confess th': thus we may (briefly) see what execrable stuff he introduceth by such wild notional d stinctions.  
P. In pag. 15 he explains, Isai. ●5. 23. They are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off spring with them, which sait● M. 〈◊〉 me●nt one y of the righteous offspring, i. e. such as are in the spiritual covenant.  
A. It is strange that a man should be so wilfully ignorant to g●ve a sense of Scripture so directly contrary to the Scope and Analysis thereof. For by offspring is to be understood In●ants, as widow l appear by viewing the scope of the place, which speaks of the conversion of Israel into that Gospel-state, that shall be called the new Heavens, and new Earth: when they shall be brought to re-inhabit their own land, under the Messiah, and enjoy the fruit of their labours; And gives this as the reason why they should rejoice with God, and God with them, Because they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. As if he had said, though you and your offspring have been discovenanted and cast off from being a people, scattered upon the face of the earth; yet as you and your offspring were the seed of the blessed of the L. i. e. of Abr. to whom all blessings were given; so you and your offspring shall be as much ingraffed in all the blessings of Abraham, as you were before, For they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them: which place doth fully parallel Rom. 11. when God shall ingraff the Jews again as natural branches, into their own Olive-Tree.  
P. p. 116. This Text Ro. 11. doth fully make against any fleshly covenant, or fleshly line of believers, because from ver. 20, to 24, the Gentiles come to be Abraham's spiritual seed, and so branches only by faith in Christ, the fat Olive. And if the Gentiles are graffed in contrary to nature, than it cuts off all Gentile-seed who came in by nature. And though the Jews were cut off for unbelief, yet this opinion doth ingraff the carnal seed of the Gentiles into the midst of that unbelief.  
A. That by natural branches is to be understood the Jews and their children; and by branches wild by nature, the Gentiles and their children; hath been already proved. See the answer to pag. 82. And that the cutting off and graffing in, related to Parents and children, hath been also cleared. To which I refer the Reader, only adding, Jer. 31.1. Isai. 65.23. therefore to interpret by natural branches, only adult believers, and by branches wild by natu e, the Infants of believers, is to restrain and eclipse the intent of the Holy Ghost in the place cited, and supposeth strongly, that all such adult believers are really ingraffed into Christ: When as Christ himself tells us, there may be some branches in him cut off and withered, Joh. 15.2, 4, 5, 6. And that Infants are all damned, because all wild by nature  
2 Where he tells us of engraffing into the midst of their unbelief, is ●●lse; for we engraff into that stock, Abr. from which they were cut ●ff for unbelief. And if what he asserts in this, were true; then those believing Jews and their children, which were not cut off, remain in the midst of their unbelief, that were cut off. And thus we may s●e a man in his nakedness, and yet without shame. I see I must pass over many of his absurdities, and reiterations; because they come so fast upon me. In pag. 118 he again runs retrograde.  
P. If any hold believers and their seed within the covenant of grace, it is a denying of Christ to be come in the flesh; and therefore he must needs be a high Antichrist.  
Rep. This hath been already answered, and his vain confidence so to affirm hath been manifested, that it is apparent if the Reader will but take pains to view the answer to his 93 page, it is no denying of Christ to be come in the flesh, to maintain Infants right to the Covenant of Grace; yea it is a strong Argument to prove Christ is come, because the blessing of Abraham is by Christ handed over to the Gentiles, Gal. 3.14. which could not have been, if Christ had not been exhibited in flesh; because the wall of partition could not have been broken down; therefore M. P. lies under self-condemnation, because to deny the blessing of Abraham's Covenant to be handed over to the Gentiles and their seed, is to deny Christ exhibited, as that place of Paul proved, Gal. 3.14. so that M. P. proves himself an Antichrist.  
Let no man therefore dislike the truth for this Bear's skin which this Author of dipping hath cast upon it. For it is the devil's policy now Antichrist is falling, to cry down all Gospel-truths for Antichristian, that so they may fall also; but maugre all the malice of hell, the interest of Children in the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, shall stand and triumph, as a glorious truth of the Gospel, when Antichrist and his children, all petty Antichrists shall tumble together.  
P. Pag. 118. He quotes, 2 Cor. 5.16. Henceforth we know no man after the flesh: yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth we know him so no more, which he explains thus: men were known and approved as privileged persons in God's Church, after the flesh; but henceforth we know no man, no not Christ himself as interessed in the covenant of Abraham, he being a Minister of a better covenant than that of Circumcision, grounded upon better promises, etc. therefore we know no man after the flesh, no not Christ himself.  
A. As all other places of Scripture hitherto brought, have been abused by false explications, and applications, so is the intent and meaning of this Text much wronged, and clouded: I shall therefore briefly clear it.  
The Apostle is telling the Church of Corinth, that the Jew had no more benefit by the death of Christ then the Gentile; for both Jew and Gentile were all under sin, and were therefore all dead, If one died for all, then were all dead. It seems many of them thought, that because Christ came from the Jews, therefore he did bear more love to them then the Gentiles; and so it was good being a Jew. To which Paul answers, True, if we that are Jews should judge after the flesh according to our natural affection to our own Nation, than we should say so too: but the love of Christ constrains us to judge otherwise, that is, he did not look upon the benefit of this or that Nation peculiarly; but this Christ had in his eye, Jew and Gentile were all dead: and upon this account did Christ die. For if one died for all, then were all dead: as if he had said, Christ did not intent this Jew should be more privileged than that Gentile, though himself were a Jew: therefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh, That is, we do not now look upon the Jew, to have any more privilege than the Gentiles, yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, that is, though we have known him to be a Jew, and to receive the seal of their privileges only, yet henceforth we know him so no more, that is, we have no more privilege now by Christ's coming from us, than the Gentiles; nor hath Christ any more income of privileges from us, than he hath from the Gentiles; ours is alike from him, and his is alike from us, and no difference. And that this is the true intent of the words, see v. 17, 18, 19, 20. Old things are passed away, i. e. old privileges, that we claimed in Christ before others, they are all now conveyed over to the world: and therefore he hath committed to us the Gospel of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, i. e. It was only our Nation that was reconciled, before Parents and children called his sons, spouse, offspring, heirs; the blessings of the covenant were ours only. But now all this is tendered to the world, Therefore we as Ambassadors in Christ's stead beseech you to be reconciled. And thus you have this innocent Text which hath been turned against Abraham's seed (though it harbours not a harsh syllable to babes) wrested out of the paw of the lion.  
2 Let us view the second part: Christ himself should not be minded as at all interessed in Abraham's Covenant, he being now a Minister of a better Covenant, etc.  
A. It hath been already fully proved, That Abraham's Covenant in all parts thereof was a full and complete covenant of Gr●ce, and not of Works; Therefore M. P. to say Christ should not be minded or known in that Covenant, is as much as to say, that Jesus Christ is not to be minded as Mediator; for there is no other Covenant that he is Mediator of but that; and if this be not a bird of prey that flies in the Region of blasphemy; Let God Almighty and his people judge.  
Thus we may see what work ignorant men will make in preaching, that have only a little Conscience, a great deal of Confidence, and a great Concordance.  
This place also (notwithstanding any thing he hath said) doth vote for the engraffing of believing Gentiles and their seed into the covenant made with Abraham, from which the believing Jews and their seed were cast out, therefore (Job. 38.2.) who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?   

CHAP. XVII. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. with many other Texts cleared from his corrupt interpretation.  
P. Pag. 120. THe next Scripture he faceth, as intending to relieve it out of our hands is, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. Moreover brethren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and were all baptised to Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, and did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. This is another Scripture made use of to prove a covenant of salvation to run in the flesh.  
