the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the Room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. It is a grand mistake for Circumcision was one of the two Ordinary Sacraments and Seals of God's Covenant given to Abraham and the Church in his Family about four hundred years before the Ark Manna or that Rock you speak of Gal. 3.17 There were many extraordinary Sacraments that God appointed to that Nonage-people or Heirs under Age to use the Apostles phrase Gal. 4.1 2 3. which God in mercy gave to help their Faith upon special occasions and emergencies besides some that you mention to wit the Brazen-Serpent for one which was but occasional Jo. 3.14 15. But Circumcision was one of the standing Sacraments and Seals annexed to the Covenant under a Church-dispensation all along into the place of which Baptism by the Lord's-appointment is come which holds proportion with it in all the main things it signified and Sealed And hence 5. You will easily have an Answer to those Popish absurdities and abominations you would fasten upon our Tenent We do not affirm meerly from the Analogy that Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision for if we had not something out of Scripture to warrant it we durst not pin it upon a meer Analogy If therefore Papists or other superstitious wits by arguments drawn from Analogies bring-in Jewish Rites as High-Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood and other innumerable Rites and Ceremonies without any Institution of Christ or New-Testament Authority we have as good ground left us in Scripture to convince them as you have and I hope should be as ready to do it as occasion shall be offerred And thus I have done with your sixth Question propounded long before and your Answers to it now come to the seventh Quest 7. Whether the not-Baptizing Infants makes the Priviledges under the Gospel less than the Circumcising them under the Law p. 205. which you somewhat alter p. 228. saying less than under the Law who had then Circumcision Your Answer is not at all and give your reasons why Not-Baptizing of Infants makes not Gospel-priviledges less than legal First they were not say you Circumcised because Children of Believers or sealed with a New-Covenant-Seal as being in the New-Covenant but upon the account of a Birth-Priviledge as of the natural lineage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical Shadowy thing c. I Reply 1. Were not their Parents professing-Believers at least under such a profession as suited that Dispensation Did they not attend upon the Sacrifices which pointed their Faith at Christ to come And were not they as they grew up to come before the Lord and say A Syrian ready to perish was my Father c. See Deut. 26.5 to v. 12. and there they were to worship before the Lord And afterwards v. 27. to avouch the Lord to be their God as he also avouched them to be his People v. 26. Was there no profession of Faith in all this 2. Were they not Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant of Grace under an external and Ecclesiastical Dispensation I suppose you will not say it was the Covenant of Works though when it became National it was given in somewhat a legal manner 3. What was that Birth-priviledge Did it not depend upon the Covenant Ecclesiastically dispensed and submitted to I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And did it not run in the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham as they were his Church-Seed as hath been shewn I pray consider what were the Proselytes and their Children who were also Circumcised they were not at all the Natural Seed of Abraham but they were his Visible-Church Seed 4. You say Circumcision was to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that line clear from whence Christ according to the flesh should come Suppose this last to be true of Abraham's natural Seed what was this to the Proselytes and their Seed from whom Christ was not to come yet they were to be Circumcised 5. You say there is no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away no Birth-priviledge but the new Birth c. I Answer 1. There is no such thing as Bodily Circumcision in the Gospel that is indeed abolished But 2. That there is no Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel but the new-Birth that I must deny and have already proved that there is And that that Birth-priviledge is a means and help tending to the New-Birth if it be rightly improved Christ is the common Father of Inchurched-Parents and their Seed now in these Gospel-days and they are Externally and Ecclesiastically Christ's and Abraham's Seed and in the same sence Heirs of Promise as hath been already proved And this Priviledge is not a Bondage and a returning to the Type and Shadow as you term it but a blessed Fruit of the Covenant made with Abraham who hath a Church-Seed now as well as heretofore What else is the Hypocrite that you admit if he be not one of Abraham's Church-Seed He is not one of Abraham's Seed Spiritually and Savingly nor hath the New-Birth indeed yet you judge him to have it Ecclesiastically and hence you Baptize him So much to your first Secondly neither ought such a thing say you to be any more esteemed the loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy-Land City Temple Succession of a High-Priest c. I Answer 1. The loss of Baptizing the Infants of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel would be the loss of a great priviledge both to Parents and Children which under the Law they did enjoy For it would be a loss of that which signified and Sealed God to be their God and the God of their Seed and to Circumcise their hearts to love the Lord and to signifie their initiating into the Church by your own concession and this would be the loss of no small Priviledge and therefore we cannot easily bear this loss 2. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Temporal Blessings and External Ordinances and means of Conversion As Canaan was an External Blessing signified and Sealed to them by Circumcision so Temporal Blessings are to us and our Infants by Baptism Psal 111. For it is a Sign and Seal of God's Covenant wherein Temporal Blessings are also implied and in the Explanation of it by other Scriptures expresly promised So also for External means of Grace 3. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Heaven and Eternal Happiness there of which Canaan was a Type unto them that if they did truly Believe in the Messiah then to come and walk in the ways of God Eternal Salvation was Sealed unto them thereby All those we must lose and yet esteem the loss of them the loss of no Priviledge 4. There is not the like Reason of the loss of Baptism
