BEcause that of CHAMIERUS is acknowledged, Sacramentorum nulla necessitas nisi ex iustitutione Divina; There is no necessitie of the Sacrament, but by Divine Institution: Some therefore obser­ving how Christs institution of Baptisme, Matth. 28. Mark. 16. yeildeth no foundation for the Dip­ping of Infants, but imployeth an absolute prohi­bition of any such practice; whereby the Ordinance is prophaned in a prodigall abuse, without, and against the will of the Testatour; and have ceased upon that Law of Circumci­sion, Gē. 17.10.11 (which is stiled elsewhere in the Law of Moses, Joh. 7.23.) as the best foundation for besprinkling of Babes, in an Apish imitation of that Gospel-dipping, which was instituted by our Saviour, for the more effectuall ingrafting of Believers into his own death: And the rather do they fasten upon it; Because finding it to be a seal of that Promise which was made to Abra­ham and his seed, and denying that Promise to be a Covenant of Grace and remission of sins, they conclude it belongs in like manner, to all Believers of the Gentiles, and to their children; who are to have the same Seal unto them by Baptisme (as they call it) which came in the Rome of Circumcision, as they contend. To this purpose, Blake pag. 14. viz. Upon this ground, In­fants under the Law were to be circumcised, and upon the same ground, are Infants now to be baptized, &c. Again, what can Baptisme signe and seal, but the righteousnesse of Faith? This Circumcision did signe and seal to Abra­ham and his posteritie, &c.

[Page 2]So CHIDLEY. Baptisme being come in the room, &c. Sealeth up one and the same Covenant of life: And therefore as Circumcision, &c. so Baptism is to be administred upon Infants of Believers. Chidley pag. 39. If therefore it be proved that Circumcision did not seal the promise or Covenant of Grace, and Remission of sins; then this their foundation is very false and phanta­sticall.

Argu∣ment. 1 That Seal or Sacrament (as they call it) which by its institution and the na­ture of it, was not to be administred to some within the Covenant of Grace, and yet necessarily to be administred unto others, who were known not to be within the covenant of Grace; That cannot be the Seal of the covenant of Grace, and Remission of sins: But this Sacrament of Circumcision was such, &c. viz. Not to be administred to some evidently within the Covenant of Grace, as to LOT, 2 Pet. 2.7, 8. And yet necessarily to be administred to others who were not within the covenant of Grace, and known to be so, as to Ishmael, &c. Joh. 5.6, 7, 8. Jer. 7.25, 26. Therefore Circumcision can­not be the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and Remission of sins.

Arg. 2 That Seal or Covenant which is in the flesh, and belongeth and must needs be administred to all the seed of the flesh; whether they be Infants, or men of age, holy, or apparantly prophane, knowing, or ignorant, that cannot be a Seal of Grace and Remission of sins, which belongeth and is to be administred to Be­lievers onely, Acts 10.43. with Acts 8.37. If thou believest with all thine heart, it is lawfull for thee to be dipped, else not: But this Seal of Circum­cision is altogether such, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. with Joh. 5. 6, 7. And therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of Grace and Remission of sins, which belongeth and is onely to be administred to Believers. Gal. 38.9. Gen. 12.3. Acts 10.43. with Acts 8.37.

Arg. 3 That which bindeth unto the Law, and becommeth altogether unprofita­ble in a man, not keeping of the Law, that can never be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptisme; which confirmeth unto Believers, their justification from all sinne, Acts 22.16. By a mysteriall burying of them into the death of Christ, Rom. 6.4, 6, 7. with Col. 2.12, 13. According to the tenour of the New Covenant, Heb. 8.12. Jer. 31. Whereby Believers onely are justified and delivered from the Law, Acts 13.39. Rom. 7.4.6.

But Circumcision bindeth unto the Law, Gal. 5.3. And becommeth alto­gether unprofitable in a man not keeping the Law, Rom. 2.25. Therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptisme; which apparantly discovereth all such Obligations and conditions: As appeareth by Pauls Epistles, exhorting unto duty from the benefit received; but never ur­ging to the keeping of the Law, as a condition necessarily required; that we may hold or reap the benefit of the Covenant. The proposition will appear [Page 3]more cleerly, if you examine Acts 13.39. Where any Idiot may observe, that if Circumcision had sealed the same promise of Grace and Remission of sins, whereby all that believe are justified (as Dipping doth) then that asser­tion of the Apostle had been false; viz. From which ye could not be justified from the Law of Moses: For seeing they were circumcised by the authoritie of that Law, Joh. 7.23. It must needs follow (according unto these men) that by the true sence and right use of Circumcision, they might have been thereby justified, as well as by faith in that Gospell-promise, which there he largely openeth, Acts 13.32, 33.38. Forasmuch as the Righteousnesse of God had been revealed in both, for the salvation of every Believer; as Paul speaketh, Rom. 1.16, 17.

Arg 4 If Circumcision had been a Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and remis­sion of sinnes, whereby Baptisme is; then the Apostle cannot be free from the bloud of all men, Acts 20.26. No not of the Jewes or those Gentiles, who were intangled, for want of a Right understanding in that particular. For as much as he never once declareth either to Jews or Gentils, how circumcision was an old Seal of the same Covenant of Grace, which is now opened unto all, and abolished only by the introduction of dipping, a new ordinance insti­tuted by Christ, for to confirm the new Covenant unto believers.

But the Apostle would not call God to record a lie, Acts 22.26. And yet he never declareth this either to Jews or Gentiles. And therefore it can be no Seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins.

It may be, some jugling Artist, will endeavour to deny the latter part of the Assumption; by assuring the contrary by Col. 2.11, 12.