Rep. This Text was never pleaded to prove a covenant of life in the flesh; for as we never affirmed such doctrines, so is this Text impertinent, for such a purpose; but this we say, that this Scripture is by us brought to prove the manner of baptising not to be by dipping; so that we see he hath mistaken the door like a blind man groping in the dark; therefore I shall wave much like stuff that follows upon it.  
P. Pag. 120. 121. Israel was baptised to Moses, a typical Mediator, not to Christ, which is a main passage to be noted; and the covenant that Mose. was Mediator of, was a covenant of works: and then he shows how the Law did type out in that administration, our deliverance from sin, death, hell, the devil, and what resemblance it had of these things, etc.  
A. Though Israel was not baptised into Christ exhibited; yet as Moses was a type of Christ, so they were baptised into Christ, Act. 3.22.  
2. The Apostle holds forth Israel's Baptism as a Sacrament, and brings it in with the Manna and the Rock, which was Sacramentally Christ;  
And compares these two, to the Sacraments of the Church of Corinth: who did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. So that Christ was as truly held forth in Israel's Baptism Sacramentally, as in the Church of Corinth's baptism, and as much in the Rock and Manna amongst Israel, as in the bread and wine in the Supper, amongst the Church of Corinth.  
3 The Apostle by telling the Church of Corinth of Israel's S craments and deliverances they enjoyed from God [they were all baptised, and did all eat] compares them with this Gospel-Church, as an equal parallel, to let them know, that as they had equal privileges, so the same since in a Gospel-Church, would bring down the same judgements; as it did already begin to work for their unworthy receiving the Supper.  
Now their privileges being compared as equal, and yet, Israel being all baptised Sacramentally into Christ, men, women, and children, doth clearly import that the infant-seed of that Church, to whom this example is brought, were also baptised into Christ, or else the parallel could never hold: so that what was done in baptising Israel ●o Moses as a typical Mediator, was but a prefiguration of what should be done to God's people Israel, i. e. men, women, and children, under Christ the true Mediator; therefore this which he lays down mainly to be observed, that Israel was not baptised to Christ, is observed to be untrue: And as for the manner of baptising, either by sprinkling, or pouring forth water; it is as fully held forth in this Text (as before proved) as that they used wine in the Supper. But of this he speaks but little: though indeed it is the main thing for which this Text is so often cond.  
P. As to that where he tells us, Moses was a typical Mediator of a covenant of works.  
A. Then is Christ a Mediator of a covenant of works, and then he contradicts what he affirmed in pap. 127: where making Abraham's covenant to be of works: he tells us that Christ was not now to be considered or eyed, as a person interessed in that, but a better covenant. And how a covenant of works can stand with a Mediator, or a Mediator with such a covenant, is to me a paradox, and not to be known I am sure on this side the water.  
P. Those Teachers mentioned in Act. 15. that would impose a yoke upon the disciples necks, were much like to those now, who plead for Infant-baptism. For they had no warrant for what they did.  
A. He appears mistaken: for our Ministers now, neither plead for Circumcision▪ nor Justification by works which was the main rock, those primitive Churches (by reason of the false teachers) were like to split upon; yea it is a thing note worthy, that in all those primitive revolts from the truth, the false Teachers did usher them in, by preaching up Circumcision, after the Law of Moses; by which means they made rents and divisions in all Churches; so that, had not Infants been Church-members, that were strongly riveted in their Parents affections, it could have been no taking Argument to Parental-members, to fall back to Judaisme, or any probable ground of hopes to encourage the false Teachers in their works: for upon the strain of Anabaptists they might have done as they pleased, with their children Circumcise, or Paganize them; for they were not to be of the visible Church till they were adult believers, and so converted to the Faith by the word preached. And the very Text itself doth imply that children in the Primitive times were called Disciples; or else how should it be called a putting a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, after the manner of Moses? It was the children's necks, that bore the yoke; Zipporah knew it right well: so that it is apparent, what he saith of our Ministry in comparing them to those false Teachers, is but his usual way of reproaches, in which he shakes hands with those false Teachers mentioned, whose main work hath ever been to smite the shepherds, that the sheep may be scattered; and to extinguish their light, that so their glow-worm shining may be seen in the dark. But I hope the light of these times, with the barking of the wolves now abroad, will sufficiently discover them to be beasts of prey, though they go mantled in sheep's clothing.  
P. p. 124. This being premised, that Moses was a Typical Mediator; and their baptism, and the Rock, and Manna a type of Christ: from hence the sense of the Text is drawn plain, That as the spiritual disciple or Israelite is baptised into Christ, so the temporal Israelite was baptised to Moses in the cloud and sea: and they are called spiritual meat and drink by a figure.  
A. He hath no way to put off his false doctrines, but by turning all Scriptures into allegorical notions: for what exposition he hath here given is as much besides the Text, and as unlikely to be true, as for me to say, the man in the Moon is like M. P. for let us but consider, that those Sacraments were spiritual to Israel, as God's Church, as the Sacraments of the Gospel were spiritual to the Church of Corinth. Now the Apostle in drawing the parallel, doth not speak of a spiritual Church in a carnal Church; or a spiritual Israelite, and a carnal Israelite; thereby making only some to be baptised to Moses, but tells as plainly they were all baptised to Moses. Whereas, this whimsical notion would make us believe, there were some of Israel not baptised to Moses: and when Paul saith, they did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; M. P. tells us directly contrary. You see then with what evidence of truth he speaks, when the Authority of an Apostle must veil before him: and though he saith the Sacraments are spiritual by a figure; yet if he were asked by what figure, he must either give a Parrots answer, or say nothing; albeit he shows his ignorance to be meddling, and his confidence (I am unwilling to call it worse) to notionallize the Sacraments themselves; as if they were not a spiritual meat, and a spiritual drink to the Church of God. By which we see, rather than he will have any dependence upon the Law, he will run beyond the Gospel.  
P. p. 127. Those typical signs and figures then, which typed out Christ to come, did properly belong to the typical seed, the body of Israel, that typed out the spiritual seed to come, in Gospel-Ordinances instituted since Christ came, which are for confirming, that he is come: and these belong only to the spiritual seed in whom Christ is come already, dwelling in their hearts by Faith.  
A. Here is such a pack of distinct●ons, that were not (I believe) heard of in past ages. It seems the spiritual Israel had no need of Ordinances; for they did not properly belong to them, but to the carnal lump: and why then should Abel, Noah, Abraham, and all the seed by promise, be sacrificers? why then should David cry out after those water brooks, and even envy at the happiness of those birds who had their nests near the Altar?  
2 If the body of Israel did type out the spiritual seed to come under the Gospel; than whom did the spiritual seed of Israel type out? either no body, or by opposition the carnal Gospelers; for the spiritual Israel were types; though yet the carnal Israel, or the body of Israel, it will be hard to prove them types, especially in that nature, unless they were types of the Roman Apostasy.  
3 If temporal Israel did then type out the spiritual Israel now; then their Apostasy, backslidings, divorce, and casting off, must type out the divorce, apostasy, backslidings, and casting off the spiritual seed.  
4 If the carnal seed in those typical Ordinances did type out none but spiritual seed to be admitted to Gospel-Ordinances; then all that are now Church-members, must needs be spiritual, and so there are no hypocrites now in the Church: Let the world judge whether this is not wretched stuff, which yet is the natural consequence of thi● unnatural distinction:  
P. 128. It was not necessary, that all that were Circumcised should believe and repent, and so be first made Disciples: but Baptism is a confirmation of our Regeneration and our New-birth, and Union with Christ by Faith. And therefore belongs to them only, that are regenerated and born again of water, and the Spirit: so the Lords Supper, Let a man examine himself, etc.  