were Baptized For though the Church of the Jews were then the Church of God of which those Pharisees were Members yet it was sadly corrupted Suppose a Member of a Corrupt-Church should desire to Communicate with another purer Church should they not require his Repentance before they received him I suppose you will easily grant it 3. But what is this to the Infants we are speaking-of to wit Infants of Inchurched-Parents who walk regularly in a Gospel-Church Here 's a vast difference between them More hath been said to this before I shall conclude this fifth question with this That Circumcision was administred to Inchurched-Parents and their Male-Seed who alone were capable of it yea such Inchurched-Parents as made a Visible-profession of Faith in Christ to come though many of them did not truly Believe Quest 6. Whether Baptism did succeed in the Room Place and Use of Circumcision Your Answer is by no means which I shall examine First you say not in the Room and stead And your Reasons are 1. Because then only Males not Females would be Baptized This Reason I conceive will not hold because it springs Ex falso supposito from a falshood taken for granted to wit That whatever succeeds into the place of another thing must not be larger than it in any Circumstances which you will see to be a great mistake if you consider the Enlargement of Grace now in these Gospel-days in which if the Lord hath by changing his Ordinances given us those that are more large and extensive how should we praise his Grace and not pick quarrels with it 2. Because then say you some not all Believers should be Baptized for all Believers out of Abrahams Family were without Circumcision c. I Answer it follow 's not But rather the Grace of God is the more to be admired now in those Gospel-days for enlarging the extent of these Ordinances that his Goodness hath given in stead of those that were narrower 3. Because say you then the Circumcised needed not to have been Baptized if they had been already Sealed with the New-Covenant-Seal Neither will this Reason hold for 1. If God appoint whether Men need it or no it is their duty to submit to what he appoints Hence saith Christ when John stuck at Baptizing him Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness Math. 3.15 that Reason satisfied John And it be it be to fulfil Righteousness in obeying any command of God it should satisfie us also But 2. The new-New-Covenant falling now under a New-Testament dispensation by God's appointment and a new-New-Seal being added to it it could not but be of great Use to the people of God Circumcised before who were still imperfect and needed to have their Faith strengthened So much to your Reasons why you judge Baptism did not succeed in the Room and Place of Circumcision And now let me give you my Reason why I judg it did succeed it in the Room and Place of it out of Colossians 2. The Colossians were not only Believers in Christ but Believers in Church-Order Chap. 2.5 Hence the Apostle exhorts them as they had received Christ Jesus the Lord so they would walk in him to wit both in Believing more in him and in their Church-Order also v. 6. Rooted and built up in him and established and abounding therein v. 7. Then he gives them a Caveat to take heed of those Persons and things that might hinder them and lead them away from Christ v. 8. and then gives them a Reason v. 2. Because in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodilly which he amplifieth by an Argument in reference to them v. 10. And ye are compleat in him which is the head of all principality and Power Eph. 1.3 1 Cor. 1.30 Compleat in him not only in Respect of all saving-Benefits and spiritual Graces But also in respect of all outward Ordinances But they might object we want Circumcision which the Jews had Why saith the Apostle v. 11. Ye are also Circumcised in him with the Circumcision of Christ which he expounds v. 12. Buried with him by Baptism Baptism there I conceive is called the Circumcision of Christ even as Christ in the Lord's Supper is called our Passeover 1 Cor. 5.7 which plainly shew's that both the Lord's Supper succeeds in the Room and place of the Passeover and Baptism in the Room and place of Circumcision Secondly you come to shew that Baptism did not succeed Circumcision as to the Ends and Uses of it Your Reasons are these 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh and Baptism that he was already come in the flesh To which I Answer that the End and Use of both of them by your own Confession respected Christ So that they differed not in the main substantials but in some circumstances only They differed not in their End and Use as to the Essence of the thing but in the Adjunct of Time only the one pointing at Christ to come the other to him already come 2. Circumcision say you was to be a partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testified the contrary to wit that Barbarian Scythian Bond and Free Jew and Gentile were all on in Christ c. To which I reply 1. That Circumcision was not that Partition-Wall but the whole Ceremonial Law and Legal-worship as Beza well expounds it Eph. 2.14 Circumcision was long before the Ceremonial Law given to Abraham as we intimated before John 7.22 And was one of the two ordinary and standing-Seals of the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed at first to Abraham and the Church in his Family and distinguished those of the Church then and afterwards from all others whatsoever Even as also Baptism now doth or should do at least Legitimately dispensed It 's true that while Circumcision lasted as God's Ordinance it signified that Christ had not yet broken down that Partition-Wall between Jew and Gentile and so the difference still remained the Commission as yet was not given to go forth into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature but his Words Statutes and Judgments formerly given still remained with Israel and no other Nation yet had them Psal 147.19 20. The Gentiles were yet afar off Strangers from the Covenants of Promise Eph. 2.12 which priviledge belonged alone to the Church of the Jews Rom. 9.4 5. Rom. 3.1 2. So that this doth not reach your purpose nor prove that Circumcision was the Partition-Wall 2. You say Baptism testified the Contrary I Answer First if your opposition had been Logical and Legitimate you should have said Circumcision testified that there was a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testified the contrary But there 's no opposition as you frame it Opposita enim eidem attribuuntur secundum idem ad idem c. And if you had made the opposition aright it would not have been against us at all For
natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents be now ceased in these Gospel-days what then mean's that Scripture Rom. 11.28 spoken of the Israelites to be called in these latter days That they are beloved for the Fathers sakes It would be sad and lamentable if believing-Parents now under the Gospel should have no such Priviledge left them in reference to the eternal Estates of their poor Children Heretofore Church-Members had a promise that God would be the God of their Seed and Circumcise the hearts of their Seed to love the Lord with all the Heart and all the Soul Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 but now by the coming of Christ it is ceased This is sad indeed What visible grounds of hope of any saving Grace or Mercy have Inchurched-Christians now in reference to their Children more than Turks and Pagans have Durus Sermo yet some have been so bold as in plain terms to say so But are they ceased indeed when and where hath God repealed them Not by John the Baptist as we have made appear Nor could I yet ever see that he hath done it by any other hand Hence therefore they must be in force still Hath God given his people promises of food and raiment and other temporal things for their encouragement and comfort 1 Tim. 4.8 and left them no promise at all now in Gospel times to help their faith concerning their poor Childrens eternal Estate whose souls they prize more than their own lives The Apostle saw something in it when he said we that are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And why not also in a safe sence Christians by nature and not sinners of the Turks or Pagans who are yet strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 as the Gentiles generally then were You will say we are all by nature Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 And was not Paul and those Jews so too and yet the Apostle makes that distinction between them And whence was it but from God's Covenants in which they externally were even before their Coversion And why there should not be the like Priviledge of Children of Inchurched-Parents I never yet could see And hence such a child may go to God and plead Lord thou art my Fathers God Exod. 15.2 and hast promised to be my God And a Parent may go and plead Lord thou hast promised to be my God and the God of my Seed and to circumcise their hearts to Love thee Deut. 30.6 with Gen. 17.7 O! let it be so according to thy promise Thou hast said I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessing upon thine offspring Isa 44.3 and then one should say I am the Lord 's c. see v. 5. they should engage themselves to the Lord and to his Church by the strongest bonds And this is a Gospel-promise and belonging to Gospel-times and a great part of that blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 Why then should any contradict it Is not the second Commandment still in force to parents in Church-Covenant with God in reference to their Children whom they have given over to God in his Covenant Hath he not there said He will have mercy on thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements That is on such Parents as give up themselves to God in the Commands of his Instituted Worship in reference to their Children Psal 112.1 2. even to a thousand Generations Deut. 7.9 But repayeth them that hate him to wit in a sinful neglecting or rejecting his instituted Worship to their face v. 10. And this is one way whereby God doth testifie it even by rejecting their Children so as not to vouchsafe them the External Priviledge of his Covenant and means of Grace See an eminent instance of it in Esau and his posterity who sold his birth-right Heb. 12.6 which was then a Church-Priviledge and is therefore called a profane person and so lost the blessing from himself and his see the like in Ishmael and his Generations I conclude then that John Baptist did not upon that change discharge the Church-Seed of Abraham which I shall yet a little further explain by opening the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise which are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1. Negatively 1. By Children of the flesh cannot be meant the natural Children of believers as their natural Children Nor 2. Their Children that have only sin and corruption in them for then Isaac must have been a Child of the flesh For he was the natural Son of Abraham and by nature sinful 3. By Children of the promise cannot be meant only such as are really-converted For many that were of Isaac's Posterity and so Children of the Promise were not so and some in Gospel-Churches are not so now 2. Affirmatively First by Children of the Flesh are meant 1. Of old Ishmael and his Posterity begotten by strength of nature which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life by their own personal performances or abilities whether in whole or in part and that not only invisibly but visibly and Ecclesiastically also as the Apostle said of Jerusalem in his time Gal. 4.25 Jerusalem that now is the Antitype of the other in bondage with her Children Secondly by Children of the Promise are meant 1. Of old Isaac and his Posterity in the line of Jacob which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life alone by faith in Christ his righteousness only according to the Covenant of Grace And these again are either 1. All such as are true believers indeed who look by a true and lively-lively-Faith to Christ and his Righteousness only 2. Or such as profess only and pretend to do so but indeed do not These latter seem and appear to be Believers to Men to the visible-Church but are not really-such before God Yet even these are Children of the Promise in the genuine sence of the Scripture and not Children of the Flesh in the Apostles sence Gal. 4.21 22 23 c. God doth and will indeed distinguish between the spiritual seed and those that are meerly the Church-seed of Abraham but Men cannot unless by some miscarriages they discover themselves and appear to be what they are as Simon Magus did Acts. 8.23 And thus under one we have an exposition of that Eâdem fideliâ duos parietes Gal. 3.7 They which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham they which are of Faith to wit true Believers indeed as Abraham was are Spiritually and savingly the Children of Abraham And they which are of Faith to wit Believers in appearance only before the Church only they are only Ecclesiastically the Children of Abraham And this is sufficient to entitle them to Church-Ordinances and their Children to Baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant And this also helps us to expound Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christ's then are
