Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	circumcision_n	righteousness_n	seal_n	13,716	5	9.8320	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39697	Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1690 (1690)	Wing F1205A; ESTC R218689	64,584	175

these three Principles or Positions on which the other parts of his Discourse are superstructed and these being destroyed his other Discourses are but arenae sine calce I properly therefore begin with the Foundation Next I shall shew how far we are greed in the matters here controvert●…d and where it is in each of these that ●…he Controversie indeed lies betwixt us ●…nd as to I Position viz. That the Sinai-Law is the same with A●…am's Covenant of Works made in Para●…ice The difference betwixt us here is not 〈◊〉 Whether both these be called Co●…enants in Scripture nor 2. Whether there were no Grace at all in both or either of them For we are agreed it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man whatever that Covenant be nor 3. Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men by their own fault and occasion nor 4. Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves nor 5. Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not reviv'd and represented in the Sinai Law These are not the Points we contend about But the Question is Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it revive the Law of Nature to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them fo●… righteousness and life he did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness humble proud Nature and shew them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ now exhibited in the New Covenant as the only refuge to Fallen Sinners The latter I defend according to the Scriptures the former Mr. Cary seems to assert and vehemently argue for 2ly In this Controversie about the Sinai Law I do not find Mr. Cary distinguishing as he ought betwixt the Law considered more largely and complexly as containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law for both which it is often taken in Scripture and more strictly for the Moral Law only as it is sometimes used in Scripture These two he makes one and the same Covenant of Works though there be some that doubt whether the meer Moral Law may not be a Covenant of Works yet I never met with any Man before that durst affirm the Ceremonial Law which is so full of Christ to be so and to this Law it is that Circumcision appertains 3ly The Moral Law strictly taken for the Ten Commandments is not by him distinguished as it ought to be and as the Scripture frequently doth according to Gods intention and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the promise Gal. 3. 19. and not to set it up as an opposite Covenant Gal. 3. 21. and the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the use and end of the Law and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works by making it the very rule and reason of their Justification before God Rom. 9. 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. these things ought carefully to have been distinguished forasmuch as the whole Controversie depends on this double sense and intention of the Law yea the very denomination of that Law depends hereon For I affirm it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men but from the true scope design and end for which God published it after the Fall And though we find such expressions as these in Scripture The man that doth them shall live in them And cursed is every one that continueth not in all things c. yet these respecting the Law not according to Gods intention but Mans corruption and abuse of it the Law is not thereby to be denominated a Covenant of Works Gods end was not to justifie them but to try them by that terrible dispensation Ezod 20. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of self-righteousness for this end God propounded the terms of the first Covenant to them on Sinai not to open the way of self-justification to them but to convince them and shut them up to Christ just as our Saviour Matth. 19. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the Commandments not to drive him from but necessitate him to himself in the way of Faith The Law in both these Senses is excellently described Gal. 4. in that Allegory of Hagar and Sarah the figures of the two Covenants Hagar in her first and proper Station was but a serviceable Hand-maid to Sarah as the Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ but when Hagar the Hand-maid is taken into Sarah's Bed and brings forth Children that aspire to the Inheritance then saith the Scripture Cast out the bond-woman with her son So it is here take the Law in its primary use as God designed it as a School-master or Hand-maid to Christ and the promise so it is consistent with them and excellently subservient to them but if we marry this Hand-maid and espouse it as a Covenant of Works then are we bound to it for life Rom. 7. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The Believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the right end and use of the Law which directed them to Christ and so they became Children of the Free-woman The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the Law for righteousness and so became Children of the Bond-woman but neither could be Children of both at once no more than the same Man can naturally be born of two Mothers This is the difference betwixt us about the first Position and as to the II Position That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is an Adam's Covenant of Works also because Circumcision was annexed to it which obliged Men to keep the whole Law The Controversie betwixt us in this point is not whether Circumcision were an Ordinance of God annexed by him to his Covenant with Abraham nor 2. Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary Seed ought to be and actually were signed by it nor 3. Whether it were a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to any individual Person for he allows ●…t to be so to Abraham nor 4. Whe●…he it pertain'd to the Ceremonial Law and so must cease at the death of Christ But the difference betwixt us is Whether ●…1 it was a Seal of the Covenant to ●…one but Abraham and 2. Whether ●…n the very nature of the Act or only from the intention of the Agent it did oblige men to keep the whole Law as Adam was obliged to keep it in inno●…ency 3. Whether it were utterly ●…bolished at the death of Christ as a

condition of the Covenant of works or being a sign of the same Covenant of Grace we are now under it be not suc●…eeded by the new Gospel-sign which is Baptism Mr. Cary affirms that it was 〈◊〉 it self a condition of the Covenant of Works and being annexed to Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. it made ●…hat a true Adam's Covenant of works ●…lso This I utterly deny and say A●…raham's Covenant was a true Covenant ●…f Grace 2. That Circumcision was Seal of the righteousness of Faith and therefore could not possibly belong to the Covenant of Works 3. That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary Infant-seed of Abraham during that administration of the Covenant so it is the will of Christ that Baptism should take its place under the Gospel and be applyed now to the Infant-seed of all Abraham's Spiritual Children These are the things wherein we differ about the second Position And lastly as to the III Position That neither Moses's Law Exod. 2●… nor God's Covenant with Abraham Ge●… 17. can be any other than an Adam's Cov●…nant of Works because they have each 〈◊〉 them conditions in them on Man's part 〈◊〉 the Gospel-Covenant hath none at all but 〈◊〉 altogether free and absolute The Controversie here betwixt us 〈◊〉 not 1. Whether the Gospel-Covenan●… requires no duties at all of them tha●… are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such conditions as were 〈◊〉 Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual obedience unde●… the severest Penalty of a Curse and admitting no place of Repentance Nor 3. Whether any condition required by it on our part have any thing in its own nature Meritorious of the Benefits promised Nor 4. Whether we be able in our own Strength and by the Power of our Free Will without the preventing as well as the assisting Grace of God to perform any such Work or Duty as we call a Condition In these things we have no Controversie but the only Question betwixt us is Whether in the New Covenant some act of ours though it have no Merit in it nor can be done in our own single Strength be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a Blessing or Priviledge consequent by vertue of a Promise And whether such an Act or Duty being of a Suspending Nature to the Blessing promised it have not the true and proper Nature of a Gospel Condition This I affirm and he positively denies These three Positions being confuted and the contrary well confirmed viz. That the Law at Sinai was not set up by God as an Adam's Covenant to open the old way of Righteousness and Life by works but was added to the promise as subservient to Christ in its design and use and consequently can never be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works And secondly That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is the very same Covenant of Grace we are now under and 2ly that Circumcision in the nature of the act did not oblige all men to keep the whole Law for Righteousness And 3ly That the New Covenant is not absolute and wholly unconditional though notwithstanding a most free and gracious Covenant the Pillars on which Mr. Cary sets his new Structure sink under it and the building falls into ruins I have not here taken Mr. Cary's two Syllogisms proving Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Works because I find my self therein prevented by that ingenuous and learned man Mr. Whiston in his late Answer to Mr. Grantham Neither have I particularly spoken to his 23 Arguments to prove the Sinai Law to be a pure Adam's Covenant because frustra sit per plura quod sieri potest per pauciora I have overthrown them all together at one blow by evincing every Argument to have four terms in it and so proves nothing But I have spoken to all those Scriptures which concern our four Positions and fully vindicated them from the injurious senses to which Mr. Cary following Mr. Tombes had wrested them These things premised I shall only further add that if Mr. Cary shall attempt a Reply to my Answer and free his own Theses from the gross absurdities with which I have loaded them he must plainly and substantially prove against me 1. That the Sinai Law according to its true scope and end was promulged by God for man's Justification and Happiness in the way of personal Obedience and that the Jews that did accordingly endeavour after