A. It was necessary that Abraham should be a believer, before Israel could be circumcised. For had not Abraham believed, there had been no such seal given to his family; as is already proved.  
2 (To let pass his Tautologies as the least of his offence) If baptism belongs only to such as are regenerated; why was Judas, Demas, Magus, and those Act. 20.29, 30. baptised? or how shall it be known who is newborn? or can it confirm Grace where there is none? what confirmation was it of the New-birth to Judas and the rest? surely his words must admit of a large charity, to think that all that are dipped have truth of Grace confirmed in them thereby.  
P. Pag. 130. The carnal Israelite was as capable to perform every Ceremonial Law without Faith, as truly as the Believers:  
A. A man had need of a belief of the biggest size also to credit this; for the true performance of those typical Sacrifices was not barely in the work done, but when the worshippers had an eye to Christ, which the true believer then, ever had. For the main ingredient to make that worship truly performed, was Faith then, as it is now; and he might with as much truth say, that he that is formal in Gospel-duties, either in prayer, hearing, receiving, doth as truly perform them, as he that is a true believer. It is to me a most unsavoury expression, and such lose stuff, that surely if there be any close-walking. Friends to the truth, they cannot but reprove such lose doctrines.  
P. Ibid. There is no less than a profession of Faith required in the Church of England, before baptism; and therefore this doth justify what we hold, and condemn what they practice.  
A. He gins now to fly low, to seek to strengthen his feeble practice, by the Liturgy and Canon of the Church of England; who before doth seemingly rejoice, that he is converted both from their doctrines and practice, but what if they do hold that profession of Faith and Repentance, should precede baptism? so do we all. And as Faith was to Abraham, and is to us the condition, by which all our seed is taken into covenant with the Parent: so baptism seals the covenant, and upon this ground Peter moved his hearers to be baptised: he backeth the motion, not barely from their own interest in the promise, as personal believers; but upon the joint interest of their children with them, upon their Parental believing, Act. 2.38, 39 Repent and be baptised, For the promise is to you and your children: implying that the covenants sealed, should run as largely as the covevenant. As it was to the grand covenant Parent of all the heirs of promise: i. e. Abraham. Thus all Noah's children were baptised in that typical baptism, with their believing parents in the Ark, 1 Pet. 1, 3, 21. Gen. 7.1. which was upon the same covenant-account, that Abraham and his seed were circumcised, and that a parental covenanting faith doth reach the seed; so as to incorporate them into external privileges, God's carriage to Moses, when he neglected his duty to seal his child, doth sufficiently evince, Exod 4.2, 4, 5, 6. and agrees with Gen. 17.14.  
2 Faith and Repentance is required also upon a personal account to initiate such as come to years, that are converted to embrace the Gospel, as Jews or Heathens, or any other unbaptised persons. But therefore I hope that since he hath brought this instance, he will afford them to interpret their own meaning, which they have best done by their practice, though it may be not so orderly as he ought. However we cannot but observe in this as in the like, by searching after Antiquities, and quoting the precedents of ancient Churches, and wracking the books and meaning of the Fathers, as C. B. and others have done, they would gladly get some humane Authority to countenance their Innovations. But their fingers have been knocked off from that by worthy Mr Cobbet of New-England, that I believe they do not much care to plead humane Antiquities more.  
P. p. 32. If the covenant of life belongs to all believers seed, than we need nor want for Church-members; because all the world are the children and offspring of believing Noah: therefore this Argument carries the right of covenant to all the world, because they are the children of a believer.  
A. We do not baptise believers children for want of Church-members, but because it is an Ordinance of Christ. And though all the world be the offspring of believing Noah, yet what he affirms is untrue, that therefore Noah's Faith carries the right of covenant to all the world, upon these reasons.  
1 Because God did not pitch upon Noah to make him the Father of the Faithful, as he did upon Abraham to whom he gave the promises, Heb. 11.17.  
2 Therefore as children, we are to acknowledge him to be our father, that God hath made to be so, which is faithful Abraham, to whom he gave the seal, and not faithful Noah. And had God pitched upon Noah, as he did upon Abraham, no question but Noah had circumcised his son as Abraham did, but  
3 Had God chosen Noah as he did Abraham, yet it follows not, that all the world could claim a covenant-right to the seal, because all the world were not heirs of promise, as we see, the seal continued not in the race of Ishmael; because discovenanted, though yet he was a son of Abraham. For upon the same ground, M. P. argues all Abraham's offspring to the world's end should have been circumcised. But therefore Faith ingraffs, as unbelief cuts off: by all which we see how vainly confident he is, in what he saith, and affirms: Thus the honour and reputation of that Text 1 Cor. 10. stands untouched. For indeed whatsoever he hath brought thereupon, with which he fills twelve pages together, is but mere impertinences; because he hath taken a wrong aim from the Text.   

CHAP. XVIII. The clearing of Mark 10.13. about children being brought to Christ with other Scriptures.  
THe next place he pretends to meet us in by way of encounter is, Mark 10.13. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them. And his Disciples rebuked them that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbidden them not: For of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.  
P. The first thing to be considered is, whose children these were, whether of wicked or godly Parents; but by the former discourse in the chapter, it should seem they might be wicked and ungodly Parents, because there was such mentioned before that tempted Christ.  
Rep▪ Be sure ill will never thinks well, and his ground to think they were wicked, is none at all; for how often doth one and the same chin Scripture speak of three or four distinct things that have no connexion with each other, the subsequent having no dependence upon preceding discourse? it is needless to give instances, the Scripture is full thereof. But  
2 That they were believing Parents, consider these grounds: First they were such, that in those days did visibly own Christ, and if we consult Mark 10. fully; It was not long before Christ's Passion, when he had many enemies abroad. And therefore danger might ensue such an action. And who would adventure to abide the frowns of great men for Infants, were it not their own Parents, and such also that had a face heavenward? Again he  
P. Consider also wherefore they were brought to Christ, it could not be to baptise them, because Christ himself baptised none; therefore it was probably to cure some bodily disease or distemper, for the Text saith, he laid his hands upon them and blessed them.  
A. We never brought the place to prove that Christ baptised ●hem; but to show the abundant love, care, and goodwill, that Christ bears to such little ones; especially to take such into his kingdom. And for him to say or think, that it was to cure them of some disease, is strange. For why then should such words be added? why then should he take them up into his arms? why should it be called a blessing them? it is a word too high for a common cure, yea to think the Apostles should keep any off from Christ, that came to be ●ured of diseases, smells too much of uncharitableness. It is clear therefore they were brought to Christ for a blessing, which though it were not baptism, it might be for confirmation after baptism, for it is likely they were baptised by John, because the pl●ce where it was done, was in the coasts of Judea: where John had before been baptising; which also gives some more probable grounds (I say no more) that their Parents were godly; because as John pointed at Christ in ad ministering the Ordinance, so we find these taking notice of Christ accordingly; and that there was imposing of hands after baptism, consider, Act. 8.17, 18. ch. 16.6. sure it is Christ would have us learn something from that carriage of his, that Infants are capable of covenant-blessings, for in that channel all blessings run By which it is apparent that we have the stronger ground (especially, if to it be added a finger of Charity) that their Parents were not only godly, but the children had been before taken into Abraham's covenant. And the seal thereof, as will further appear in the next.—  
P. For of such is the kingdom of God.  
Now it is doubtful whether these children had believing Parents to the fift or sixth generation; therefore if you make it to countenance that error of the covenant in the flesh: that appears erroneous, in that the greatest number of believers children never belonged in that sense to the kingdom of God. Adam had a Cain, as well as an Abel. Noah had a Ham, as well as a Shem, Abraham had an Ishmael as well as an Isaac, Isaac had Esau as well as Jacob; and so through the Scripture, God brings forth a generation of wicked from the godly, and a generation of godly from the wicked indefinitely.  