to the other that believes Believers as to all lawful things have a lawful use of them as they are Men but they have also this more than any Unbelievers have to wit a Sanctified Use of them as they are Believers To the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 that is not only lawful for so Meat Drink Physick Plowing Marriage c. are even to Heathens but they are also holy in and for the use of Believers But to the impure and Unbelieving Meat Drink Apparel Marriage Plowing c. though in themselves lawful yet nothing is pure and Sanctified to them but even their Mind and Conscience is defiled The Plowing of the wicked is Sin Prov. 21.4 2. Though this Sanctified Use and Enjoyment is necessarily implied in that phrase Sanctified in the Believing Husband and in the believing Wife yet that is not all but there is somewhat more intimated which is more to our purpose and to the scope of the place and why we should lose a grain of it I see no reason Mr. T. For both the Parents being as it were the common root of the Child if both are unholy and unbelieving the Child is unclean in the Apostl's sence But saith the Apostle If either the Father or the Mother be a Believer the Child is not unclean but holy notwithstanding one of the Parents be an Unbeliever For that Parent which is an Unbeliever is sanctified in that Parent which is a Believer I say sanctified in him so that by vertue of that Parent who is a Believer the other that is an Unbeliever becomes with the Believing Parent the root of an holy Child as if he or she were a Believer too the Blessing following the Believing party The Vnbelieving Parent is Sanctified In the Believing one and so with the Believing one is the root of an holy Seed Hence we see that there is no reason why we should change the signification of In into To but great reason why we should give it it 's proper signification As to that of Ezra 10. It was an Obligation peculiar to the Nation of the Jews before Christ came in the flesh and before the Partition-Wall was broken down between Jews and Gentiles And that it respected the Jews only and also for that space of time is apparent thus An Infidel-Husband turning Proselite was not bound to put away his Wife though she still continued an Infidel And thus much to that phrase Sanctified in the Believing-Husband and Sanctified in the Believing-Wife Now of the Childrens being Unclean and Holy I assert 1. Negatively By Vnclean here is not meant Illegitimate or Bastards nor such only as have Sin in them for so those Children the Apostles calls Holy have Nor by Holy is meant Legitimate Nor do the Scriptures you alledge make it good From what I pray was the Bastard who was Illegitimate excluded Deut. 23.2 not from Legitimacy only but from the Congregation of the Lord. He was accounted unclean and unholy in reference to that and might not partake of the priviledges of the Covenant as other Children might He was not to be accounted federally-Holy as other Children of the Jewish Church were which your self doth grant p. 190. And as to that of 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. It doth not prove Legitimacy to be Holiness but there is something more in it For the Apostle speaks not here to the Gentiles that knew not God v. 6. but to visible Saints-Inchurched who were visibly at least and in the judgment of Charity in God the Father and in Jesus Christ Chap. 1.1 And it was the Will of God that they should walk not only in a Civil and sober manner for so many Gentiles did that knew not God but also in a Sanctified manner that every one of them should possess his Vessel in Sanctification and Honour even in their married-estate and not in the lust of Concupiscence God expects that his people even in a married-estate should not only be honest but also Holy That they should consecrate themselves whole to God And again that by honesty and purity the Saints might be discerned from them that know not God Beza in loc And as to that of Malachy 2.15 it doth not at all oppose what we hold The words are not a Holy Seed as you render them pag. 199. but a Seed of God that is God instituted Marriage between but one Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Woman he created and joined but one Woman to one Man though he might have made many more but one I say that their Children might be a Seed of God And Legitimate Children may be called a Seed of God because born in Marriage which was instituted of God for all Mankind But this Seed of God common to all Children born of Parents in lawful Marriage is not equivalent unto those Children which the Apostle calls Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 for their Holiness depends not only upon that lawful-Marriage of the Parents but principally and properly upon one of them as a Believer Denominatio sumiâ—ur â potiori in whom as a joint-root of the Child the Unbeliever is said to be Sanctified ut supra Again neither by Holy is meant such as they might make a holy use of For so a repenting and Believing Parent might of a Bastard or of other Children of Infidels Nor is it meant the same with the Infidels being Sanctified in the Believer 2. Affirmatively and Positively 1. By Vnclean is meant such Children one of whose Parents was not at least a visible-Believer who never consecrated himself and his Children to God in his Covenant 2. By Holy is meant such Children one of whose Parents at least was a visible-Believer and Member of the Church of Christ who had given up himself and his Children to God in his Covenant Such were Holy with a Covenant and Church-holiness Mr. Cobbet Antiochus destroyed the holy people or people of the Holy ones Dan. 8.24 among which were Children destroyed as well as Parents And how were they Holy Even by vertue of the Holy-Covenant Dan. 11.28.30 32. in which all the Jews Externally and Ecclesiastically were together with their little Ones Deut. 29.11 12. Against which Holy Covenant the Enemies had indignation Dan. 11.30 The Children were a part of that body of people redeemed from Egypt which were called Holy Deut 14.2 and Deut. 26.18 19. and cap. 28.9 Take the sum of the words in this ensuing Paraphrase Unless your Interest in the Covenant of Grace and your Faith therein which in a Church-way ye profess have so much influence on your Infidel Yoke-fellows as to Sanctifie them not only to your Conjugal Use but also to Sanctifie them in you both of you being together one Common-root of your Children it cannot be of force to your Children to render and denominate them Holy but they must be unclean as if ye had been both Infidels But this latter ye do not question to wit whether your Children are Holy And