The Apostle doth not there so much as once intimate,Answer. that Circumcision was an old Seal of the Covenant of Grace or that Baptisme came in the Rome of it: But his scope is, to arm them against the undermining of Philosophy, or worldly Elements, vers. 8. Whereof Circumcision is one, Gal. 4.3. And this he doth, by shewing how compleat and perfect they were in Christ, vers. 9, 10. So that they needed not to run once to any rudiments of the world, for their further perfection; seeing they had the body and substance of all these sha­dowes, by being buried by Dipping into the death of Christ, vers. 12, 13, 14. 16, 17.19, 20, 21. Now what consequence is there, to say; Believers being buried with Christ by Dipping, have the very substance of all which was in any wise signified, or represented by Jewish shadows; And therfore are there­by exempted from all such Ordinances, concerning meat, drink, or holy­dayes, &c. vers. 14.20. Ergo, These shadowes did seal the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins, to all that were under them: Which is most false. For divers things under the Law have been significant, which yet did not seal the Covenant of Grace to any soul in particular. And for Circumcision, [Page 4]though the Apostle here, vers. 11. As the Prophet elsewhere, Jer. 4.4. In doctrine or exhortation, have used such a spirituall Allegory, as alludeth to the carnall right; yet neither of them (I think) do speak of the carnall right as a proper signe peculiarly instituted, to signifie the spirituall Circumcision: And though it were declared a signe, that God doth circumcise our hearts (as you see the Sabbath in a sence little different, Ezek. 20.20) yet that doth not prove it a Seal of that Covenant of Grace, whereby our hearts come to be cir­cumcised, with the Circumcision made without hands, Jer. 31.33, 34. As Dipping is declared to be, &c. But the next will make this more evident.

Arg. 5 If the Apostles in so divers Epistles, and upon so many occasions, have alwaies inculcated, the enmitie of it as contrary to the Covenant of Free Grace and Remission of sins, absolutely asserting the nullity of it, without any taxing of the abuse, or any kinde of Remonstrance concerning the ancient Right use, or the abolition of it, by the new Ordinance of Dipping, now instituted in­stead thereof, then certainly the Apostle knew it to be no Seal of the Cove­vant of Grace, nor would have any to conceit it so; having ministred nei­ther matter nor occasion, to such erroneous imaginations.

But the Apostle hath constantly inculcated it, enmity to the Covenant of Free-Grace, &c. Phil. 3.2. With Gal. 5.2. With chap. 2. vers. 3, 4. The nullity of it also, &c. Gal. 6.15. 1 Cor. 7.19. Without any insinuation of its ancient right use, &c. Ergo, it was never any Seal of the Covenant of Free Grace and Remission of sins, &c.

Arg. 6 That which maketh the Spirit of God, to proceed against the Universall Law of Nature, must needs be a forced Covenant, and no true tenent. But this opinion maketh the Spirit of God to proceed contrary to the, &c. there­fore this must needs be a forced Covenant, no true tenent. The proposition is proved, from Heb. 7.11. If therefore perfection were by the Leviticall Priest­hood, &c. What needed there another Priest to arise, after the Order of Mel­chisedech, &c. Not be called after the Order of Aron; where he taketh it for granted, that in such matters, even God himself multiplieth nothing without necessitie.

The Assumption is as evident.Assump. For if Circumcision were a Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and remission of sins, to all Believers and their Infants; (which Dipping confirmeth to those who rightly receive it: Then what nee­ded those who had the Covenant of Grace already sealed unto them by Cir­cumcision, but especially their Infants (as those fond opinionists do ground­lesly affirm) be sealed again by Dipping, or Baptizing, seeing the former Seal left a visible or practicall signe and Character in the flesh? Whereas the latter of Baptisme, leaveth no impression at all, but proveth unto Infants an unpro­fitable Seal, being unto them afterwards a thing much more uncertain, then [Page 5]the promise it sealeth; nay why did not Peter represent unto those nricked penitenciaries, Acts 2.7. The right use of the old seale for their present consolation, but peremptorily point them to the use of a new seal, without acquainting them at all with any abolition of the old; had they been seales of one and the same Covenant, even one and the same Sacra­ment, but only for change of the Element, as some with sottish confidence do averre, then how could he without rashnesse in such a trouble of their spirits, urge them unto a needles innovation? Nay how did he so slight the former, as to take no notice of both their confines, nor make them per­ceive the passage from the one to the other, but simply sway their consci­ence before he dye, settle or satisfie their judgements.

Arg. 7 If the Spirit of God use the promise of grace and remission of sinnes, Gen. 12.3. As the best argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circum­cision and the practise of i [...], then that promise of blessednesse by remission of sin [...], Gen. 12.3. Is farre different from that Covenant of Gen. 17, 7, 8. Which was sealed by circumcision, vers. 9, 10, 11. (the reason of this proposition is) for els the false teachers might have replied, that we do not overthrow the Gospell which you preach, but only continue the use of the old seale. And therefore you alledge against us, the 12. of Gen. little to the purpose, as if we could conceit, that the promise, which was sealed by circumsition to Abraham and his seed, should now abrogate the use of Circumcission, whereby it was sealed, and upon this erronions sup­posall, that the Covenant of Gen. 17. sealed by Circumcision was all one with Gen. 12.3. The Apostle had not omitted (according to his duty and usuall Custome, 2 Tim. 25. (Cor. 9.19) By gentle remonstrance, to give them full satisfaction, concerning the abolition of the old seale, and the introduction of the new, without any such passionate clamour against the use of circumcision as pernitious, and destructive to the Gospell which he taught Gall. 2, 17, 18. with Gall. 5.10.

But the spirit doth use the promise of Grace and remission of sins as the best argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circumcision and the practise of it, as doth appeare by Pauls argument,Assum. Gal. 3 8, 9, 10. 13, 14. with Gen. 12.3. His argument is thus, if the free promise of blessing by remission of sinnes be received by faith, then the practise of Circumcision is pernitious, which by binding unto the Law, Gall. 5.3. Bringeth under the curse, Gall. 3.10. To which those our opinionists would have repli­ed; No Paul, not so, for we hold circumcision to bee or to have beeen, a seale of that blessing or righteousnesse, which is by saith: And if so; then ought Paul to have shewed the abolition, and not to have so manifestly impunged the very nature and condition of it, as pernitiously opposite to [Page 6]the very Gospell-promise every where; so that he maketh that of Gen. 22.18. To be an argument also against the doctrine, and use of Circumcision, as the understanding may observe from Gall. 3.16.18.25. with Cor. 4.3.