A. That we have good grounds to judge their parents godly, hath before been made appear: but if this were all the difference, methinks a sober is more becoming then a censorious judgement.— By kingdom of God we are to understand the visible Church: most properly of such is the kingdom. For otherwise it had not been a suitable reproof, for their offence, in that it lied in their not suffering children to be brought to him to receive an outward favour and blessing. They could not have hindered them from the kingdom of glory, but from the visible Church they might; therefore Christ takes them up roughly, Suffer them to come unto me, and forbidden them not. In which there is a double command, implying much heat of spirit against such an action, and much love and tender affection to the babes, as if he had said, do you that are my disciples reject them, because they are children? I would have you know for time to come, they are as capable of blessings as yourselves. For of such is the kingdom of God; my church & kingdom is made up of such, as well as of men and women. Methinks Christ here looks with a chiding countenance upon the Anabaptists of our times, who are guilty of the same offence.  
II. P. But how wide is that which remains, from the business, where he saith the greatest number of believers seed never belonged to God's kingdom, when as we know the very instances by him cited, do sufficiently prove, that the seed of believers, though they have proved vile and wicked, yet they did belong to the visible Church and kingdom, till by casting out they were discovenanted. Did not Cain belong to the Church as well as Abel? see Gen. 4.3, 4, 5. Heb. 11.4. So in Noah's Family, were not Ham and Japhet as well baptised in the Ark, and so members as well as Shem? was not Ishmael as well a Church-member in Abraham's family as Isaac; so Esau the like as well as Jacob? These are his own examples, by which we see from the very first preaching of the Gospel, the seed of believers have ever had a visible right of Church-membership, till cast out; and of such was the kingdom, and saith Christ of such is the kingdom: so that if the kingdom was of such, and is of such, then for shame acknowledge them to be subjects.  
P. If children be admitted into the kingdom of God, by virtue of a covenant of life made by faith and generation, than this crosseth the doctrine of the New-birth, Joh. 3.5.  
A. The contrary hath been already proved; for if that were true, how came that doctrine of the New-birth to be taught in Israel, by the place cited? and yet their seed were then admitted Church-members, as now. I refer the Reader to my former Answer to the third fundamental. As for the making a covenant of life by birth, we abhor it, as hath been often said; it is only a visible right we plead for, and that which they ever had.  
P. p. 135. The place before cited is explained by Mat. 18.3, 4, 5, 6. He that offends one of these little ones that believe in m●, where it is spoken of children in grace, and whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein, that is, such like in grace as these in nature.  
A. That the words are spoken of Infants is clear, for Christ took a little child and set in the midst of the disciples, and tells them that such did believe.  
2 The resemblance cannot hold, for children are pettish, cross, and froward by nature, therefore that example had been very unsuitable, but Christ shows the right such little ones had to the kingdom; because they had faith, And whosoever receives not the kingdom of God as a little child; that is, as a little child receives it; clearly implying that such children are capable of receiving admission into the kingdom. Therefore it doth not at all relate to a parity.  
P. And whereas he afterwards tells us, to expound it of believers adult, is most agreeable to the Analogy of saith, and that the whole Word of the Lord disclaims the contrary, as destructive to God's truth:  
A. The Analogy of faith hath ever taken in children into the Church, and kingdom; therefore his high language is but like a flash of lightning, and fit to take with children and boys, then with men of Reason and Conscience: What he hath said hitherto hath been examined, and not a word in God's book makes against it. But the whole tenor of Scripture with much pleasant harmony doth agree to give believers seed a name in God's house. And whereas he saith such a practice destroys the truth of God, it hath been also sifted, and it pleads to his Charge, Not guilty.   

CHAP. XIX. The Word Administration carped at by M. P. justified, and Gal. 4. answered and cleared.  
Obj. p. 137. But this which you call a covenant of Works consisting of temporal Promises, Laws, and Statutes, is to be understood of a form of administration of the covenant of Grace, and not a distinct covenant of Works.  
P. I know this Objection some bring, but if it be well weighed, it is inconsistent with their own Arguments, for if that be true, then was there no covenant made with Abraham's seed, but only the administration of a covenant; therefore ill do they affirm, that the covenant was made with them; therefore the Administration. This Objection is false and groundless, as appears by several express Texts of Scripture which do evidently prove it two distinct covenants.  
A. He here quarrels with the word administration, because he understands it not, for though it be so called, by reason the spiritual part runs therein, yet it loseth not the name of a covenant; because it is man's part of the covenant, and called God's covenant; and yet it is God's administration to man. For his grand mistake is, in that he thinks the covenant of grace hath no conditions, but absolute; the contrary to which is before proved. The Rainbow in the clouds is called God's covenant, Gen. 9 As here circumcision is called his covenant, but surely M P. will not deny but it is an administration, wherein God's favour to the world is manifested; how else can it be called a token of the covenant, and a sign thereof; as a so is circumcision called a sign and seal, and token of the covenant. And when God saith this is my covenant, he means not a distinct covenant from the other; but that part of the other which related to man's duty. And so it was God's Administration Office to the world. I need not stand much upon this, because it is so fully spoken to before, in proving circumcision no covenant of works. For the leprosy that overspreads all his book, ariseth from that. I shall briefly touch upon this word administration, to show the propriety thereof, as used in the Objection. The Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 12. useth the same word in the same sense, there are differences of administration, that is, one legal, the other Gospel, but the same Lord. He is there showing the different estate that was betwixt Jew and Gentile in the things of God; and therefore when he speaks to the Corinthians in ver. 2. he speaks so as that he would have them understand the difference, betwixt true and false worshippers, ye know brethren that ye were Gentiles carried away to these dumb Idols, even as you were led. But afterwards having showed that Christ was to have a mystical Church-body in the world, which was to consist of Jews and Gentiles; he tells us that in the completing of this body there are different administrations; yet so as that both Jew and Gentile are baptised by one spirit into this one body. So that those words, different administrations, can relate to no more sorts of people, but Jew and Gentile; and therefore can be but two; namely the Jewish or legal Administration, and the Gentile, or Gospel-Administration, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit of God working in both of them; and yet so, as that the Jews and their children, and the Gentiles and their children make up as one seed, this one body of the mystical Church: ver. 12, 13, 38. Gal. 3.14, 16. compared; and this different Administration came from Christ as Lord; therefore called the same Lord, implying that Christ as Lord gave Israel that typical Administration, and so Christ as Lord changed it, and set up a Gospel-Administration: and in this sense is Christ called the Lord also of the Sabboth-day; clearly implying that what change hath been made of Sabboth-seals, or any other Ordinances, it was done by the Prerogative-Royal of Jesus Christ, as Lord thereof; for the use of that one body and Lordship of his (the Church:) by which we see there are two, and but two Administrations; which therefore as it may satisfy M. P. in the significancy of the word, and yet remain as a covenant also; so doth it meet with that licentious rotten abuse of this word, in making as many several administrations as there are new opinions in the world.  
P. p. 138. He brings many Scriptures to prove that Circumcision is called a covenant, not an administration, Gen. 17.7, 13. Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. etc.  
