Baptism he pleads for But why so because Mr. Whiston takes it for granted that Infants were Church-members under the Law and this Commission nor no other Text in Scripture doth not repeal those priviledges Is that it why then let us examine whether this be sound Doctrine And that it is not so will â—ppear from Acts 21.21 where you have plain Scripture-proof that Infant-Church membership is repealed The words are And they are informed of thee that thoâ— teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they oâ—ght not to Circumcise their Children neither to walk after the Customes These words were spoken by the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem to Paul in which are these things to be considered 1. A Report of a certain new Doctrine that Paul had Preached among the Jews 2. The Doctrine it self that they ought to forsake Moses c. Concerning the first we are to examine Whether Paul did Preach such a Doctrine or no 2. Whether the Doctrine he Preachâ—d were true For the first it is evident that Paul did preach so that they must forsake Moses and not Circumcise their Children c. otherwise he need not have consented to purifie himself and so far to Judaize contrary to the Gospel and his own light his denial only of the matter of Fact would have been a sufficient Confutation of such a Rumor But he denies it not that would be to forsake his Gospel-Ministry but in a peaceable condescension complies to purifie himself that he may appear to be no Contemner of the Law that removing their prejudice he may have opportunity to preach Christ the Anti-type of all their Typical Administrations 2. That also is undoubted that the Gospel-Doctrine he preached viz. that the Jews and all others ought to forsake Mâ—ses c. is true and suitable to the Gospel dispensation It Mr. Whiston denies it he is more Jew than Christian The next doubt is What is meant by forsaking of Moses To which I Answer 1. To forsake him as a Prophet or Minister of the Gospel Church God having now raised up another Prophet whom we must Hear in all things relating to the matter and manner of Worship in the House of God For though Moses was faithful in his House as a Servant yet he must give way to Christ the Great Prophet Heb 3. and no longer give Laws or prescribe Rules about the matter or manner of Worship yea nothing as to the Subject Time or Place is to be received from him but in all things we must be instructed by that Prophet that God hath raised up from amongst our Brethren this is the substance of Paul's Doctrine 2. Not to Circumcise their Children is to forsake Moses as the Text particularly makes out because Circumcision was a Law or Doctrine they had learn't from Moses for though Circumcision was first given to Abraham yet it is called Moses Law John 7.22 Moses therefore gave unto you Circumcision c. But you must forsake this Law or Doctrine of Moses and not Circumcise your Children any more This sounds very Harsh and was very grievous and offensive to them that it caused such Fear in the Elders that some Trouble and Hazard to his Person would follow which was the ground of that Compliance in purifying themselves to pacifie the Jews for the present they being so exceeding zealous for the Law and especially for Circumcising their Children that Opposition was Death or severe Punishment Now had Paul told them their Children should be Baptized and that Baptism was come into the room of Circumcision c. in all likelihood it would have quieted them But seeing there is no mention of any such thing that He preached such Doctrine amongst them which without Controversie would have been mentioned had he done so it plainly appears that Paul knew no such thing neither had he any Commission to preach such Doctrine as the Baptizing of Infants amongst them And this further is confirmed if we consider the determination of the First Council who were met about this very Doctrine of Circumcising Children c. that the Jews were still so zealous for and knew not how to bear the Abrogation of it though they did believe in Christ and they would have enjoyn'd it upon the Gentiles as necessary to Salvation Acts 15. Now if it were a duty to Baptize Children instead of Circumcising of them then the Apostles were unfaithful in not telling them of it especially at this time when there was so fair an opportunity to quiet their Consciences and to put the matter out of doubt and for ever to cashier the Doctrine of Circumcision which we see the Jewish Teachers were afterwards endeavouring to promote But in regard the Apostles mention no such thing as Baptizing of Infants in their debates in this Council nor in their Letters they sent to the Churches it is evident they received no such Commission from Christ And how any man can Believe otherwise and not reflect imprudence yea horrible unfaithfulness upon the Apostles I cannot imagine The next to be considered in this Text is that the Jews are also forbidden to walk after the custom that is after the manner for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Acts 15.1 unless ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses c. So that this word Custom or Manner of Moses prohibits not only all Observation of the Law of Moses bvt also all walking after the same way and manner as the Ordinances of the Law were administred in Here is not only an Injunction of non-conformity to the Law but to the manner of it also They are not only forbidden to Circumcise their Children but also to walk after the Custom or Manner of Circumcision and therefore not to Baptize their Children Paul might have said