Ergo, the promise of bless [...]dness [...] by remission of sinnes. Gen. 12.3. Is farre different from that Covenant of Gen. 17.7.8. Which was sealed by Circumcision.

Arg. 8 That which maketh the Kingdome of heaven to bee, and to have been holden in fee-taile by Abraham and his seed, and now by the faithfull and their seed, is false against the Scripture: but this opinion maketh even the spirituall blessings Ephes. 1.3. to be holden in fee-taile by &c. therefore it is a false Commandement against the Scripture, the proposition is proved.

1 First, because the Scripture speaketh only of two generations, the one naturall, and therefore gendreth unto wrath: Ephes. 2.12.3. The other spiriruall and ungendreth to the Kingdome. Iohn 3.5. And therefore rejecteth the former altogether, as no way intituling to the inheritance, though one be borne of the bloud of Abraham, Iohn 1.12.13. Neither will it availe them to say as Mr. Perkin [...] on Gal. 2. That a man is two wayes considerable either as a sonne of Adam and so he begetteth Children of wrath, or as a believer, and so his faith intitleth his seed also to the same heavenly inheritance, by vertue of the promise. Gen. 17.

No man doth beget children as a believer,Answ. for then every believer even the Eunuch. Acts 8. Should have done so, but man propagate [...] only as the sonne of Adam, and if this promise concerne believers as begetting Children. Then though the Children be unlawfully begotten, even bas­tard borne, to no earthly Inheritance, by our common Law▪ yet through their parents Faith, and the promise they are borne to, an heavenly Inhe­ritance, from the which they cannot fall but by actuall infidelity or diso­bedience, and so stand in no need of the se [...]le especially of Baptisme, which is mearely theoreticall or doctrinall in the very form and Circum­stance of it, till they be able to understand, to say nothing that this con­tradicteth the very text Rom. 9 8. Where he maketh a spirituall use of that tipicall singling out the seed of Isack. for the land of Canaan, viz. the Children of the fl [...]sh are not the Children of God, except they be by the word of promise begotten spiritually, as Isack was by promise borne carnally Gall. 4.28, 29 Neither can any with colour of reason contend, that God by his Testament thus bequeatheth and sealleth this blessing un­to them that they shall admit and receive with consent unto all thank­full [Page 7]acknowledgement and return, then it is theirs till they doe reject it; and by consequence, the spirituall blessing discend upon the seed of the Faith [...]ull, dying before yeares of discretion, after the manner of temporall lands holden in a Fee-taile.

That which raiseth the preferment of the Jew far above the spirits in­timation, answering to th [...] very question concerning the profit of Circum­cision:Arg. 9 that must ne [...]ds be a false and erronious conception forced upon the Scripture. Bu [...] to m [...]ke it a seal of the Covenant of Grace and Re­mission of sins, [...]s to raise the preferment of the Jew by nature, far above the spirits intimation answering to the question. For Rom. 3. v. 1.2. Up­on the questio [...] of the Iewes advantage, and the profit of of Circumcision, he replyeth [...]hat the chiefe advantage is, that unto them were committed the O [...]acles of God, which is a great priviledge, and a singular prefer­ment, a David himselfe con [...]esseth: Psal. 147.19, 20. by which meanes also the fi [...]t proffer of Grace was made unto them, Luke 24.46, 47. with Act. 13.46. But all this doth not to the born Iewes seal the Covenant of Grace, no more then our having of the Scriptures, doth seal Remission of sins to every soul now born in England; whereas the advantage of the Iew, and p [...]ofi [...] of Circumcision, by this opinion should have been incompa­rab [...]e; and not to be paralleld by any outward privildge: in that all born Iewes dying before the same or after Circumcision, were deified and assu­redly saved. And so that which the Scripture hath hid in God with some ap­parance of the generall hope for consolation of parents, should have been confirmed unto them by particular assurance.

Therefore this opinion must needs be a false and erronious conception forced upon the Scripture, &c.

Arg. 10 If Circumc [...]sion be a seal of the Covenant of Grace, then the Covenant of G [...]ace is not a Testament bequeathing benefit only to all who by Faith admit and rec [...]ive the same, but is a part or burthensome compact hang­ing upon some actuall conditions, absolutely required: in the not doing or performance whereof, the Covenant becometh voyd and disanulled to both the parties concerned, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. in that Co­venant. And by this reason, if Pauls beleiving wife have an Idolatrous husband, which will not suffer the Infants to be dipped, the Covenant of Grace is disanulled to them both: And whether shee ought to kill her child, let them determine, who plead for bloody violence to be inflicted on some by the au [...]hrity of Moses his Testament Pact. But the Covenant of Grace is no such, but a meer Testament, bequeathing freely matter of benefit, to all who receive; and admit it by Faith only: Therefore Circum­cision cannot be a seal of that Covenant of Grace.

[Page 8]That which necessarily imployeth falling from Grace,Argum. these men can­not deny to be a false and wicked opinion.

But this conceit,Assump. &c. necessarily implyeth falling from grace; for ei­ther it belongeth to them in generall, viz. If they will beleive it, and so the promise of remission of sins belongeth to every man alive, Mark 16.15. or it appertaineth to them and their children in speciall: till by actuall unbeleise, and disobedience, they fall away and reject it. And so if there be no falling away, all their nation as well as ours, must needs have been saved. Ergo, these men cannot deny it to be a false wicked opinion, Rom. 9.27. The assumption is more evident amongst us, where all are dipped, by vertue of that Covenant, Gen. 17. because they are Abrahams seed; which yet they cannot be, except they be born christians: Gal. 3.29. neither young nor old can be Abrahams seeds, except they be Christs first.