Righteousness by the works of the Law did not mistake its true end and meaning or if they did and thereby made it what God never intended it to be a Covenant of works to themselves that the Sinai Law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake and abuse of it than from its primary and proper use and God's design in its promulgation 2. He must prove against me with like evidence of truth that Circumcision discovered no more of Man's Native Corruption nor any more of his remedy by Christ nor sealed to any Person whatsoever the Righteousness of Faith than Adam's Covenant in Paradise did and that it did in its own nature oblige all upon whom it passed to the same terms of Obedience that Adam's Covenant obliged him And 3. That there is not to be found in the new Covenant any such Act or Duty of ours as hath been described and limited above which is of a suspending Nature to the Benefits therein granted And 4. That the respective Expositions he gives of the several Texts by me explained and vindicated are more congruous to the Scope and Grammar than mine are and more agreeable to the current Sense of Orthodox Expositors and then he shall be sure to receive an answerable return from me else 't is but labour lost to write again A REPLY TO Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn Call THE Book I have undertaken to animadvert briefly upon bears the Title of A Solemn Call but I am not so much concerned with the Solemnity as I am with the Authority of this Call Not how it is but whose it is If it be the Call of God it must be obey'd tho it be to part not only with the Priviledges but Lives of our dearest Children but then we had need be very well assur'd it is the Call of God else we are guilty at once of the highest Folly and basest T●…eachery to part with so rich an Inheritance convey'd by God's Covenant with Abraham to us believing Gentiles and our Seed at Mr. Cary's Call You direct your Solemn Call to all that would be owned as Christs faithful Witnesses Here you are too obscure and general Do you mean all that would be owned by you or by Christ If you mean that we must not expect to be owned by you till we renounce Infants Baptism you tell us no news for you have long since turn'd your back upon our Ministry and Assemblies yet methinks 't is strange that we who were lately own'd as Christs faithful Witnesses under our late Sufferings must now be

those Duties and Ordinances for Righteousness and Justification made it a Covenant of Works to themselves and Circumcision it self a Bond of that Covenant 6. Now for as much as Circumcision prefigured Christ who was to come of this Holy circumcised Seed of Abraham and his Death also was pointed at therein Heb. 2. 16. Col. 2. 11. of necessity this Ordinance must vanish at the Death of Christ and accordingly did so These things duly pondered how irrational is it to imagine this Covenant of Circumcision to be the very same with the Paradisical Covenant Did that Covenant discover native Corruption and direct to its remedy in Christ as this did Surely it gave not the least glimps of any such thing Did that Covenant separate and distinguish one Person from another as this did No no it left all under equal and common Misery Eph. 2. 3. Had Adam's Covenant a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith annexed to it as this had Rom. 4. 11. He received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith The Righteousness of Faith is Evangelical Righteousness and this Circumcision sealed Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it for 't is an injurious Restriction put upon the Seal of a Covenant which extended to the Fathers as well as to Abraham Luke 1. 72. But you admit however that it sealed Evangelical Righteousness to Abraham but I hope you will not say that a Seal of the Covenant of Works ever did or could Seal Evangelical Righteousness to any individual Person in the World So then turn which way you will this truth still follows you and will fasten upon you That the Covenant of Circumcision was not a pure Covenant of Works but a Gospel-Covenant which I thus prove Argument I. If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so dedicated is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of works then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of works even by your own confession But it is so Ergo. That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law was never doubted or denied by any Man That it was dedicated by Blood and therefore no part of the Moral Law you your self not only acknowledge but vehemently plead for it Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some Sharpness and unbecoming Reflection for making no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood and the Law written in Tables of Stone which was not so dedicated and therefore could not be the same with the Moral Law which you make the Covenant of works telling him that this Dedication by Blood ought to distinguish it from the Moral Law or Sinai Covenant of works as you say it doth and ought to do how then can Circumcision be the same with and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by ●…lood Yes the Apostle ●…lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18 19. ●…4 7 8. Moses took the Book ●…f the Covenant and read it in the audience ●…f the people and took the blood and sprink●…d it upon the people and said behold the ●…lood