A. Though God calls it not an administration, but a covenant, yet it becomes a covenant made with man by virtue of administration, and the meaning is no more but this, that Grace to man runs through those Ordinances. If Circumcision be a covenant, it must have an administrator, or else the covenant ceases. If it be a covenant to Isaac, than Abraham must administer it; so baptism is an Ordinance, yet had it no administrator, it would cease to be an Ordinance: it is true there may be a neglect of an Ordinance, as there was of Circumcision, and yet the Ordinance continued, for they wanted not an administrator.  
2 Though God called it not an administration in Gen. 17. yet Paul called it so in 1 Cor. 12. as is before proved, and surely M. P. will not deny, but that Paul spoke by the spirit of God when he so called it.  
3 'tis also called an administration, in reference to the care and pains God's people are to take in administering for their Father's estate, left in a way of Will and Testament, which is to be made sure into that administration-office of God's Ordinances, both then under Law, and now under the Gospel; according to 2 Pet. 10, 11. For so an entrance shall be administered abundantly into the everlasting kingdom. By all which therefore we see the word is proper, full, and significant, only carped at out of ignorance: that it remains to be a covenant, i. e. on man's part and an administration, i. e. the way God hath appointed to convey justification to life, and both these reaches Parents and children.  
As for all those Scriptures he here brings to prove two covenants, and therefore one of works; they have been already answered, to which I refer the Reader, only I shall take in one or two Scriptures in which he hath made sad work, that have not been so fully answered before, because I intended it for this place. The first is  
Pag. 140. Gal. 4.21. Tell me ye that desire to be under the Law, Do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman; but he who was by the bondmaid was born after the flesh, but he of the freewoman, was born by promise, which things are an Allegory, i. e. by these things other things are meant. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai in Arabia, which gendereth to bondage, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free: which is the Mother of us all. Now, we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise: but as then he that was after the flesh, persecuted him that was of the spirit, even so it is now; but what saith the Scripture? cast out the bondwoman, and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free: so than brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.  
P. From hence observe, that Abraham is here a type of God, and his two wives, Sarah and Hagar with their two children, are a type of the two covenants, and the two seeds in those covenants, and both continued in Abraham's house together for a time. But when Isaac was born and Ishmael was found scoffing, than Sarah the freewoman, will have Hagar and her son live no longer in the house with her and her son.  
Again Abraham had first the free woman, and last the bondwoman; the freewoman was sometimes barren in Abraham's house, the bondwoman was fruitful; the mystery of all is this: First God made a covenant of Grace, which proved barren.  
Secondly, He made a covenant of works in his Church, which proved fruitful; that had abundance of seed which became his by nature without Faith, all which time the covenant of grace and works agreed well together in God's house: but when the true Isaac was born. i e. Christ; without strength of nature, but by faith in a promise; yet still grace and works as two covenants dwelled together: but when Christ is weaned, i. e. come into the Ministry, than all the ●ons of Hagar, the old covenant, i. e. the Scribes, Pharisees, persecuted Christ, and all those in him: whereupon the freewoman or covenant of grace dothtestifie, that the covenant of works with her seed, shall no longer remain in the Church of God, but only the children of the freewoman born by faith in a promise, must for time to come remain in God's house, therefore now rejoice thou barren that barest not, the covenant of grace is become fruitful in all Nations, and therefore Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all; and that us or we, i. e. members of the Primitive Church be form, ●rom above by faith in a promise.  
From hence it is plain, there were no carnal babes in the Church: but when Christ the true seed of grace was persecuted by the Jews; he seed of the covenant of works, the Gospel, doth plentifully hold forth the abolishing thereof, and casting out those bond-childrens out of the Church of God.  
Rep. To show the vanity of all this, we must tract him by due parallel, by which we shall see the mysterious depths of confusion he is un into; after which I shall briefly clear up the Apostles intent from ●hat Scripture.  
1 If Abraham stands here as a type of God, and his two wives as type of the two covenants: then as Hagar b●ought forth Ishmael to Abraham a type of God; So must the covenant of works bring forth by strength of nature, children unto God; and those children are as ●uely the sons of God, as those born by promise: as Ishmael was as ●uely son to Abraham, as Isaac.  
2 As Abraham's affection was, that Ishmael might be the son of promise, so is it Gods desire that the seed of the covenant of works should be the seed of promise.  
3 As Hagar and Sarah lived together in Abraham's family a type of God, till Ishmael scoffed Isaac, so shall the two covenants and their seeds dwell together in heaven, till the covenant of grace be scoffed at, by Hagars' seed.  
P. Secondly, When he comes to explain himself, then saith M. P. God made a covenant of grace which proved barren, and then a covenant of works which proved fruitful, as Abraham had first Sarah, than Hagar.  
A. Did not God know the covenant of Grace would prove barren?  
2 Because that covenant proved barren, therefore the other covenant was given to God that he might have seed, as Hagar was given by Sarah, to Abraham that was the type of God.  
3 To make Abraham a type of God here, is to make him a creator: t●at as God made the two covenants which were to be as his two wives; so Abraham made Sarah and Hagar. I hope when M. P. comes to review his work, and to consider what gross wickedness follows, in ma●ing Abraham the type of God; he will blush at his own boldness, blindness, and ignorance.  
P. Thirdly, When Christ the true Isaac was named, i. e. came unto the Ministry, than the Scribes and Pharises persecuted Christ, ●pon which the freewoman or covenant, cast out the bondwoman and her sons, i e. the covenant of works and her children by nature, which was the National Church of the Jews.  
A. All this while he hath carried on the parallel of the two covenants, till he hath cast out all the Jews and their offspring, that pleaded a right to Abraham's covenant in the flesh: but M. P. forgets, that the Apostle tells us there was some never broken off, nor never cast out, when as some of the branches were broken off, Rom. 11.17. and he forgets that the natural branches, i. e. the Jews and their children, shall be taken in again, ver. 24, 25, 26, 27. which must be therefore into the o●d flock, or root, which remains.  
P. Fourthly the freewoman or covenant, doth now testify that the bondwoman, i. e. the covenant of works and her children, shall never remain in God's Church now; but only the children of the freewoman shall remain in God's house.  
A. By children of the freewoman he understands real and true believers: so that the inference riseth thus: that in the Gospel-house and Church of Christ, there shall be none that belongs to the covenant of works, that's abolished, and the seed cast out, that now th● Churches are all Saints, are all heirs, all freeborn, no hypocrites; and thus what Paul writ to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and tells us that in those Gospel-Churches there were many under that covenant, and yet Church-members, is by M. P. reproved for falsehood, for the free-covenant of grace had cast out the covenant of works and her seed long before.  
P. Fifthly, Now rejoice then barren that barest not, the covenant of Grace is become fruitful in all Nations; therefore Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all, i. e. of us the primitive Church born by faith in a promise.  
A. The Reader may remember he hath often before told us, that the spiritual covenant of grace, as it did not run upon entail, so was it made indifferently to all Nations, and that it was not confined to the Jews. For in that spiritual covenant, all Nations had a like share and benefit, in thy seed all nations are blest. Now if that be true, than this is false. For what cause hath the barren covenant of Grace to rejoice now, more than it had of old, for she had her seed in all Nations then, according to the intent of promise: or if this be true, what he hath said before is false; so that take it which way you will, he is judged out of his own mouth.  