If the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins was never intailed up­on any man and his seed,Arg. 12 but in the whole nature and condition of it, rela­ting unto faith only in the partakers; then Circumcision can be no seal of that Covenant of Grace.

But antecedent,Assump. if true that the Covenant of Grace was never intayled, &c. seeing it alwayes relateth unto faith only in all partakers, Gen. 12.3. with Gal. 3.8, 9. Heb. 4. Acts 27.17, 18. Rom. 3.25. Rom. 4.22, 23.24. Heb. 3.14. Now by these mens fantasie, they were made partakers of Christ by Jewish generation, and circumcision; as their own Infants are supposed to be by birth and baptisme: whereas the Scriptures witnesses, no promise of Grace and Remission of sins, but only to the personall be­leivers.

If here any object,Acts 10.43. Acts 2.39.

I answer, that only concerneth the promise of the spirit; which was re­vealed by Joel, cap. 2.28. and doth follow the receivall of the Gospell: Ephes. 1.13. Gal. 3.14. as shall be plainly and clearly proved to any opposite, though it need no proofe; being evident from Peters whole speech, and the verse preceding the Text: therefore the consequence is true also, that Circumcision could not be a seale of the Covenant of Grace.

First that of Paul, Object. Rom. 4.11. where it is stiled a seal of the righteous­nesse of Faith.

First,Answ. it was not given to strengthen the weaknesse, but to honour the strength of Abrahams Faith. And therefore doth the Apostle, Rom. 4. beat them oft from the use of circumcision, as being nothing but a fleshly badge, bearing witnesse to the spirituall, eminency of Abrahams faith, he [Page 9]being thereby as it were marked out for an exemplary pattern to all be­leevers, as father or chiefe of them.

Those which are but any whit acquainted with the Greek tongue, doe know [...] signifieth an exemplary note to make any man or thing illu­strious, and [...] is used in that sence, to enoble by some especial note, to which purpose that may be pertinent, Iohn 6.27. God the Father is said to seal him, making him illustrious by all manner of testimonies. Now ponder well that this sign was not given to him meerly, because he was faithfull, for then it should have been unto Noah long before, or at the least to Lot now▪ as well as to Abraham; much lesse was it given in any relation to his weaknes▪ seeing that he was so strong that he staggered not: Rom 4.20. and therefore not as a seal to confirm, but as a badge of honour for to credit, as this coherence doth conclude; but though it were a speci­all favour marking out his faith as exemplary, yet its nature and instituti­on sheweth that it confirmeth nothing to him and his seed, but the land of Canaan: Gen. 13.15. with cap. 17.8, 9, 10. and Psalm. 105.11. and Acts 7.5.8. where all may observe it a seal of a covenant concerning an outward blessing, Genes. 28.41. distinct from that Gospell-pro­mise, Genes. 12.3. which is received by Faith onely: Gallathians 1.8.9.14. Genesis 15.5, 6. with Rom. 4.13.18. Gallathians 3.16.19. Now that Circumcision is no seal of the righteousnesse of Faith I will prove it byan unanswerable argument, viz. if Circumcision bea seal of the righteousnesse of Faith in their sence, then the Inheritance commeth as well by the Law, as by the Promise; the reason is, because Circum­cision is nothing: and by consequence no seal at all, except a man keep the Law: Rom. 2.25. 1 Cor. 7.19.

But that the Inheritance should any way come by the Law, as by the Promise, is most contrary to Paul; Romans 4.14. where hee ma­keth all concurrence of the Law inconsistent with Faith, and the Pro­mise, so farre as it concerneth our eternall inheritance. And therefore that sence is blasphemously contradictory to Pauls discourse, and de­structive to the pure doctrine of Iustification; now whereas some have conceited that Circumcision▪ did over and above its ordinary use, seal to the Iewes in generall, that Christ should descend of them or their seed, in whom only Beleevers should be saved, whether they were circumci­sed or nor.

It sealed no such matter at all, so that if there had been no other Gospell-promise besides,Answ. Genesis 17. they must have sought salvation in the Law, and by the Law onely: Gallathians 5.3. 1 Corinth. 7▪19. Acts 15.10. Rom. 2.25. sheweth the perfection of a Beleever, buried [Page 10]by dipping into the death of Christ, unto which by Circumcision they could not aspire unto. The reason of Chamieras, as is most unworthy the wit and judgment of so learned and voluminous a writer, for (quoth he) that Covenant whereby God promiseth to be a God to them and their seed, must needs be a covenant of grace and remission of sins, because, (as he thinketh) God cannot be so but in Christ only.

It is apparantly false,Answ. Psal 50.1.8.9. there being divers relations where­by God is stiled the God of people, besides that of remission of sinnes through Christ. Thus he is stiled the God of the spirit of all flesh. Numb. 16.22. And as he is stiled the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim. 4.10 so why not the God of all men, though not by remission of sins in Christ but meerely in relation [...]o some other of his works or attributes; especially by this ty­p [...]call relation wherein he so often calleth them his people, when they were his enemies: and hee giving out the bill of divorce against them. Hos. 4.6. with Mich. 6.3, 4, 5. And had not his outward covenant in some sence intitled them unto God, they could have been no figure fit for ensample to the antitype, even the true Israel of God under the new Te­stament: Gal. 6.16. Pet 2.9. 1 Cor. 10.6.11. with Jer. 13.11. where you may note also that those who would make circumcision a figure of dip­ping, gaine nothing by it for be▪ sprinkling of Babies; for then it will fol­low, that as none were to be circumcised, but the seed of Abraham; with Srangers, Prosel [...]es, and Slaves b [...]nght with mony: so none are to bee dipped but those who beleive the doctrine of the Gospell, Mark 16.17. or else prosesse the same Faith. And as the seed of Isaack and of Iacob on­ly were called to inhe [...]t in Canaan, so those only who have beleived through grace, Acts 18.27. as the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. and not such as Si­mon Maguc, Acts 8 13. who counterfeit the same confession, shall inhe­rit the heavenly Canaan. I hope the godly wise will conceive, that though the Covenant were the same, and the Sacrament also; but only for change of the Element (as the Baby sp [...]inklers bear people in hand) so authori­zing the prophane abominable abuse of Zaedobiprisme, by the command for circumcision; yet upon that c [...]nceit (if it were granted) no such conclusi­on can truly be drawn to the absolute dishonour of Christ, and contradicti­on of his express Will and Testament. But that foundation being rotten and false, then all the building must fall. And I doubt not but all men of appre­hension will easily discern from the precedent arguments, how the Apo­stle in all his disputations against circumcision yieldeth it. And by conse­quence that covenant of Genesis the 17. As a priviledge pecultar to the naturall seed of Abraham, Rom. 2.17 25. the chiesest profit whereof was their, being born and bred under the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.1.2.