indeed to Circumcise your Children was the Custom and Manner of Old but as for the Baptizing them we have no such custom nor the Churches of God And hence it is clear that Infants Church-membership is repealed and consequently have no right to Baptism For If Infants as our Modern Paedo-Baptists alledge were virtually Commanded to be Baptized in the Command for Circumcision and that Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism were both Instituted together as they that bring the later from Gen. 17.7 must needs hold then they are both uncommanded again in these very words Acts 21.21 where God by the mouth of Paul forbad them to Circumcise their Children any longer and to walk after the Old Customs I say again if Infant-Baptism was commanded in the Command for Circumcision of Infants then by Analogie for Contrariorum contraria est ratio Infant-Baptism must needs be abrogated and remanded in the abrogation and remanding of Circumcision And though I do not believe that the precept to Circumcise Infants was so much as a Virtual or Consequential Command to Baptize them yet it is an Argument ad hominem at least and I hope the Paedo-baptists
to question that either he thinks they want Relief being very near a Defeat or have not so singular a Talent as himself to set off a bad Cause For my part I cannot conjecture what his design is unless by making up a Triumvirate of Champions he thinks to carry the Cause by Clamour and so share of the Applause their admiring Votaries are liberal enough of But as his Book needs little more Confutation than to be perused so the infirmity of his Reasoning serves to illustrate not foil the Truth he invades Our Adversaries themselves are forced to confess that most of those great Fathers the generality of Christians are so fond of have been of Corrupt Principles and tainted with Superstitious conceits and unsound Notions and that there are but very few of them to be found throughly Orthodox though of great Learning Zeal and Industry which is an Item to us not to lean upon the Authority of man though never so Celebrated by Ages and Nations but to have recourse to the Word of truth left for our Instruction and to seek our Warrant for Religious Duties there This consideration satisfies me That this Triumviri however acted by confidence or self-conceit may be out of the way and that their Dictates are no farther to be received than they agree with the Word of God The perplexing Systems spun out of mans own brain nice subtil Distinctions and long-winded periods may be taking with such as are firmly Espoused to a Party right or wrong or such as think him Conqueror that has most words but the sober enquiring Soul that seeks Truth not Victory will easily perceive the Vanity and Error of such a procedure Error cannot be disputed against without giving it its name and its Abettors cannot be reproved nor admonished but in words accomodated to their mistakes which indeed is not Railing but plain-dealing and which I hope is Apology enough for me if any Expressions should seem to be of too acute an Edge The Scripture commands us to reprove Errors sharply or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cuttingly Tit. 1.13 I love the Godly Paedo-Baptist as one that I know my Master Christ loveth but having such a Call to Witness to and Contend for his Truth I will as he shall enable me do it without daubing on the one and unnecessary sharpness on the other hand I know how to distinguish between such as by a mistaken Zeal utter provoking rash words and such as in pursuance to their Duty contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints And that Believers Baptism is such an Ordinance as Christ delivered to his Saints I never heard doubted And that Infant pretended Baptism is not such is our work to manifest After all the Clutter our Antagonists kept to find some Evidence for the practice of Paedo-Baptism in Fathers Councils c. the Scripture as they fully own being silent about it they are glad to run for refuge at last to their new Invention of a Covenant they imagine to be made with the Carnal Seed of Believers Gen. 17.7 which they say Intitles them to be Baptized but to no other Ordinance under the New Testament a most pittiful Paradox and being ashamed to own the mistaken absurd Mediums its old and most celebrated Patrons have Insisted upon for its Support in Old Times they have Center'd in a more plausible pretence for it viz. the aforesaid Covenant which is their only Reserve at present And I cannot but admire that Men of any Reason should cry up Antiquity Antiquity at the Rate they do when at the same Instant they reject the Grounds and Reasons the Ancients used for the same And is it fair to derive the practice from Antiquity and add Reasons of their Own when the Old Reasons are found to be indeed Irrational We know Infant-Baptism has been of an Early Birth viz. in the Third or Fourth Century to save the Child's Soul and upon a mistake that it might be Damned without it But Infant-Baptism upon the modern ground of a Hereditary Covenant is new and altogether unknown to the Ancient Paedo-Baptists as by other hands is clearly made good And how plausible this New Argument is in the following Pages is examined And before I come to a particular Survey of this present Vndertakers Book I would tender to his Christian consideration hoping him to be a man that Fears God Whether it be so consistent with his Profession in so Taunting and proud a manner to scorn and reproach his Opponent whereas a meeker way would be not only his Duty but more graceful 2. Whether it