or as Externally and Ecclesiastically Dispensed Now if you take both of these together in sensu composito in a compound sence then I grant that the Covenant is no larger than the Vein of Election but they run parallel But if they be taken in sensu diviso in a divided sence for Election only unto Eternal Life and Salvation and Saving-Graces then I deny them to be equal For there is also an Election of some unto External Church-Covenant-Ordinances and Priviledges who are not Elected unto Salvation A Church-Member living and dying in Hypocrisie was within the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed Else how came he to be a Member of the Church which consists by the Covenant which is as the Cement that joyn's them together Yet such a One was never in the Vein of Election unto Eternal-Life which is absolute and not conditional as some Blasphemously hold Hence when it is said the Covenant is no larger than Believing that is It belongs to none but true Believers It is thus to be understood to wit as to the enjoyment of the saving benefits of it it belongs as Immediately to none but true Believers but as to the External proposal and tender of them and Ecclesiastical and Temporary Priviledges of the Covenant so it may and doth belong not only to true Believers but also to such as make a credible profession of true Faith in a visible congregation though they be not true Believers indeed to their Children also To conclude this If the Covenant be no larger than the Vein of Election unto Salvation and no larger than true Believing then some of these absurdities must needs follow 1. Either there must be no Hypocrite in any visible Church for he is not in the Vein of Election to Eternal Salvation and therefore Matth. 13.37 38 39 c. 47 48 49 50. not within the Covenant and this is flatly-contrary to the Scripture and to known experience see also Rom. 9.1 2 3 4. 2. Or if there be any Hypocrites in the visible-Church they must be certinaly-Elected to Salvation For Being in the Visible Church they are within the Covenant as hath been proved and the Covenant being no larger than Election they must of necessity be Elected 3. Hypocrites in the visible-Church must be Damned or Saved Damned they cannot be because they are within the Covenant as I have proved And the Covenant being of the same Latitude with Election they are Elected to Salvation and must not be Damned or if they be God must change his Decree which is Blasphemy even to think Again Saved they cannot be for God never Elected any unto Salvation that lived and died Hypocrites and he will not change his mind And hence according to that Tenet Hypocrites can neither be Damned nor Saved 4. If the Covenant be no larger than Election unto Eternal Life and Salvation and no Infants are in the Covenant then all Infants-dying must be damned For according to this Opinion they being not in the Covenant are not Elected and not being Elected cannot be saved unless the unchangeable God change his Decree that is change himself Hence we see that what we hold is free from that absurdity which you would fasten upon it and the absurdity lies at your own Door But it seem's all my labour is in vain that I have spent in proving this Holiness of Children 1 Cor. 7.14 to be a federal-Holiness because say you Be the Holinese here what it will it is neither here nor else-where assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon c. To which I Answer 1. That if this Holiness be federal which you acknowledge all Children under the Law had yea I shall also add as the Children Inchurched in Abraham's Family had which was long before the Law then if those Children were by God's appointment sealed with the Initiatory Seal Circumcision the same Covenant that God made with Abraham and his Seed being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 with Acts 2.39 Our Inchurched Children also are to be Sealed with the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant now under the Gospel Especially considering this that God hath never revoked it but hath brought Baptism into the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. And you your self grant so much implicitely in saying that Circumcision and Baptism serve to the same end and that there is an Analogy in some things betwixt the one and the other Pag. 223. But 2. I have already proved out of Christs Commission that Inchurched-Parents Children are Disciples and so federally Holy and by the same Commission to be Baptized And the reason why Women and Females under the Law were not Circumcised nor commanded to be Circumcised was because of an Incapacity in Nature they having no Praeputium or Foreskin as the Males had and what other Reason there might be is hid from us With Reverence I may say It could not suit with the Wisdom and goodness of God dealing with his people in the way of a Covenant of Grace to command a thing impossible I pray what was there in the first Institution of Baptism in John the Baptists time concerning the Baptizing of Women We hear nothing of them expresly till a long while after Acts 8.12 And as for their right to and receiving of the Lord's Supper I suppose we have shewn you as much obscurity in it as you can object to us concerning the Baptism of Inchurched Infants CHAP. IV. Answer to your Arguments of Circumcision examined p. 204. and to the Questions you make and Answers seven in all Quest 1. WHether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal did belong of old to all in Gospel-Covenant First you deny Circumcision to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers and so do I there were many Believers before Circumcision was instituted and so they could not be Sealed by it Be it so that Circumcision was tied to the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards to Jacob and his posterity Might not God do with his own what he would What if God denyed it to others out of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards in Jacob's posterity that people might joyn themselves to them as Proselytes which is most probable Are not many Believers without the Seals of the Covenant now because they do not or cannot joyn themselves to a Gospel-Congregation Will you therefore deny Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be the Seals of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers Are they not instituted of God to be Seals unto them if they come in a right way to enjoy them Again you say there were some to whom the Covenant did not belong who received that called the Seal of Circumcision as Ishmael You indeed Answer this your self in the next words when you say This Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac Gen. 17.20 21 25. It was not to be Established with him to be made to stand and abide with him He doth not say that the Covenant in
then were not who were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise and Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel in the 12th verse of the very same Chapter Overthrow this Truth if you can Again another of your Inferences is If God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers then say you would Grace be a Birth-priviledge and Regeneration tied to Generation contrary to John 3.3 and John 1.12 13. This hath been fully Answered to before This External-Covenant-Grace we hold is a Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents and is an advantage to Parents to cry to God for Converting-Grace for their Children and a strong engagement to them to train them up in the way of the Lord and to Children when grown to cry to God for Converting-Grace for themselves The Lord thy God will circumcise the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God c. Deut. 30.6 Again you infer Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved unless you will hold falling from Grace To which I reply that what hath been already said will easily Answer this It doth not at all yield such an Inference But this we may