[Page 11]But that spirituall (so different from the carnall) Gen. 17. Acts 7. Cove­nant of blessing or righteousnesse by remission of sins, Gen. 12.3. with cap. 15.6. Paul alleadgeth and proveth promiscuously, or without diffe­rence, Rom. 3.21, 22, 23, 24, 25. appertaining unto the uncircumcised also, Rom, 4.3.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. wherein he leaveth Abraham no seed but spirituall, Gal 3.7, 8.29. acknowledging neither naturall Jew nor sonne of Abraham, but only those who are made so by the will of God through the word of truth, Iohn 1.12, 13. with Iames 1.10. compa­red with Rom. 2.28, 29. Luk. 19.9. And as the Scripture vehemently rejecteth all concurrence of works in Iustification so doth it as plainly ab­tenounce all Birth priviledge: Iohn 1.13. Eph. 2. Iohn 3.5.6. as no way intitling to, much lesse in eressing in the benefit of the covenant of grace, or promise of salvation. Now to convince any considerate man of this, there is one or two argument truly, a Podescticall and as unanswerable as any of the former.

Arg. 13 That which by its own nature and use was an intollerable yoak both to the Iewes and to their fore fathers, that could never in its true nature and use be a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith, or of the covenant of grace, or remission of sinnes.

The undeniable reason of this Proposition is, from a principall granted by all, who have any light either of naturall reason or dialect call learning; oppotsia non possunt eidem attribui, secundum idem, ad idem, codem tem­pore; things opposite: viz. to seale righteousnesse and forgivenesse of sinnes, and to bind unto the Law, Gal. 5.3. can never bee attributed to one and the same thing; as namely circumcision, Secundem eidem: in respect of one and the same part, viz. the spirit or conscience; ad idem: in relation to one and the same persons, they are therefore Fathers, eodem. tempore at one and the same time; whether after the Law, or under it.

But circumcision in its true nature and use,Assunsp. was an intollerable yoak both to the Iewes, and their fore▪ fathers. Acts 15.10. Ergo, it could ne­ver be in its true nature and use, any seal of righteousnesse, or of the cove­nant of grace, or remission of sins; for then it should be matter of benefit, and not matter of burthen, which the Scripture setteth in opposition in­compatible; making them to be really, and essentially different. For what is by its own nature a burthen or bondage to the spirit, is formally diffe­rent from that which is a matter of pu [...]e liberty and benefit to the spirit; as the seale of righteousnesse is, and must alwayes be, Rom. 6.4.14, 15. compared with Rom. 7.1.4.5▪6.

Arg. 14 If the Covenant or Law o [...] ci [...]cumcision were the only thing whereby boasting was occasioned, and that law of Faith (which by dipping is con­firmed [Page 12]to beleevers, the only thing whereby boasting was excluded; then that Covenant of Gen. 17. cannot be the same with that new Testament of grace and remission of sins, whereof Christ is the mediatour, Heb. 8.

For then circumcision should not have occasioned (as Paul granteth) it did,Reason. boasting, but have utterly disanulled all disdain towards the un­circumcised; as the law of faith, and covenant of grace, are declared to doe: Acts 10.15.28. with cap. 15.9. where Peter affirmeth circum­cision to make such a difference, as the law of faith doth destroy, abolish, and disanull; Rom. 3, 27.

But the covenant or law of circumcision,Assump. was the only thing whereby boasting was occasioned, Rom. 2.17.25. with cap. 3 12. and the law of faith the only thing whereby boasting was excluded, Rom. 3, 27. There­fore the covenant of Genesis 17. cannot be the same with that covenant or new Testament, whereof Christ is the Mediatour.

If any object that Christ is called the Minister of circumcision,Object. Ro­mans 15.18.

He was made the servant of circumcision,Answ. when he was made of a wo­man, and so made under the law, Gallathians 4.4, 5. that suffering, Gal­lathians 3, 13. as a cursed sinner by the imputation of our iniquities, he might confirm the truth of God, and the promises made to the Fathers; Genesis 12.3. Acts 13.32. with Hebrewes 9.14, 15. Romans 15.8.

Arg. 15 Those two covenants which differ in the object. Secondly in the mat­matter. Thirdly in the forme. Fourthly in the end. Fiftly in the effect; those are not onely (as some grant) really, but formally and effectually different.

But the covenant of Genesis 17. which is ratified by circumcision,Assump. dif­fereth from that of Ier. 31.33, 34. with Heb. 8.6. which is confirmed to every beleever by Baptisme. Gallathians 3.17, 27. with Isai 42.6. and Acts 2 38 cap. 22 16 First in the object, for that of Genesis 17. respe­cteth the carnall seed in their generations, verse 7 9. But that Genesis 12 13. and Ier. 31 respecteth the spirituall seed only; Gallathians 3.7, 8, 9: Secondly in matter for that of Genesis 17 containeth an outward blessing, concerning the possession of and protection in an earthly inheritance, verse 8. cap. 28.4. Acts 7.5.6. whereas this Covenant of grace, Isa. 42.6. con­taineth spirituall blessings only▪ Ephes. 13. even Remission of sins; Rom. 4.6, 7, 8, 9. the free donation of an undefiled inheritance following upon the same, Acts 26.18. Thirdly in the forme, for that of Gen. 17. is onely Pactum, a certain pact suspended altogether upon a legall duty or condi­tion, exacted under penalty of severe temporall punishment, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 14. whereas this is Testamentum, a Testament bequeathing all be­nefit, [Page 13]Heb. 8.12. but requiring nothing besides faith which it also beget­teth, Acts 26.18. with cap. 18.27.