of the Covenant which the Lord hath ●…ade with you concerning these things But ●…hat kind of Covenant then was this Co●…enant that was sprinkled with Blood ●…ou tell us Page 147. it could not possi●…y be the Law written in Stones which ●…ou make the Covenant of works but ●…as indeed another Covenant delivered 〈◊〉 a distinct Season and in a distinct ●…ethod What Covenant then must this ●…e seeing it could not possibly as you ●…y be the Sinai Covenant written in ●…ones It must either be the Covenant ●…f Grace or none No say you that 〈◊〉 was not neither for it was of the same ●…ture with and is no other than a Co●…enant of works Page 151. it was the ●…me and yet could not possibly be the same Mr. Sedgwick that Learned-Grave Divine is check'd Page 148. for confounding the Ceremonial Law that wa●… sprinkled with Blood with the Mora●… Law which you call the Covenant o●… works that was not sprinkled wit●… Blood and say you Page 147. It coul●… not possibly be the same And then P. 151 you say It 's clear these two viz. th●… Moral and Ceremonial Law were both 〈◊〉 the same nature that is no other than 〈◊〉 Covenant of Works How doth this han●… together Pray reconcile it if you ca●… You say it is an ungrounded Supposition 〈◊〉 Mr. Sedgwick 's that that Covenant whi●… was so confirmed by Blood must of necessi●… be confirmed by the Blood of Christ als●… Page 148. But Sir the truth you oppos●… viz. That the Book of the Ceremoni●… Law was sprinkled by Typical Bloo●… and therefore confirmed by the Blo●… of Christ for the time it was to contin●… shines like a bright Sun-beam in yo●… Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. was not t●… Blood that sprinkled this Law the 〈◊〉 gure or Type of Christ's own Blood whose Blood was it then if not Christ'●… How dare you call this an unground●… Supposition was not that Blood Typ●… cal Blood And what I pray you was the Antitype but Christ's Blood And did not the Holy Ghost signifie the one by the other Heb. 9. 8. I stand amazed at these things You distinguish and confound all again You say it could not possibly be the same with the Law written in Stone and you say it 's clear both were of the same nature no other than a Covenant of works At this ●…ate you may say what you please for 〈◊〉 see Contradiction is no Crime in your Book Argument II. If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not per●…ain to the Covenant of works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are Opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He ●…i e. Abraham received the sign of Cir●…umcision a seal of the righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not to the Cove●…ant of Works but Grace A Man would think it impossible to evade so clear and Scripture an Argument as this is The Major Proposition is even self-evident and undeniable the Minor the plain words of the Apostle And what is your Reply to this certainly as strange a one as ever I met with Page 205. You say 'T is true Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham but it was so to him only in his extraordinary Circumstance●… but it was not so to any of his natural S●… in its ordinary use I cannot deny but I have met with such an Assertion before in Mr. Tombes and I can tell you too that Bellarmine invented it before Mr. Tombes was born and that Dr. Ames fully confuted it in his third Tome Page 27. proving that there was no extraordinary cause o●… Abraham's account why God should justifie or seal him more than any other

and the Supposition of such an Opinion of it and design in it for in it self and with respect to Gods design in the Institution of it it was to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. and so it was an excellent useful instructive Ordinance to all Believers as long as the Ceremonial Law stood and even when it was expiring as the Gospel began to open more and more clearly there was yet some kind of Toleration of it to such as were born of Jewish Parents Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy his Mother being a Jewess Acts 16. 1 3. but Titus being a Greek was not circumcised and that because of these false Teachers that would make an ill use of that their Liberty Gal. 2. 3 4. this Paul could never have done in case Circumcision in the nature of the act had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Justification By which it appears that the action in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law but from the Intention of the Agent and therefore as the Apostle rightly argues if a Man be circumcised with this design to be justified by it he would thereby bind himself to the whole Law and frustrate the Death of Christ to himself but it was now to have its Funeral with all other parts of the Ceremonial Law which vanish'd and were accomplished in the Death of Christ and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time the Apostle thus thunders against it Had this been observed as also the like abuse of the Moral Law you would have known how to have reconciled the Apostles Encomiums of them both with his sharp Invectives against the one and the other But being Ignorant of these two great and necessary Distinctions of the Law according to Gods Intention in the Promulgation of it at Sinai and the carnal Jews Sense of it as a pure Covenant of works against which the Apostle so sharply inveighs in the places by you cited all your 23 Arguments from Page 183. to Page 