safely say and hold that the Posterity of Inchurched-Believers have an advantage tending to Conversion and Salvation that other Children have not it will be their great sin greater Condemnation if they improve it not Nor do we hereby necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from Grace that is from inward sanctifying Grace They may indeed fall from that outward Covenant-Grace as Ishmael and Esau did But as we do not hold this to be Inward Sanctifying Grace so we cannot necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from it for then they must fall from what they never had Another of your Inferences is Then must we tie up and confine the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then what hope say you for the Children of Unbelievers Contrary to the Experience of all Ages c. To which I return which also hath been mentioned before 1. Grace is either External Covenant-Grace or Internal Spiritual and Saving Grace We do not tie up by our Tenet the Internal Spiritual and Saving-Grace to the Children of Believers only but leave unto the Soveraign Lord his Prerogative-Royal to bestow his Grace upon whom he will Rom. 9.15 18. 2. But this I must affirm that Infidel-Parents and their Children want that priviledge that Christian Inchurched-Parents and their Children have I pray what Visible help have you that deny this to encourage your Faith to Believe and put you on to pray for the Conversion and Salvation of your Children What no Promise from God concerning them in which you may wrestle with him in their behalf and no Promise left for them to further them in it any more than Children of Heathens This were sad indeed I bless the God of all Grace I have experienced the contrary and do daily I knew a Godly Parent of your perswasion who was sadly perplext about the Eternal Estate of a dying-Infant What visible ground of hope have we for dying Infants if there be nothing left us in gods-Gods-Covenant Your last Inference is Then is the Covenant of Grace overthrown concluding an Interest without Faith Rom. 4.14 derivng a Title by natural Generation To which I reply that hath been Answered already The Covenant of Grace is not thereby overthrown but established For 1. The Faith of one Inchurched-Parent at least hath been visibly professed and the Covenant visiby-accepted which hath given an Interest to the Child And 2. Hence the Natural Legitimate Child of such a Parent hath thereby a visible Title which is that we plead for Then you come pag. 213. to that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. which you grant if rightly-understood to be Parallel with that Gen. 17.7 But I cannot agree with you in your sence of it For first what you say agrees not with the Truth Secondly nor with your self 1. Not with the Truth For the Promise there seems not the Promise of the Spirit in those extraordinary gifts of it wherewith God adorned the Church then mentioned out of Joel 2.28 For first that Promise of Extraordinary gifts of the Spirit doth not belong to all Believers and Inchurched-Parents in all Ages as that other doth Acts 2.38 39. Secondly nor is effectual-Calling the only condition of obtaining those Extraordinary Gifts For many that were and are effectually-called had them not and some might then have them that were not effectually called as is apparent in Matth. 7.22 23. Thirdly Remission of sins is here Promised to all these Jews and is here held forth to them as Externally belonging to them to urge them to Repent and Believe which is not so much as named in Joel 2. Fourthly it is apparent that the Guilt of that cursed wish Matth. 27.25 His Blood be upon us and our Children did stagger them and occasioned the Apostle in express-Terms to mention that promise to them to their Children which the Promise of those Extraordinary Gifts could not cure They were prict in their heart v. 37. For that great Sin especially and needed remission of sins and wounded for that curse they had wished upon their Children and the holding forth of this Promise was to oure them both which thing the other of Extraordinary Gifts could not do Fifthly though Sons and Daughters might fall under the notion of their Children yet Old men mentioned as distinct from them could not so which yet are mentioned in Joel 2. These two Scriptures then speak not to the same thing and so are not the same Promise Yet if any do still suppose them to be the same let them read what Mr. Sydenham hath said upon that Text in his Book for Infant-Baptism Thus I have shewn why I conceive that your interpretation of that place in Joel doth not agree with the Truth in making it the same with Acts 2. 2. I shall now shew that it doth not agree with your self In pag. 213. You say that that Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit Joel 2.28 and doth follow the Receiving of Christ in the Gospel and the obeying his Commands Ephes 1.13 Gal 3.14 Acts 5.32 Therefore say you Acts 2.38 Peter exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it And afterwards you say therefore the Promise to wit in Acts 2.39 is not made but upon condition of Calling and Faith and Baptism And in pag. 214. The Promise is given as a Motive why they should Repent and be Baptized I must confess my weak understanding cannot reconcile them Review them more distinctly and judg of them The Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit prophesied Joel 2.28 The same Promise follows the receiving of Christ Peter Exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it The same Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling Faith and Baptism and
of explaining your self Your words seem to relate to Gal. 5.2 3. when Circumcision was abolished by the death of Christ and no Ordinance of God the Apostle tells them then that if they were Circumcised Christ would profit them nothing for it would be as if they had said and held that Christ had not died and satisfied for sin and so such a one would be a debtor to do the whole Law Circumcision being one of the Ordinary Seals of God's Covenant under that Legal Dispensation until Christ should come to fulfil the Law would now by their abuse and perverting of it engage them to perform perfect obedience to the whole Law in their own persons under penalty of Eternal damnation He speaks to such as it seems would joyn their own performances and legal Ceremonies and Christ's Righteousness together So that this doth not reach your purpose for you speak of Circumcision as it was a blessed Ordinance of God in force engaging the Jews to keep the whole Law of Moses in an Evangelical manner looking to Christ alone for Righteousness to justifie them and the Apostle speaks of it as now abolished by Christ and perverted by some of these Galatians who would make a mixture of their own personal Righteousness the Legal Ceremonies and Christ's Righteousness together in the business of their Justification As for the rest of the phrases had you told us