Fourthly in their ends, for that of Gen. 17. was together a nationall Church, Deut. 4.34. with v. 37. Ier. 13.11. God hath assayed to take un­to a nation, &c. And because he hath loved their Fathers, therefore he hath chosen their seed called the Church in the wildernesse, Acts 7.38. which people were carnally or typically holy, Exod. 19.6. with Esai 9.2. Acts 10.28. appointed to a typicall land which God had espyed out for them, Ezek 20.5, 6. holden under the carnall rites and typicall ordinances imposed on them by way of burthen, till the time of reformation, Heb 9.10. with Gal. 4.9. where circumcision is reckoned as a beggetly Element, that so they might be a type of figure of every true visible Church of Christ under this new Testament, Deut. 7.6. with Eph. 1.3.4.

But the end of this Covenant is to gather visible Churches of Christ, which being begotten by the Gospell, are by dipping entred into the communion of Saints; Holden by any visible society of beleevers meet­ing in one place, as you may see in the Church of Corinth: Chap. 6.11. with cap. 12, 13. and cap. 11, 20. cap. 14.23. the Churches of Galatia which were after the same manner begotten, Galathians 4 26.31. And those who are thus begotten, are by dipping admitted to all the benefits of a visible Communion: Acts 2.41, 42. which visible Churches through the washing of water and the word, become true Antitypes really answerable to the nation of the circumcised: and are, Galathians 6 16 stiled the true Israel of God; yea a chosen Generation, and an holy nation; 1 Pet. 2.9. which being born of the mortall seed, are begotten to an un­defiled inheritance as appeareth from such places, 1 Peter 2.9. with chap­ter 1.23. and 3, 4. Galathians 6.16. Ephesians 5.26, 27. Therefore were they a figurative people full of types for examples to any Church of the Gentiles, which had beleeved through Grace: 1 Corinthians 10 6 with Acts 8.37.

Lastly, they differ in the effect; for that of Genesis 17 depend­ing on circumcision is a beggerly rudiment, Galathians 4.9. which by binding unto the Law, Galathians 5.3. gendereth unto bondage onely, Gallathians 4 25. never yeelding any ability to performe; whereas that of Ieremiah 31 33, 34 is the very same with Galathi­thians 4 26. which following with Grace, gendereth unto Liberty; Galathians 4 31. from all guilt of sinne and legall bondage: Gala­thians 5 1. with Hebrewes 10 15, 16, 17, 18. unto which the Law of Circumcisicion engageth, yea and this ministreth the spi­rit, [Page 14]Gal. 3.8, 9, 14. so that every one to whom this Covenant is confir­med by the Ordinance of dipping according to Christs Will and Testa­ment (Non ponenti obicem, as they say) if he be no hypocrite, then every such person so dipped hath truly put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. is washed from all his sins; justified, and sanctified: Rev. 1.5. with 1 Cor. 6.11. and hath some measure of faith. Rom. 12.3. according to the true tenour of that Covenant, which God who cannot he hath confirmed in Christ; so that where there is a lawfull subject of Baptisme voyd of hypocrisy, there is a Iew in heart and spirit, Rom. 2 29. to whom according to Gods purpose and grace, 2 Timothy 19. all the benefits of the new Covenant are ab­solutely confirmed by dipping, which is therefore truly called the laver of Regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost; Titus 3.5. being al­wayes (except the subject be unlawfull, or an hypocrite) accompanied with renovation of mind, as appeareth from Gal. 3.27, 28. with Col 3 17. But though the subjects of Circumcision be lawful, [...]nd without hypocrisy; yet doth it not make him a Iew, in heart and spirit: much lesse doth it ab­solutely confirme the benefit of the new Covenant unto him, Rom. 2.28. But here we need not require the subject to be without hypocrisy, for the arrantest and most apparent hypocrite of the whole nation was a proper lawfull subject of that Ordinance of Circumcis. Ioh. 5.6, 7, 8. compared with that of Ier. 7.25, 26 Ergo, these 2 Covenants of Gen. 17. Ier. 31. are not only really, as some Sophisters grant and say, but formally & ess [...]ntiall [...] different.

By this last argument any may understand how gross [...]ly they pervert the words of the living God, Ier. 23. even of the Lord Iesus Christ, our only God and Saviour; who would have the Commission of Christ, Matth. 28. Mark 16. to be a continuation of that Covenant, Gen. 17. by which com­mand only the Ministers of Christ have power and authority to besprinkle babes, so blasphemonsly exalting the servant above? his Lord, in making him to supply the effect of Christ Iesus his Testament, by directing to the due administration of the Ordinance of dipping, in the house of him who is the Sonne and only Master; Heb. 3.1, 2, 3.5, 6. where you see verse 5. that Christ was to interpret Moses, but why? or how Moses should tell us the meaning of Christs Testam [...]nt, I could never yet understand. Againe, why did the spirit of Christ which was in Ieremiah, 1 Peter 11, 12▪ tel [...] us of a new Covenant; Ier. 31.33.34. And yet never once insinuate how it was, but a renovation of the old Covenant. Gen. 17. with a little alterati­on in the change of the Element only: viz. dipping for circumcising, up­on which the Apostle Paul never putteth himselfe to businesse: Gal. cap. 1. cap. 2. cap. 3. cap 4. cap. 5. cap. 6.17. Though upon his foolish suppo­sall, it had been the only point requiring his pains for clear proof against the opposite Iewes,

[Page 15]Thirdly, when Christ ascended on high and gave gifts, &c. for the ga­thering or instauration of the Saints: Eph. 4.8.11, 12. By what Spirit, Reason, or dialecticall dreame, can any conclude that the true Ministers of Christ, without and against their Masters commission, vvere obl [...]ged to make Saints by besprinkling the babies of all beleeving Gentiles; by that command of Genesi [...] 17.9, 10. If after examination vve still remain blin­ded by such a ridiculous babble, indeavouring to bury the truth, by shuffe­ling plain things into difficulty. Then shall I cease to vvonder at those vvho are so taken vvith the vain and fantasticall superstitions of Popery, or else be sealed vvith Mahomets fopperies.