187. fall to the Ground at one stroke your Medius Terminus having one sense in your Major Proposition and another in your Minor and so every Argument hath four Terms in it as will easily be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them So in like manner in your arguing here against Circumcision as a Bond to keep the whole Law and as such vacating the Death of Christ is a stumble at the same stone not distinguishing as you ought to have done betwixt an Obligation arising out of the nature of the work and out of the end and intention of the Workers and this every learned and judicious Eye will easily discern But we proceed to Argument IV. That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the Corruption of his Nature by Sin and the Mortification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of works but so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it This Ordinance supposeth the Fall of Man points to the Means and Instruments of his Sin and Misery and also to the Remedy thereof by Christ. 1. It singles out that Genital part by which original Sin was propagated Gen. 17. 11. Psalm 51. 5. to this the Sign of the Covenant is applied in Circumcision for the Remission of Sins past and the Extirpation of Sin for the future 2. Therefore it was instituted of God that Men might see both the necessity and true way of Mortifying their Lusts in the vertue of Christ's Death and Resurrection whereof Baptism that succeeds it is a Sign now as Circumcision was then as is plain from Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism wherein also ye are risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead 'T is clear then that Circumcision directed Men to the Death and Resurrection of Christ as the true and only means of mortifying their Lusts and if it did so sure it was not the Covenant of Works for that gives Fallen Man no hint of a remedy 3. It was also a discriminating Sign or Token betwixt the Church and the World God's People and the Heathens who were accordingly denominated from it the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision the Holy Seed and the Gentiles And now under the New Testament the Children of Abraham by Faith and the Children of the Flesh. This also shews it cannot be the Covenant of Works for in that Covenant all are equally and alike concluded under Sin and Misery Ephes. 2. 3. and there is no difference made by that Covenant betwixt Person and Person State and State If this be not enough to evince that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace I promise you many more Arguments to prove it as soon as I shall find these refuted and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded You see how genuine natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is and all the World may see how harsh alien and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision as a Covenant of Works is You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion Exemp gra That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law which was dedicated with Blood and therefore could be no ●…art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments which was say you the Co●…enant of Works and yet that it is of ●…he same nature and that it 's clear 〈◊〉 is no other than a Covenant of Works Don't you there distinguish and confound all again blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause and commit a greater Absurdity presently than you charged him with Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood was sealed by Christs Blood Pray Sir consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applyed it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually apply'd or to nothing Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis to say with Bellarmine That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ and Jacob a Prince with God O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace and of the other part which you your self call a Restipulation to make another quite opposite Covenant Don't you magnifie the Bounty and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses and then destroy it

explain the Reason why he calls the Colossians Circumcision a Circumcision of Christ made without hands if he only intends Christs personal Circumcision when we all know that Christs personal Circumcision was a Circumcision made with Hands and could not possibly be such a Circumcisiou as theirs was consisting in the putting off of the Body of the Sins of the Flesh or Mortification of their Corruptions Christ had no Sin by Propagation to put off or mortifie in his own Person 2. Your Second Answer is no less absurd That if Baptism according to our Argument succeeds in the place of Circumcision then Females must be excluded from Baptism You had as good have said That the enlargement of the Priviledg under the Gospel is no good Medium to prove we are as compleat now under Baptism as they were under Circumcision Cannot Baptism stand in the place of Circumcision because it answers all its ends with an advantage This to me is a very strange Answer however it must stand in the place of a better rather than Baptism shall stand in place of Circumcision Obj. But if Baptism succeed in the room of Circumcision and there be such an Analogy betwixt them as you pretend then it will follow that you are oblig'd to Baptise your Children the Eighth Day as they Circumcised