what you mean by the Law of Moses and what by the Law of Christ We should then have been able to judge of your Argument but now it must remain with your self If in Moses Law you include the Moral-Law I must assert that that also is the Law of Christ and brought under Christ for Gospel-Ends which I suppose you will not deny Thus much to the fourth 5. Circumcision say you was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptism to the Spiritual Seed was only upon profession of Faith c. which more fully appears by three Instances c. For Answer 1. It was by God's command to be done upon Infants of Inchurched-Parents who were not capable then of making any such profession and we know no absurdity that Baptism should now be administred to Infants of Inchurched-Parents though they can make no such profession of Faith c. 2. Circumcision was administred not only to all Abraham's natural Seed but to his Church-Seed to wit Proselites and their Male-Children and the Children of his Servants who were themselves Circumcised Exod. 12.48 when Abraham was Gen. 17. 3. As for Adult-Persons to be circumcised why was not the same or like profession of Faith and Repentance required of them as of Abraham himself God requires of him the Fruits and effects of both and that before he was circumcised Gen. 17.1 I am God Almighty walk before me and be upright And how could he do so either Invisibly to men or Visibly without Believing and Regeneration suitable to those Your self grant that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had before And it is an impregnable Truth that Circumcision did mediately signifie and Seal Regeneration Jer. 4.4 with Deut. 30.6 and Heart-Circumcision as your self have granted p. 223. How therefore can you prove that those of years that were to be Circumcised were to make no profession of Faith and Regeneration It 's probable that it was not indeed so manifest and express as what is required now in Gospel-times but that there was not any at all suitable to the Church under that Dispensation is gratis dictum and without proof Did Proselytes make no kind of profession of Faith before Circumcision How then could the Church of Israel know what difference there was between them and their Heathen Neighbours Did they no more but offer themselves to be Circumcised only And did the Church admit them upon that offer without any further transaction certainly that would have been the way to make bad Church-work When you give better proof we shall either Embrace or else Answer your Argument I now come to examine your three Instances First what you mean by a Spiritual-parent I cannot understand only I guess you mean the Holy Ghost and then that Instance as to the substance of it hath been Answered before An Inchurched Parent both then and now gives right to the Initiatory Seal to the Child Secondly because say you a Legal p. 222. Ecclesiastical Typical Holiness when Land Houses and Trees were holy qualified for Circumcision whereas only Evangelical and personal Holiness was a meet qualification for Baptism I Answer As Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness qualified for Circumcision of old so Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness doth now for Baptism as hath been proved What you mean by Typical Holiness here and of what was Typical I understand not because you have not here declared it But you seem to make the Holiness of Children then the same with Land and Trees Was the federal Holiness of Children then the same with that of Land and Trees If there be not now an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical-Holiness what Holiness is that which a Hypocrite hath whom you Baptize A legal-Ecclesiastical Holiness it is not for that say you is past and gone Typical Holiness it is not for that be it what you please to call it is also vanished Real Spiritual-Holiness it is not for he is an Hypocrite What then will you call it If it be not an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness it is none at all and why then is he Baptized Thirdly say you because strangers and Servants bought with mony and all ignorant Children of eight days old yea Trees were capable of Circumcision whereas only Men of understanding capable to Believe with all their heart and give an account with their mouths were to be esteemed capable subjects of Baptism I Answer 1. Were not those strangers and Servants bought with mony Men capable of understanding 2. Were they not instructed by Abraham before they were Circumcised Abraham was a long time a Believer before God put him and his Family into that Church-Estate and commanded them to be Circumcised as you will easily grant And God speaks of him as one that had experience of Abraham's Care Industry and Faithfulness that way Gen. 18.19 And how do you know that God gave not a Blessing to his Endeavours at least so far as that they outwardly made some profession of Faith and Regeneration suitable to the State of the Church in those days Is it probable or rational to think that Abraham ran upon the Men of his Family as upon a Company of Bruit Beasts to Circumcise them without instructing them what the mind of God was in it Surely that had been to deal with Beasts and not with Men. 3. Children of inchurched-Parents of eight days old were capable of Circumcision then and so they are of Baptism now though they cannot give an account with their mouths
could wash my hands as clean that way as you could wash yours by dipping them into the water and I should not count her a Slut that would so wash her hands when they were foul Our experience therefore you see tells us that there is as effectual a way to wash our dirty-hands by pouring water upon them as by dipping them Besides unless you rinse or rub as well as dip you will not easily make clean work of it and if this your similitude hold you must not only dip the person you Baptize but you must rinse or rub him too to signifie his cleansing You take away the cavils of unseemliness from dipping by saying It is the fruit of â—â—â—rnal Wisdom Unbelief and shunning the the Cross and so no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ c. I Answer Were it apparent from Scripture that Christ had ordained Dipping and himself so practised it as you affirm I hope through the Grace of Christ many of his people would not count it undecent as now they do And there must be clearer light to convince them that are considerate of it than any you have yet held forth And I much wonder that you who will not admit of Consequences concerning Infants-Baptism which are far more rational and certain should content your self with such uncertain ones as you have brought for dipping I would only recite out of Mr. Cobbet p. 212. what he saith out of Nicephorus lib. 13. cap. 19. of the flying of the Women naked being beset with armed-Men as they were to be Baptized and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a Woman when to be