The Church of Ephesus [...]s commended, Rev. 2.2. for trying those that say they are Apostles, and are not; oh that our Professours would try their Ministers whether they come in by Scripture rules, and observe Scripture rules and commands: if they doe not they are false Ministers, and lyers against the truth. And to that end let them prove that those doctrines they teach, are the doctrines that Christ and his Apostles taught and practised, or they are other if not contrary; and then see the danger of teaching them, Gal. 1.8, 9. And that Baptisme is a doctrine, see Heb. 6.2. we ought to avoyd those that bring doctrine contrary to that received from Christ and his Apostles, Rom. 16.17.18. we are to contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude verse 3. Christ bids teach and baptize, Matth. 28.19. They will baptize, and then teach. Christ saith, he that beleiveth and is baptized, Mark 16.16. They will baptize and then make them beleeveyrs if they can. Christ saith, teaching them to observe what­soever I command; Matth. 28.20. They will observe what is right in their own eyes, Philip saith to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized of him, if thou beleivest, thou maist; Acts 8.37. So faith is required of those that are to be baptized which children cannot have in an ordinary way: Rom. 10. 14.17. Now children are not capable of being wrought upon by the word, and for any secret work, secret things belong to God, but things re­vealed to us and our children.

See 2 Epist. John v 7. and from v 5.10. v. 11. who now is an Antechrist? the Papists as well as we confesse Christ to become in the flesh, who then deny it? they that doe not set up Iesus the Christ K [...]ng, Priest, and Prophet of his Church; will not be ruled by his lawes, submit not to his teaching, make him not the only Priest and sacrifice, these deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and therein are Antichristian. 1 Iohn 4.3. The Papists deny him in his Priestly office, and I wish too many o [...]hers doe not in his Propheti­call and Kingly office; see the danger of it, Deut. 18.18, 19 Acts 3.23. Luke 19.17, It is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God, Heb. 12.29.

[Page 16]Oh that the Lord would perswade his people to search the Scriptures diligently, that they may not hang their religion upon any creature so long as I did, least they smart so severely for it as I have done; for he will not only render vengeance to them that know him not, but to them which obey him not; 2 Thessalonians 18. The Lord in mercy awaken his people for Christ his sake, AMEN.

Arg. 1 That which makes the Traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God, ought in no wise to be; Matthew 15 6 Mark 7 7. But the Baptisme of Infants, thoug of beleeving parents doth so, Ergo, That ought not to be; The Minor is thus provided: That which is an action of Religion performed, and not one jot or tittle of the word requiring the same, that makes the traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God: but the Baptisme of Infants, though of beleevers, is an action of Religion supposed to be performed, and not one jot or title of the word requiring the same: Ergo, the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers, makes the traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God, and consequently ought in no wise to be.

Arg. 3 Every affirmative command of Christ hath its negative, so that who­soever Christ hath commanded to be baptized ought so to be, and if o [...]hers prohibited: but the affirmative command of Christ to his Apostles, Mat. 28.18. in that they should teach all nations baptizing them, (that is those that are taught) by themselves, or some other: Ergo, The Apostles were prohibited from baptizing any that were not first taught, if the Apostles were prohibited in the negative of Christs command touching Baptisme from baptizing, any that were not first taught either by themselves or others, then ought not the infants no not of beleevers, to be baptized, because the Apostles or other Ministers could not, nor cannot know them to be so taught in their infancie; seeing they make no profession of faith and repentance. But the Apostles were prohibited from baptiz [...]ng any that were not first taught, either by themselves, or other▪ in the negative of Christs command touching Baptisme, by consequence of the former argument: Ergo, The infants though of beleevers, ought not to be bap­tized.

Arg 3 That which overthrowes the nature of the Covenant of Grace, ought in no wise to bee: But the baptisme of infants, though of belee­vers, doth so: Ergo, the Baptisme of infants ought in no wise to be. The proof the minor. That which is administred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of Grace without Faith in the person so interested that over­throwes the nature of the covenant of grace, because persons have interest therein no otherwise then by Faith, Romans 4.16. Galla­thians [Page 17]3.9.29. any thing else concluded so, makes the promise or cove­nant void, Rom. 4.14. Gal. 3.18 But the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers, is administred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of grace; without faith in the person so interested, (viz the faith of their parents) Ergo, The Baptisme of infants, (though of beleevers) overthrowes the na­ture of the covenant of grace, and consequently ought in no wise to be.

Arg. 4 That which overthrows the nature of Christs true visible Church, ought in no wise to be. But the Baptism of infants, though of beleevers doth so. Ergo, it ought in no wise to be. If the matter of the church be only regenerat persons, and the matter of the visible Church such only as appeare so by the profes­sion of faith and repentance, then to baptize infants; is to contradict this, and to overthrow the nature thereof; seeing they are borne in sinne and make no appearance to the contrary: but that they so remain. But the matter of the Church are onely regenerate persons, Iohn 3.3.5. and the matter of the visible Church only such as appeare so by the profession of faith and repentance, as all the Epistles of Paul written to the Churches doe prove: Rom. 8.15. 1 Cor. 4.15. as these instances instead of many doe make it appear. Therefore to baptize infants (though of beleevers) is to overthrow the nature thereof, and consequently ought in no wise to be.