be consistent with the Word of Truth to go about to impose his bare Ipse dixit's upon the World without any material proof from the Scripture 3. Whether it be consonant to the plainness of the Gospel to confound rather than Instruct the ordinary plain Reader with such a variety of needless impertinent Distinctions Hypotheticals Tedious and rambling Circumlocutions Preambles and dark miserable shiftings to find a Covert for his I adorantism in the Word of God 4. Whether it be Ingenuous or Honest to supply the want of Argument with such phrases as these proceeding from Immodesty to Impudence Warning his Reader to be wary of crediting any of his viz. Mr. Danver's perswasion can any man think he had any true actual Fear of God before his Eyes Down-right Falsities Forgeries meer Cheats c. though not the least Tittle of them proved to be justly chargeable upon Mr. Danvers And to all which I think as it is the product of an Vnruly provoking Spirit actuated by prejudice and its ireful concomitants the best return will be silence Let him consider Gal. 6.1 Mat. 5.5 We shall not Insist upon his uncomely carriage throughout the whole Book we leave it to his cooler consideration and the Reader 's Observation and shall present you with a brief account of his Book and then Select what wants our Reply and leave all to the judgment of the Reader The Book consists of Two parts 1. An attempt to weaken the Humane Authority urged by Mr. Danvers for Illustration of Believers Baptism in opposition to Infants Baptism 2. To Confute him in the Doctrinal part About the first he spends 24 pages his Objections are some scraps of what Mr. B. and Mr. W. have more at large urged and already Answered by Mr. D. of which nevertheless I shall anon take a brief View From p. 25. to 71. he goes about to disprove that Believers Baptism is only Christ's Baptism 2. To prove that the silence of the Scripture about Infant-Baptism tends more to its establishment than overthrow 3. To vindicate Tradition as he defines it viz. the Discoveries made by the Church Doctrinally and Practically from the Apostles time to us as a subordinate means whereby we come to know and are more fully confirmed what 's contained in the Doctrine of the Apostles 4. From page 71. to 129. he considers the Arguments from the Covenant and Faederal
Monarchy that great thing Catechrestically call'd a Church must vanish and the large Revenues pomp and grandeur of its active Janizaries expire with it since the matter of such a synagogue is the collective body of the nations which because of its unbelief and prophanesse the word of God excludes out of the Church till in Gods time and by his power gradually converted it being evident from the mouth that errs not that the greatest part of Mankind traverses the broad way to destruction Math. 7.13 Surely this one consideration has a more forcible rhetorick to keep up this pernicious practise then all the juglings of its abettors or the gaudy flourishes or specious Fulcrums its defenders produce to illustrate and support it It is one of the Popes political and very necessary maximes and I fear borrowed by many from him wanting that power by which the Gospel ministers acted to principle the emissaries that manage his cause very ripely in school-sophistry and such other subtile qualifications that their learned craft and seeming profoundness of wisdom and parts may amuse and captivate the generality of mankind And indeed we find them too apt to be gaping after those ornaments which the Apostle elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and well translated the inticing words of mans wisdom 1 Cor. 2.4 They are well versed in the perplexing Idle whimsies of Aristotle Scotus c. but meer dunces and fools in plain Scripture doctrines their Heathen Philosophy and the Gospel being at as wide a distance as the Earth is from the third Heaven See Job 5.12.13 and 32.9 1 Cor. 1.19 But what is most lamentable is that ministers that are separatists from national corruption and prophaness and in the judgment of charity in many things orthodox and pious should be the forwardest opposers of so necessary a reformation and not only so but when they find the pretences upon which it was with a ridiculous retinue obtruded upon the world rotten and reeling they must invent new supporters for it viz. a Covenant right derivative from a believing parent c. As if spiritual graces would admit of carnal propagations or that a Christian doth always beget a Christian a divinity as novel as 't is absurd And with this modern auxiliary this otherwise yeelding cause is reinforced In the judgment of some it may parhaps add to the credit of that fancy that so famous a man as Mr. Baxter is should patronize it But he is not the first Theological grandee that has been mistaken Performances of never so exalted a kind conferr not the priviledge of Infallible 'T is only the great Creator is unerring A man may preach and write of the most seraphick verities and yet know but in part Mr Baxter is to be honoured as far as he has laid himself out to preach the Gospel and improve his Talent for the Conversion of souls in this evil day But when he forgets himself and instead of promoting practical holyness fills the nation with notions as uncertain as they are numberless puzling such as arrive not to the subtilty of his distinction creating more doubts then ever he 'l be able to resolve making Christianity a meer riddle which no man understands but he and liable to as many forms and interpretations as his wavering mind Then I humbly conceive he may be very safely