theirs Sol. The Objection is frivolous and vain no Man that I know doubts but the Lords Supper succeeds in the room and place of the Passover Christ was the substance of that as well as this and that was abrogated by his Institution of this the very same Night as soon as he and his Disciples had celebrated the one the other was instituted and immediately succeeded it and yet Christians are not oblig'd to the same Month Day or Hour for the Celebration of the Lords Supper the Analogy is betwixt the substantial parts of both amongst which the Spiritual Mystery Principal Ends and proper Subjects are of principal Consideration not the minuter Circumstances of time and place In the Passover and the Lords Supper there is a Correspondence betwixt the proper Subjects of both No uncircumcised Person or Stranger to the Covenant might eat of that Exod. 12. 43 48. No unbelieving Person uncircumcised in Heart hath a right to this 1 Cor. 11. 27 28. So in the other The Infants of God's Covenanted People were the proper Subjects of Circumcision then and so they are say we of Baptism now for the same Promise is still to Believers and their Children Acts 2. 38 39. Here lies the Analogy and not in the variable circumstances of time Whereas you say pag. 12. Baptism cannot succeed Circumcision because it leaves no Character or Mark upon the Body as that did This very Objection of yours is borrowed in express Words from Socinus that Enemy of Christ in Disp. de Bap. pag. 113. and fully answered by Maccovius Loc. Com. pag. 830 831. Object But it will be further said that according to our Opinion there can be no Analogy or Correspondency betwixt the very Subjects of both Ordinances for Infants at eight days Old were the proper Subjects of Circumcision but the Subjects of Baptism were adult believers from the time of it's first institution And so the Analogy fails in the very Subjects Sol. This Objection is grounded upon a great Mistake 't is your Opinion not ours that destroys it For with us it lyes fairly in these three respects of it 1. We find that at the first institution of Circumcision Abraham the Father at Ninety Years old and all the Men of his House were first Circumcised Gen. 17. 25 26 27. Answerably at the first institution of Baptism Parents Masters of Families c. being adult believers were first Baptized 2. After the Circumcision of Abraham and the Men of his House their Infant Seed were also Circumcised the promise belonging to them as well as their Parents Answerably under the Gospel the whole Families of believers were Baptized and the promise runs to their Infants under the Gospel as it did before Acts 2. 39. 3. As in the days of Circumcision if any stranger that had not been Cicumcised in his Infancy should afterwards become a Proselyte and joyn himself to the Lord he was to be Circumcised of what ever Age he was So now if any Infidel shall be converted he is to be Baptized upon his Personal Profession of Faith And so much for the Analogy As for your Correspondency of Identity I cannot understand it I meet with little more in your first Part werein I have any concernment only there I find four Arguments in Mood and Figure against the Innovation of Symbolical Rites by Humane Authority into the Worship of God which is certainly the best Page in your Book And of them I have nothing to say but that they are good Ware and I very well know the Mark and Number of that Parcel of Goods and to whom they properly belong But yet before I dismiss your Book I think my self concern'd to Vindicate one place of Scripture more viz. Rom. 11. 16 17. Which I alledg'd in the beginning for the confirmation of our first Proposition viz. That Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. is the same Covenant for Substance we Gentile Believers are now under If the first Fruits be holy the lump is also holy And if the root be holy so are the branches and if some of the branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive were'st grafted in among them and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive Tree boast not against the branches c. This place is deservedly of great value with us to prove that we Gentile Believers with our Infant Seed are invested under the Gospel with the same Substantial Priviledges that the Jews and their Infants formerly enjoy'd Here without opening one term you proceed in your wonted manner confidently to deny the Arguments of our Learned Divines from this place I shall therefore open this Famous Text and regularly deduce the right of Gentile believers Infants to Baptism from it and here keeping to the rules above 1 I note that ver 13 14 15. give us the true level and scope of the Apostles Argument which is to prove the calling in again of the Jews though for the present broken off and on this ground to excite himself to all diligence for their conversion and suppress all glorying and boasting in the Gentile Believers as if they were more worthy than those because they fill their Rooms and places 2 To prove the calling again of the Jews he argues strongly ver 16. from the Federal Holiness derived to the branches from their root or Ancestours namely Abraham Isaac and Jacob with whom the Covenant was made Gen. 17. For if the first fruit be holy the lump is also holy And if the root be holy so are the branches i. e. Abraeham Isaac and Jacob being in Covenant with God A Federal Holiness is from them derived to the