Arg. 5 That which makes Religion subsist in the deed done now in the time of the Gospell, ought in no wise to be, Phil. 3.3. Iohn 4.23.24. But the Baptisme of infants, though of beleevers doth so, Ergo, it ought in no wise to be The minor is thus proved: That which is an action of Religion done, and no faith in the person of the doer, required in the doing of that thing, that makes Religion to subsist in the deed done; but the Baptisme of infants, though of beleevers, is an action of Religion performed, and no faith required in the person of the doer, in the doing of that thing: Ergo, the Baptisme of infants, though of beleevers, makes Religion to subsist in the deed done in the time of the Gospell, and consequently ought in no wise to be.

Arg. 6 That which reviveth Iudaisme, and so denieth Christ to bee come in the flesh, ought in no wise to be; 1 Iohn 4.3. 2 Iohn 7. But the Bap­tisme of Infants, though of beleevers doth so, therefore, &c. The second Proposition proved thus.

That practice which is grounded upon the typicall seed, which ty­ped out Christ the true promised seed, and ceased at his coming: [...]hat practice now in respect of the ground of that practice, reviveth Iudaisme in the Type, and denieth Christ the truth of the type, to become in the flesh. But the Baptisme of infants, though of beleevers is grounded upon the typicall seed which typed out Christ the true promised seed, and ceased [Page 18]at his coming, Gal. 3.16.19. Therefore that being practised, now revi­veth Iudaisme in the type, and denyeth Christ the truth of the type to become in the flesh, and consequently ought in no wise to be.

Arg. 7 That which makes the world and the Church all one, and confounds the distinction that ought to be betwixt them, ought in no wise to be, Col. 4.5. 1 Pet. 2.12. Col. 2.20 2 Cor. 6.14. But the baptisme of Infants though of beleevers doth so: therefore it ought not to be. The second proposition is thus proved, those which administer the speciall privi­ledge, the Ordinance of entring persons into the Church, from common causes which doe belong to the world, as well as to the Church, doe make the world and the Church all one, and confound the distinction that ought to bee betwixt them. But to baptize infan [...]s though of belee­vers, is to administer the speciall priviledge, the ordinance of entering persons into the Church, from common cause which doe belong to the world, as well as to the Church; (to wit) the generall offer of promise, Matth. 28.18. Acts 2.39 which is to be offered to every man and woman in the world, Mark 16.15. or else the being borne of beleeving parents, which agrees to Ismael and Esau as well as to Isaack and Iacob; and all in this respect being bu [...] flesh, born in sin and children of wrath, Iohn 3.6. Psal. 51.3. Eph. 2.3. Therefore to baptize infants, though of beleevers, is to make the world and the Church all one, and confounds the distincti­on that ought to be betwixt them, and consequently ought not to be.

But circumcision,Object. the ordinance of entring persons into the Iewish Church, was administred upon persons from the s [...]me common cause a­bove, mentioned; and yet it did not make that Church and the world all one, nor yet confound the distinction that was betwixt them, and the world, therefore the consequence doth not follow.

The Church of the Iewes did not differ from the world,Answ. in the same causes that the christian Church doth: for they were a nation separated and set apart by God by the covenant of circumcision, Acts 7.8. from all other nations; to worship at Ierusalem, Deut. 7 6, 7, 8. and 12.6.13.14. Iohn 4.20. But the christian Church are part of the same nation, begot­ten and born by the immortall seed the word and spirit of God, Iohn 3.3.5. Iames 1.18. 1 Pet. 1.23. to the saith of the truth. Rom. 11.20. Gal. 3.26. by which only they have right to baptisme, Acts 8.37. and 10.47. and 11.17. and are to shine as lights before the world in the places where they live, Ph. 2.15.16. 1 Pet. 2.12. And hence it followeth, that although circumcision according to Gods command, did from such common causes enter persons into the Church, and yet did not confound the distinction, they being a distinct nation from the rest of the world; yet, if persons of the [Page 19]same nation without any command from God be baptized, and thereby entered into the Church from common causes belonging to the world, such as are above mentioned: That necessarily makes the Church and the world all one and confounds the distinction that ought to bee betwixt them, and therefore the objection from circumcision is nothing to hinder the former consequence, but that it remaineth firm and sound.

Arg. 8 That which unites persons with the Church of Rome, and Papists; ought in no wise to be, Rev. 18.4. But the baptisme of infants, though of belee­vers, doth so: therefore it ought in no wise to be. The second Propositi­on is thus proved, wheresoever the baptisme is one, the Church and peo­ple are one; But the Papists and Romes baptisme, is one with the infants baptisme, though beleevers. Therefore the baptisme of infants makes one with the Church of Rome and Papists.

That the Papists and Romes baptisme, is one with infants baptisme, though of beleevers; I prove because they baptize infants, and there be some beleevers amongst them, else God would not call them from them, Rev. 18.4. Whose infants are there baptized; but especially because there is no difference in infants, as infants, unlesse God make some difference; now there is no difference known between the beleevers infants, and the Papists infants: and we are all born Papists by nature, and what hinders that we are not all Papists? but conversion, or education, or outward re­straint, and what was it that brought all to be Papists at first, from Apostoli­call, to be Apostaticall; but the baptizing of infants? whereby religion came into act before it was wrought in the heart, and so they became christians in name, and were indeed against Christ in nature; and so were Antichristum, and so were a Church of Christ in name, and a great one too: yea. a catholick one though against Christ, and so Antichristian in na­ture; and thus they looking upon one Minister as chiefe, whom they made Pope, he must needs be Christs Vicar in name, though hee were against Christ indeed: and so the Antichrist who when they had made him, they must needs adore and worship him, and all the world wonders and worships this beast; so hee compels all by fraud and force to bee of his Church, both great and small: Rev. 13.16. And besides, all that are bap­tized, are supposed to be beleevers, but all Papists are supposed to be bap­tised; Therefore all Papists are supposed to be beleevers. And then to baptize the infants of Papists, is to baptize the infants of beleevers, and and there is no difference in baptisme then one in Church fellowship with them which ought in no wise to be; therefore infants, no not of belee­vers, ought not to be baptized.