left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a golden Aphorism of a heathen poet Sure as peaceable as he would make us believe he is that party or person that incurs his displeasure must expect an unmerciful handling He is so invenom'd an Antagonist that whoever encounters him has need of an Antidote Nor is his reverend new Author Mr. Wills to whom he is so liberal of his encomiums much behind in this Excellency A strenuous satyrist that by the flashes of his Academick wit makes some blaze little of solid heat or warmth As for Mr. Baxter it feems he has something prophetical in him he says in his last book he knows what can be said in answer and what he 'l reply and the others rejoynder c. Belike he knew by the same prophetick faculty the first year of his ministry when he fell into doubts about Infants Baptism and suspended the practise some years as he says that the Anti-Poedobaptists would be out of the favour of the times and so inconsiderable as he scornfully says they are which scared the man to the other side And to convince the world that he was re-proselyted in good earnest persecutes them with all the obloquy and slaunder a virulent peevish humor could dictate So that poor people 't is well their bones are whole from the furious artillery and crushing grasps of so mighty a Polyphemus It would â—â—artle a man to see what a room he would take up as if the whole world must become his pupill How confident a dictator he is to universal mankind such a reconciler that he will not be stopt in his cariere till he brings us to Rome as if the vast creation must be of his parish But I doubt the Pope will not be so tamely cog'd to resign up to Mr. Baxter his Regalia Petri Sure as nimble a Proteus as he is hee 'l find himself mistaken in these incongruous Topicks We have the Bible in English and in the original too and for all he picks a quarrel with that in his 20. Quaeries c. because perhaps too narrow to confine so boundless a wanderer yet it shall be our Christian Directory wee 'l keep it preciously and leave his rotten and superfluous notions to fill up the vacuums in the Stationers shops That leaven hath so soured his whole lump that for fear of sucking some poyson with his honey we 'l be Christians as well as the Lord shall enable us without him Hold but he gives you his extremum vale at the door of eternity But is very angry that he is importuned to it from some supream transactions he is hatching in his study Possibly his next errand may be to send us to Constantinople nor is the scruple extravagant considering what he has done already to have a treaty of reconciliation with the Muphti and make some part of Mahomets creed by his vast Authority Orthodox But being so successesse in Christendom he may very well despair of that undertaking But what 's his farewel why he begins with his old quarrel with Mr Tombes rallying his defeated quibbles for a new Combat But he is full of words and will leade his reader such a dance that he may sooner grow giddy then finde the truth or whereabouts he is such a continuation of impertinent periphrases though connext with his wonted Artifice that Daedalus's Labyrinth may sooner be travers'd then the more numerous mazes and perplexities of Mr Baxter and all to ecclips a Gospel truth His next project is to take Col. Danvers to task he thinks it beneath a man of his Talent to let him passe without fixing an Epithete upon him as
might craftily insinuate him no fit person to inform the world of that abuse in Religion He thinks that worthy Gentleman encroaches upon the prerogative he himself made bold to seize upon viZ. handling cases of Controversy But he will not part so peaceably with the least aliquantulum of it A Souldier so he calls him must not enter the lists with this spiritual Warriour if he does he 'l fling Ink enough in 's face I have heard some say that his Soldiership and Mr. B's Chaplainship were contemporaries in the same service and that the later was far more active Therefore may not that Elogy bestow'd by Warlike Ajax upon his opponent be applicable to our Vlysses Quantumque ego Marte feroci Inque acie valeo tantum vaiet iste loquendo But let me tell him in his ear that if he re-engage any deeper in this quarrel and persist in his impenitent obstinacy he 'l receive as shamful a foyl as Mr. Tombes gave him For our Souldier ha's truth of his side and ability to manage it nor does he want an acute and elegant pen perhaps not inferior to the chaplain for all his triumphs and loud applauses of himself and his attempts to engrosse as vast an opinion of his accomplishments as the greatest University graduates though he never as they that know him say was a student at any 'T is no miracle to find him a match able to encounter him at Quill-skirmishes in this age But as to our querulous master of Arts Mr. Baxter dealt like a man of warr to set him in the Forlorn hope thinking belike that his confident noise would affright us or his scoffs jeer us or his reverence an epithete he forces upon his modesty would cog us over to him as his dexterous epistler inveigled Mr. Lamb and Mr. Allen. In pursuance to which stratagem the man talks big brags loudly and like an Olympick gamester so he calls himself and very fitly for whoever loses he gets by his divinity games and may in time learn the Ecclesiastical politicians push-pin Divinity flings on all sides traverses every ground to get us at advantage that so he may Comically insult and flout us for his language savours more of frothy scoffs and Romantick drollery then of sober serious or Christian