2 To that other part, consider how many hypocrites there were in the primitive Church, Judas with his followers of●en mentioned; were these born from above by faith in a promise? thus than his own Conscience may by this time tell him, he hath been deceived and deuded in the opening of S●r ptures. Abraham was no type of God in this Gal. 4. but held forth as the father of the Church-seed, v. 22. And so Hagar brings forth children to Abraham as well as Sarah; the ●ree intent of this place appears to be this  
The Apostle in this chapter brings this Allegory, to convince those Galatians, which having embraced Christ, were fallen back to the Law Ceremonial, and to seek for justification by works. And therefore he calls them fools, and tells them they were bewitched to fall back from Gospel Ordinances, to the Law; from the spirit, to the flesh; from liberty, to bondage, ch. 3.11.5.1, 2, 3, 4. and having used many pressing Arguments in the preceding chapter, he at last comes in with this example of Sarah and Hagar, to show that as Hagar when she thought to mistress it, was cast out of Abraham's family; so So the Law ceremonial, when made a covenant of works, and the Law moral also, in that abusive sense was to be cast out of the Church of God, both under the Law, and under the Gospel. But as Sarah was contented to have Hagar dwell with her a servant, so in that sense did the law ceremonial & moral attend grace, being in truth the Law of Christ. But as a covenant of works, it could not make one heir of promise; Therefore it was but a foolish thing for the Galatians to think by works to merit heaven: for there was never any man saved by works, ch. 3.11. But if your heart and affections be set that way, it genders to bondage, and makes you fruitful to hell, & so leaves you under the curse of God, v. 24, 25. look upon Jerusasalem and her children, that is, upon all those amongst them, that lived under the works of the Law, and were mistaken, as you are. Are they not all in bondage? and doth not God's wrath lie upon them at this day? ver. 25. Then again look the other way, See to Jerusalem which is above, the Church in heaven, or the Church that hath her conversation in heaven, she is free, she got heaven by faith, and was justified by faith, and not by works; she is our mother, ver. 26 so before was not Abraham our Father justified by faith? And here, Is not the Church our mother got to heaven by faith? And what, shall we think to be justified by our works? No saith Paul, it is a mistake; for the desolate i. e. the Gentile-Church, shall have more children than the warryed wife, i. e. the Jewish Church: therefore let the Gentiles rejoice rather, and be thankful that God hath made them more fruitful then to fall back to a covenant of works: and then again he brings in Isaac. Look to him, For as he was, we are children of promise. As if he had said, we are to look to Abraham's covenant, and how the promise was made with him, and his seed. The present condition of this Church resembles that family: though he had many children; yet there was but one Isaac, to whom the covenant was conveyed: therefore away with this Justification by works, cast it out, it will not make you heirs, so than brethren we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Thus you have briefly the natural meaning of the places; after all those unheard of parallels, and confused constructions, wherewith it hath been entangled, to make it speak for a knocking of that little nail of Infants out of that sure place of God's house.  
The next Scripture that falls in to be considered, is Act. 13, 45, 46. when the Jews saw the multitude, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things that were spoken: then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said, it was necessary the word of God should be first spoken to you; but seeing you put it away, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, Lo we turn to the Gentiles; for so hath the Lord commanded us.  
P. From this Text it is clear, that when Christ the true seed was persecuted by the Jews, and the Gospel rejected; all those children of the covenant of works were cast forth of God's Church; the Apostles h●ving left them.  
A. Though Paul and Barnabas had left the Jews; yet Peter, James and John, who were the Apostles of the circumcision, Gal. 2.7, 8, 9 had not left them, but continued; therefore this proves nothing at all, for the discovenanting of children.  
2 Suppose they had been wholly left by the Apostles, and so were all in bondage with their children (as that's the drift of his words) than their rejecting the Gospel, which caused the Apostles to leave them, was the ground of theirs, and their children's falling into bondage. The Apostles bringing that Gospel to the Gentiles, supposeth that upon the embracing of that Gospel, they and their children were freed from such a bondage: or take it in his own phrase; though the covenant of works and her children were cast out of the Church, yet the covenant of Grace and her children are still remaining in God's Church.  
P. Therefore whereas M. P. tells us in pag. 145. that the forementioned Objection is answered, and that we have no ground in God's word for Infant-baptism:—  
A. He hath not given the least show of an Answer to the Objection, but it still stands in force, as is by this manifest; and notwithstanding all his vain distinctions, workings, and counterworking, of Scriptures, to make them speak a word of comfort to his practice, doctrine, and opinion, and of confutation to us; they still cry out in the behalf of children's right to the seal; as those little ones did, who met Christ with branches of Palm-trees, Blessed is he that cometh to us in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the highest. Reader, we are run through the main body of all his Arguments and Scriptures, what remains behind is very little; only heats of spirit against such as will not follow him to the River's side, and so like those blind men Christ speaks of, follow a blind guide till they both tumble into the water. But because the temper of his spirit shall be seen, I shall therefore briefly touch upon the remainder as it comes to hand.   

CHAP. XX. Contains the Answer to many Scriptures by him abused: to the end—  
Pag. 145. HE quotes Ezek. 14.2, 3, 4, 5. The word of the Lord came to me saying, Son of man, these men have set up their Idols in their hearts, and put the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces, should I be inquired of by these, & c?  
P. In which place you see, when souls set up an Idol in their hearts, God doth answer them according to that Idol. Therefore such as defend Infant-baptism from a covenant of Grace in the flesh, they defend and maintain a dangerous error, and consequently, it must be rotten and false.  
A. Well argued Sir, is it not? who is it that hath set up an Idol in his heart? what all the Churches of Christ throughout the world? Surely were not your heart swelled with pride, though yet pretending a voluntary humility, to catch souls into your snares, you durst not spe●k such condemning words, to abuse the way and Word of God.  
P. Pag. 146 He gives another result, children's baptism hath no ground from the word of God, either command or example, but only a consequence; so that it is merely a tradition of men's setting up, in the room and place of the commands of God, to wit, baptism of believers, and thus they make void the commands of God, Mar. 7 7 and th●s is the very sin of those that plead for Infant-baptism, when God's word s●ith Repent and be baptised, and arise, why tarryest thou? be baptised. These and many more are made void by christening of children, and thus poor souls are nursed up in ignorance, etc.  
A. It had been far better to have overturned our practice by dint of Argument, Scripture and Reason, and to have left cut all such superfluity of naughtiness, which tend● only to reviling these Texts have been already answered, and our practice hath appeared to be warranted from the covenant of Grace, and the pleasing consent of Scriptures, which is undenyab e to any man that is not partinacious in his errors; it is an Ordinance, that the Churches of Christ stand possessed of, and doth he think to persuade good men from their Religion, Reason, and Conscience, by telling us it is a teaching for Doctrines, the Traditions of men? He must therefore come to a new result, and tell us when the Tradition began, in what age or time, who was the first Author; it was not set up by Antichrist, he is little more than of 1200 years standing. And as M. Cobbet in his answer to Den and Blackwood, with several others, who have laboured to find out the first rise, clears it, to be the practice of the Churches for hundreds of years before Antichrist risen; to conclude this, if it be a Tradition, it was received from the man Christ Jesus, who tells us, of such is the kingdom.  
P. Pag 147. He brings Lev 10.1, 2. and compares Infant-baptism, to their offering strange fire to God, which he had not commanded, for which God burned them with fire from heaven.—  
A. 'tis a very good lesson, well learned, but by that rule he would be put by as a person not fit for a Minister of the Gospel; how much strange fire hath he cast up and down these Nations, such, by which he hath at least endeavoured to burn down whole Churches? And how much strange water hath he overwhelmed poor weak Christians by, to the dishonour of God and his ways? God is gentle in driving his flock, and the tender Lambs he carries in his bosom, and gives them rest; and tells them his yoke is easy: but his opinion and practice is to persuade the people of God that they serve a hard Master, etc.  