But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He thinks he can scarce get over any Anti-Poedobaptist to his party that indeed is the luckiest conjecture I met with in him and I am of that opinion too for I hope they are a people of more reason and stedfastness in the truths they have learnt then to be shaken by so mimick and ayry a companion that by the pedantry of his scoptick style seems fitter for stage-pageantry then serious contests of this kinde Besides the irreligious artifice and I may say malicious insinuations we meet with every where in his pamphlet to render the person parts and principles not only of his sober Antagonist but of all that own his way ridiculous and hated so to preingage his Reader to partiality and anticipate his judgment is so notoriously disingenuous and dishonest that I question not but the Intelligent Reader will easily perceive that the want of a good cause puts him upon those shifts to fill up a Book with such Sarcasm's instead of truth as if he had been of the old Womans minde when she took that impious resolution Flectere si nequio superos Acheronta movebo But is this indeed the man of so clarify'd intellectualls that puts a Remora in the progresse of truth to obstruct such as would come over to its Communion that brags of ransacking the publick library that has his album calculum c. others say that Argenteis hastis pugnat that has the forehead to charge Mr Danvers with plagiarism when he himself has not a single Argument new but a surtive collection mostly for 't is but now and then he mentions an Authors name from those that were formerly engaged in that controversy So that his whole book had it been worth the while may be confronted with continued parallels being only in his own phrase such trite and outworn things that they have been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again Is he not therefore himself that Aesops Crow that struts so gaudily in other birds feathers I cannot but remark how he treads in his Epistlers steps I mean Mr B's idle pamphlet mis-call'd Plain Scripture proofs for Infant-Baptism c. who in plain English amongst his other envious calumnies represents the Anabaptists as guilty of Murther and Adultery for an Imaginary practice he fathers upon them of dipping naked or in transparent garments c. So this Answerer pag. 258 c. But methinks if ingenuous candor and modesty altogether unpractic'd by him though so gracefull in all their possessors cannot perswade him to treat us civilly the awful reverence of an All-wise God might keep him from such daring criticisms upon the plain expressions of Scripture and drawing so impious a consequence from premisses pronounced by the unerring creator For instance it is said Act. 2.41 42. They that gladly received the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were dipt so the word is English Luke 16.24 John 13.26 Rev. 19.13 c. what then why then they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine c. But Mr Wills says they that are so dipt are Murtherers and Adulterers a more favourable sence his invective won't bear 'T is pitty this wise demurrer had not lived in the Apostles days that he may propose a more taking model for Christian Ordinances then the holy Ghost could inspire them with I doubt his carnal and injurious canting would be answered as Symon Magus in another case thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter Certainly if sprinkling the face were the Lords choice he could expresse himself by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the proper term for sprinkling as 1. Pet. 1.2 Heb. 9.13.19.21 and 10.22 and many places of the O. T. and so put the matter for ever out of doubt Was not Christ himself so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in English dipt in Water were not the converted Thousands we read of so dipt And durst this audacious man fix such ignominies upon a practice that has so sacred a patern the Lord rebuke him But candid Reader here thou hast them counted out of that fort Royal they fancy so secure viZ their modern pretences to a Covenant hereditary title to Baptism The substance of what they can say in their own defence is examined and soberly refuted The vanity of their silly distinctions detected and the Doctrine of the Covenant cleared and made familiar to the conscientious peruser And so the Lord who will infallibly reckon with Mr B. and his confederate unlesse they repent for putting such blocks and remora's in the way to his truth set it home upon thy heart and give thee a discerning spirit to own him according to his directions in his word
believers have their breeding amongst unbelievers and the children of unbelievers amongst believers in that case these laâ—t have not only no less priviledge as to the promise of salvation by bare birth but a priviledge also by that breeding above the other That therefore that the promise of the Gospel covenant in any sence in the world is made to believers seed as barely such more then to the natural seed of unbelievers can never be proved by the word yea the contrary is evident from this place Acts. 2.38.39 For first neither were these parents believers as yet when Peter said the promise is to you and your children but only were pricked at the heart upon some measure of conviction that the person whom they had crucified was the Lord of life which the devils believe tremble at in order to begetting that saving faith which yet they had not he spake these words of encouragement Secondly doth Peter make the promise any otherwise to them and their children then he doth