That be they never so weak and tender, yet must they stoop to a destructive practice, and that in the sharpest seasons, as if men and women were made of some other mettle, and not flesh and blood. But methinks the Scripture he brings should make him see his error. If Nadab and Abihues sin was offering up such fire which he commanded not, than it seems God expected, they should pick out his meaning, by comparing things rationally together; for they had no express command not to offer such, or what fire they should offer; but fire they were to offer▪ by which we see, if God gives but the hint of a truth, he will have his children to find out the whole: so that, had we only the hint of God's mind touching Abraham's covenant, how it took in believers and their seed under the Old-Testament; and it being a covenant of pure grace, and therefore unchangeable; reaching to the Gentiles, and such an example as he gave in Zacheus a Gentile, calling him a son of Abraham, and therefore salvation was come to his house: I say such hints as these, had we nothing else to say; were enough for us Gentiles to pick out the rest; that if they had Abraham's covenant and blessing given, then in the same extent, and surely the seal must follow. I only touch this by the by. It hath been before cleared, that every part and parcel of God's word is for us, to justify our practice of Infant-baptism.  
But suppose his own sense of this place were to be understoond concerning Nadab and Abihu, as a reproof to us for practising things without a command, in so many express words, or syllables; then also it is offering up strange fire in his sense, for Christians under the Gospel to keep the Sabbath; because it is not so expressly commanded in the New-Testament: which without any peradventure must upon the account he pleads be his judgement; and were it not for a kerbing power, I doubt would quickly be his practise. But take heed M. P. that your heart be not rotten in this, lest strange fire or strange water make you a like example with those persons before mentioned.  
P. Pag. 148. He applies these Texts to our practice, Jer. 9.13, 14, 15. 1 Sam. 13.12, 13. Jer. 8 9 Because they have forsaken my Law, and walked after the imaginations of their own hearts; therefore I will give them to feed on wormwood, and give them the water of Gall to drink, and will consume them. Again, therefore the wise are dismayed and ashamed, they have rejected the word of the Lord. Therefore will I give their wives to others, etc. They have built the high places of Tophet in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not.  
A. What could th●s Author say more, and how could the Scriptures be more abused, and the powers of the Nations be more struck at? his voice speaks nothing but Gall and Wormwood, and consume, and giving our wives to others, and telling us we sacrifice our children to devils, offer them to our own inventions, set up our posts by God's posts, and ourselves in the room of God? Is there not (think you) a young Pope sprung up in these Nations, who gins to throw fire out of his sleeve to terrify the world? Magistrates, are you all a sleep? I am sure you are not all Anabaptists, you own the Ordinance of Infant-baptism. Why will you suffer it to be reproached, and Christ therein? Do you not see the language he gives you for offering your children to God, which he calls to the devil? for such are Idolaters, devil-worshippers, Rom. 9.20. 1 Cor. 10.19, 20, 21. Deut. 32.17. Psal. 106.36, 37. is Satan ever the more to be hugged in the bosom for his bringing of Scripture, when it is only to hid the Serpent's sting in the tail? Awake, awake, put on strength, O thou Arm of the Lord. Consider what your duty is touching the first Table, and remember honest New-England.  
P. The Scripture by M. P. quoted against us, is 2 Cor. 26.14, 15. of Vzza who fearing the fall of the Ark, put his hand to it to bear it up without a command, and King Vzziah who meddled with burning Incense, without Authority from God. And being wroth with the Ministers of God, the leprosy risen up in his forehead and God's wrath broke forth upon him.  
A. If these Texts by him cited, are not applied to his own heart; it is a sign he is obdurate, and some sad judgements are like to befall him; for the places are directly parallel to his own practice: what did Vzza do, that M. P. doth not? Hath he not put to his hand to stay up the Ark of God without a command or call to the Ministry? yea rather, is he not endeavouring to his utmost to pull it down? What did Vzziah do, that he doth not? It appertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burn Incense to the Lord, Go out of the Sanctuary, for thou hast sinned. And it shall not be for thine honour from the Lord God, ver. 18. Did God punish a King? and shall it be unpunished in a mean man, who not only intrudes, but also strikes the faithful Ministers and servants of God with his Censor, I mean with a reviling tongue? but it shall not be for his honour from the Lord God. Remember the judgement of Vzza and Vzziah, and apply it inwardly.  
P. He comes now again to appeal to such as fear God, and advise them, to take heed of such an Idol. And to any that is not blinded with the stumbling block of their iniquity, by reason of Satan's subtlety, to judge how they cross the doctrines of the Gospel, in baptising visible, graceless, Christless children.  
A. This appeal is made to you that fear the Lord, you see what his four last words speak, visible, graceless, Christless children, but why visible? was Isaac so when an Infant, who was the seed of promise? and doth not Paul tell us, as he was, we are children of the promise? If as he was, then as the seed of covenanting believers as he was, Gal. 4.28. see the censorious spirit of this man, who is not ashamed to say, believers seed are visibly graceless, when as Paul tells us they are to be reputed holy: 1 Cor. 7. Which way, saith the false Prophet, went the Spirit of the Lord from me to you, when he strikes Micaiah on the cheek? If the Apostle tells us that children are holy, Mr. Patient will be sure to fly in his face and say, they are graceless, Christless children.  
However, you to whom the appeal is made, receive it, and when you have done, make your complaint to God, and be not frighted from owning those which God owns, the King is bound to maintain the cause of his subjects. And such are Infants. For of such is the kingdom. And God will in due time plead the quarrel of his covenant, against all their opposers, it will be seen in this generation.  
P. p. 153. He comes to lay down an Objection of such as would have no baptism at all; which though it doth not so properly relate to us that maintain it, yet  
A. I shall give the Reader this hint, whatsoever he saith, for dipping of believers, it hath been already answered. And therefore let me advise you to be so far either from casting off the Ordinance, or embracing a false Ordinance; that you keep close to that good old way of baptising the family-Infants of Jesus Christ, and for the better strengthening of such, whose weakness may not be able to oppose Satan's depths: as that good woman once said, she could die for Christ, but was not able enough to dispute for him. Besides what is before laid down, consider Mat. 21.43. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to another nation, bringing forth the fruits thereof. The kingdom of God there mentioned, was the Church of the Jews who had the laws and the Ordinances of worship amongst them; in which kingdom were included as subjects, men, women, and children by virtue of God's covenant made with Abraham, the father of all Church-incorporated-believers, both Jews and Gentiles, then and now. Now saith Christ, this kingdom of God should be taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles; from whence then we may easily gather, that if God's kingdom now given to the Gentiles, be the same for substance, with that which was taken away from the Jews; then must the Infants of Church-believers, be also subjects of this kingdom, as they were then; and the reason is undeniable, because it is employed in the words of Christ. Not to be another, but the same kingdom; for had the Jews been fruitful subjects, the kingdom had still remained with them, and not been removed.  
A second place to be considered is that of Paul. Heb. 3.5.6. And Moses verily was faithful in his house as a servant. But Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we. The Apostles intent was to draw a parallel betwixt the family of God then, and now; in both which families Christ was the son. And the first house was as well Christ's house, as the second, Mat. 21.13. Isa. 56.7. compared, the inference is this, that as the family of Christ in the first Gospel-house to Israel did consist partly of children, so doth the family of Christ in this second Gospel-house, consist of the same; for it would be unreasonable to think, that Christ had changed the family, and so cut off children now; such thoughts represent him to be less faithful than Moses who was but a servant.  
Obj. But what command have you for your practice? these are natural inferences, but nothing should be practised without a command.  