to all others in the world viz. on condition of their coming in at Gods call 't is sayd to you and your children and them that are afar off all manner of persons in all nations and generations as the Lord our God shall call viz. as are prevailed with to come when God calls them which to be the sence of this place is further illustrated by that parallel place Heb. 9.15 they that are called receive the promise of eternal inheritance Thirdly when the parents did believe were baptized were any of their children baptized with them which they must have been had that promise been to the Infants as well as to the parents on that single account of being their seed but that no Infants were then baptized appears because the Scripture recording how many were baptized at that time it concludes them under such a term as excludes the Infant from that days work while it says as many meaning no more or else we are deceived in the relation as gladly received the word this Infants could not do were then baptiZed which number as they are recorded to be about 3000 might in all likelyhood have amounted to three times 3000. if all the Infants of those had been baptized also so that I conclude if they had Infants why did they not bring them or at least send for them here being so fit an opportunity to baptize them and so for ever to put the controversy out of doubt But fourthly neither were there any more enchurched that day but such as gladly received the word and were thereupon baptized For of these only and not infants its said they continued together in the Apostles doctrine in Fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers But all their Infants must have been Enchurch'd also if they had been baptized Fifthly it crosseth the current of all other Scripture to put such a construction upon this for that the promise of old I mean the old promise of the law which was of the Earthly Canaan and but a Type of this did pertain unto a fleshly holy seed I grant But that the new Covenant or Gospel promise is made to any mans fleshly seed that thereupon we may baptize them in token of it I deny For sure I am the Scripture holds out no other seed of Abraham to be heirs with him of the heavenly Canaan but his spiritual seed i. e. Believers that do his works Nor doth it own any but these to have the right of membership and Fellowship in his family i. e. the visible Church For if it should be granted that the visible Church is Abrahams family under the Gospel as well as under the law yet it is so altered from what it was so different in its constitution that it is even turned upside down and in a manner nothing remains as then it was For as the covenant is not the same with that of the law so neither is there the same Mediator nor the same Priesthood nor the same Law nor the same Law-giver nor the same promises That being of an Earthly this of an heavenly inheritance nor the same holy seed to which the promises are made that being to the Typical seed Isaac and his posterity this to the true seed Christ and believers Nor the same ordinances theirs being Circumcision and the Passe-over ours Baptism and the supper Nor the same subjects for those ordinances those being by nature Jews or at least by profession and their Male seed only ours Male and female theirs whether believing or not ours only as believing So that whatever can be said of the Covenant the promise the holy seed is only this they were Typical ceremonial abiding only to the time of Reformation Heb. 9.9 and are now all abrogated and out of date so that we may say as he fuit Ilium so fuit Canaan fuit lex fuit Templum fuit sacerdotium fuit sacrosanctum semen There was indeed a holy land a holy law a holy Priesthood a holy seed But all these belonging to a first Covenant which was faulty are now long since vanished before a better and whatever was glorious hath now no glory by reason of a glory that excelleth 2 Cor. 3.9 10 12 13. Poed Sir I thank you for your opinion of this text Act. 2.39 But though the children of believing Gentiles have no right to the Covenant by vertue of their Parents faith yet may they not have a right by vertue of Abrahams faith Bap. In no wise for the natural posterity of believing Gentiles are so far from being heires apparent with Abraham of Gospel promises and priviledges that even Abrahams own natural seed as such only are not at all his seed at this day nor at all holy with the birth-holynesse they once had nor entail'd as heirs of that heavenly Canaan without faith and Repentance in their own persons and because this is the very root and knot in the state of this controversy the unfolding of which will discover the whole mystery of your mistakes all which arise originally from your erring in it for error minimus in principio fit major in medio maximus in fine Give me leave therefore to enlarge a little upon this point First then let it be considered that Abrahams own seed even those that were heirs with him of the earthly Canaan though born of his body now as truly though more remotely of his body who was the greatest believer in the world Christ excepted even these are not his seed in the Gospel account nor heirs of the Gospel promise nor as born of his body to be admitted to Baptism and Church priviledges which I make appear from Rom. 9.6.7.8 in which pray observe how the Apostle denies Abrahams own Natural Children the name of Abrahams seed in the sense of the Gospel First he magnifies them exceedingly in the 4th verse and sets out their dignity and preheminence above all people under the name of Israelites to whom pertained the