A. If this Objection be admitted, then as before, the Sabbath is null; because there is not a clear New-Testament command to keep it, and yet should it not be observed, the Ordinances of the Gospel must fall. For what Ordinances can be practised, if there be not a time appointed by Christ that shall bind all Christians, which yet must be found out from Scriptures compared, the old-Testament and new, being laid together and not severed, with the constant practice of all Christian Churches from the primitive time, so that they may as well make the Sabboth-day Antichristian, because it wants such an institution, as Infant-baptism, for they are inseparable twins.  
2 But the Scriptures do hold forth a command from Mat. 28.19. Go and disciple all Nations, baptising, etc. It hath been before cleared, that this command reaches children: to which I refer the Reader in answer to his four Essentials. But the sadness of our times is, that men have such itching ears; that notwithstanding the Scriptures speak and the spirit speaks, and Gods Ministers speak, yet they will not hear:  
3 We that are children under the Gospel, have also a Gospel-father to look at. For when the father of a family receives rules to walk by, and to order his children, it is reasonable that they should submit. Now the bond of the covenant was given as the standing rule of the house, to Abraham as the Church-Father of all covenanting believers, both Jews and Gentiles, Rom 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Gal. 4.28. And therefore if he had a command to in-church his seed whilst Infants, Gen. 17 9, 10. and to give them the token of the covenant in their generations; then look what token or seal God shall affix to his covenant, either of circumcision then, or baptism now; it is and aught to be obliging to all his seed to a thousand generations, Psal. 105.8. till Christ shall remove it; and had not the example of Abraham as a father been binding to the seed, the Apostle would not have turned the Christian Churches of the Gentiles to look upon Abraham, thereby to rectify their mistakes in doctrines of faith, Ro. 4 1, 2: 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 24. c. 11, 16, 2● Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9, so that it is apa●ent that what command was given to Abraham as a father, in the sense beforementioned, is in force to all his children: that Objection therefore is null:— Having laid down these things to be duly weighed, I shall pass over many pages which he hath written to such as are against all baptism, and shall g●ve him a meeting in t'other side.  
P. Pag. 160. But some will say they are not drawn forth by a divine power to embrace it, though convinced, to which M. P. answers, that where God gives grace, there he doth give a power to submit to all his ways, and so to this of plunging.  
A. 'tis an undoubted truth, that as God gives grace, he gives power, yet God's grace doth not lead man to destroy nature; therefore when he comes to apply, he abuses the Scripture; it hath been before proved, that dipping is not the way of Scripture-baptism. Consider 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. and compare it with the history: was Israel plunged in the Red-Sea? the opposers dare not say it if they have any Conscience. And yet Paul tells us they were baptised, and David in the place before quoted tells us, how the clouds poured forth water: the like appears from Act. 1.3. ch. 2.17. with Joel 2. compared, 'tis clear that baptism was by pouring out water: to intrude such a destructive practice is therefore against the Apostolical interpretation of the word, and against the very light of divine or humane reason: for shall we think that he that bids us put on as the beloved of God, bowels of mercy, and tenderness, should be so hard a master, to command us in the most sharpest seasons to be ducked; yea, an action that cannot be done in many Countries? for shame, harden not your hearts against truth any longer, and be of a more tender hearted spirit to poor deluded Christians; and do you that fear the Lord, remember that you do not abuse your power God hath given; to such licentious practice, that would ruin the very foundations of the Gospel.  
P. p. 164. Doth acknowledge there may be good people not of his opinion, yet they are not to be looked upon as a Church, unless they will be dipped.  
A. He hath before called us such as offer up our children to devils, and can he have so much charity to judge such good people? these are but terms of insinuations to gain the more upon such good people to bring them into his strain of discipleship. He brings us again, the example of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailor, and then tells us the Church of Samaria was gathered by faith and dipping: and to practise o herwise, is contrary to Christ and the Apostles. All which is before proved false, and there is not a word in the Scriptures that saith as M. P. doth, that the Church mentioned was gathered by dipping: yea so to practice and apply it as he doth is to adulterate, and so destroy the Ordinance. Away therefore with such stuff, 'tis abominable: it is likely, is it not; that Peter could stand a whole day in a River, to plunge 3000 souls, or that Lydia should be ducked, before she went home? or that the Jailor should be plunged in a deep River at midnight? were Jesus Christ preached to the Turks or Pagans, upon these terms, by some of those dippers, or to the Jews, upon their embracing the faith, it is the way to harden their hearts against the truth.—  
P. p. 172, 173. He persuades Christians it is a sin to neglect plunging, and if they have truly repent, they will be drawn to practise all the commands of God, and this amongst the rest; or else they cannot be admitted as persons that have repent at all.  
A. We may here see the mystery of iniquity in its workings: It must Lord it in the Conscience, or else it cannot stand: thus did those Circumcision-preachers, Act. 15. there was no salvation without it, as here, there is no repentance tr●e without dipping, it is a sin to neglect it, Christians look to your Consciences, keep out such false-teachers, who bring upon you greater burdens than Circumcision ever was, Christ's house will have no such washings, and if you once let them into your Conscience, possession will be soon lost.  
P. p. 174. But some will say they were baptised in their infancy, and shall such be kept out that are good people? To which he answers, that though many are good, yet they live in a sin, though it be a sin of ignorance to them; for otherwise they could not be Christians. But however the Church knows it to be a sin, therefore they ought to be kept out; and if any such be in, that baptise their children, they ought to be cast out.—  
A. The Reader may still see his censorious spirit, wherein he flies in the face of all the Ministers of Christ, wounding their credit and esteem in the hearts of Christians. For whosoever doth knowingly oppose their dipping, and not ignorantly, cannot be gracious, so that either the Ministry must be ignorant, or graceless. And that their Church knows it to be a sin, and therefore aught to keep out, and cast out such as practise it.  
A. I hope you shall have no cause to threaten such with casting out: and if you speak in the name of all the Anabaptists, when you say the Church knows it to be a sin, I must then needs say they are as ignorant as yourself, though it is hard so to be.—  
P. In p. 176. he useth another way to make us yield up to his practice, and answers an Objection that some do make, that though it be an Ordinance, yet many do rest in it: and therefore its better not to practise it: he grants that many do rest in them, yet he would admonish all those that fear God to be conformable, so was Paul Gal. 1.16 so was Peter, when Christ bids him let down his net, so was Abraham in sacrificing his son; he disputed not, and therefore he would have Christians suck in this as a maxim, never to dispute a command, and so he concludes his whole with Phil. 2, 12: Do all things without murmur and dispute.  
A. We are now drawing to an end, in all which we may see how many ways, and wiles the Tempter hath, to get within us; he useth his weapons every way, and comes so high now, that it is a sin against Conscience to dispute it, and it must be sucked down as a maxim, which I could easily grant, if it could be proved that either the subject, or manner were commanded as it is by him practised. But he that so sucks it in, had as good suck down Ratsbane. The instances brought are of such who had a clear command, for what they did from Christ himself, hold forth therein nothing relating to dipping. In fine we may say of his whole book, it is nothing else but a lump of error, and bitter revile against the ways of God, and Ministry of his word, wherein he hath dealt like those unfaithful spies, that went to view the Land of promise, who by the ill reports he makes, disturbs the multitude, and sets them a murmuring against God's Joshuas; that so his people may either retreat back to Egypt, or run into Babylon. His charge against us appears to be false, the truth is cleared from the contempt and reproach cast upon it. Reader, I shall therefore commit thee to the grace & keeping of our L. Jesus Christ. And as for such who turn aside to their wicked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity. But peace shall be upon Israel, Psal. 125.5.   
FINIS.