Baptized Then as to the hazard of health you say known experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination You will not be offended I hope if the experience of some others be set against yours It is more than probable that some have presently upon it fallen into a Fever which cost them their lives And I could tell you of some Eye-witnesses credible-persons who saw both the Baptizer and the Baptized in danger of drowning and had very probably been both drowned if one had not leapt in from the bank in his Clothes and relieved them both I would not have mentioned these things had not your words required an answer for it is Truth and Peace that I aim at and not Contention and bitterness To your Chapter V. pag. 253. I Answer Having as I trust given satisfactory Answers to what you have said and in some measure evidenced and confirmed the contrary-truth those several mischiefs absurdities and contradictions cannot justly be charged upon our practice I shall mention them very briefly having spoken to most of them amply before Only I must tell you that the Errours you charge our Doctrine and Practice with do not naturally and perse follow from them but they are accidental to them as far as they are Errours They are the Errours of Persons only not of our Doctrine nor of our Practice according to our Doctrine And therefore you injuriously charge them upon our Doctrine Practice It is fallacia accidentis As for what is Truth in any of them we own and have proved it before but the most of them you falsly charge upon us Let those that own what is Erroneous in their Expressions make them good if they can or rather repent of them Our Assertion of Infant-Interest and Baptism will stand without them 1. Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an altering of the Order of Christs Commission as hath been proved but it is acting according to his Commission Disciples we have proved them to be and so by Christ's Commission to be Baptized Repentance and Faith visibly-professed at least should precede in grown-persons not so in Infants but their Baptism and being Externally in the Covenant of Grace is to engage and stir them up to seek to God for Repentance and Faith And this Answer will undermine all the rest of your absurdities mischiefs and contradictions It 's no changing of the subjects that Christ hath appointed Nor a frustrating of the holy and Spiritual Ends of Baptism but a means to attain them if it be rightly-improved Nor doth it invert the Order by sprinkling or pouring water upon the face Nor doth it naturally and of it self introduce any Errour or false Doctrine We do not hold that it is to take away Original Sin Nor that it doth of it self work Grace and Regeneration yet we dare not limit the Lord that he should not work it then or at any other time when he pleaseth And that it was an Apostolical Tradition we own it no otherwise than from their writings and practice recorded in the Scripture If any make it an unwritten Tradition let them please themselves with their own fancy Nor doth it maintain that Children have Faith though it is beyond your reach to say this or that Child hath no Faith secret things belong to God But that they are Disciples of Christ and in Christ's School we have proved though they have not yet learnt one Letter That all the Infants of Inchurched-Believers are Externally in the Covenant of Grace and federally-Holy I have proved and you cannot prove it to be an Errour or false Doctrine Nor doth it defile and pollute the Church either by bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling neither capable to perform Duties nor enjoy priviledges Those words Saints by calling if you mean such as have Actually answered the call of Christ in his word at least in the judgment of Charity respect only-Adult-persons who are immediate-Members and not Children who are Mediate Members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as middle persons appointed of God to convey them into that Estate and Relation This distinction will free the Church from pollution of which more hath been said before We do not hold that a Church is gathered or made up only of Infants but of grown persons who alone are able to perform Duties But Infants are capable of enjoying Priviledges Is it not a Priviledge for God to be their God Externally in Covenant To be under a promise of God's Circumcising the heart and to provide them outward means for that End Some of your perswasion have held that they have great priviledges They are then true matter of the Church as visible in their kind and do not pollute and defile it By your Argument the Children of the Jews must be false matter for they were no Saints by calling nor could they perform duties yet they were mediate members of the Church and a part of that holy-people as hath been shewed Nor doth it lay a Foundation of Ignorance and prophaneness but the Contrary as I have abundantly proved Nor is it a confounding World and Church together nor bringing the World into the Church and turning the Church into the World You will see the contrary if you impartially-weigh what I have said before This reasoning of yours is as much against Children
Covenant with him though my Child know nothing of it nor is at present capable of giving his consent And should not I and my Child also when he comes to Age acknowledge the rich Grace of God therein Surely there 's all reason for it And if the Lord be also pleased to Seal this Covenant to me and to my Child though at present he is not capable of giving his consent Is it therefore a nullity a meer nothing Is he not bound to make use of it when he is grown up and to seek unto this Covenant-God for Regenerating Grace What other Men of larger Principles hold will not concern those that consent not with them It is therefore a little unbrotherlike to beat us with their Cudgels Whom you account a right Minister I know not but I have often thought that every Brother whom those of your perswasion call forth to dispense that Ordinance is not a right Minister and therefore to return the words of Chamier upon you in the sence he meant them It is not a Sacrament but a rash mockery or deceiving by no means to be endured in the Church and so that speech will fall with more equity upon you than upon us about the Baptizing of Infants Yet some Godly and judicious do judge a little more charitably that when it is done in the way of an Ordinance it is not a meer Nullity though it hath been defective in some things Circumstantial fieri non debuit factum valet Thus I suppose I have Answered to the main of your Arguments though I have not traced you in all places in the Order that they lie in your Book Also some of your humane Testimonies I have examined and find them faulty As to the rest not having the Authors by me nor time to examine them I shall leave that task to another hand that hath diligently Examined and scanned them and as he told me finds them not a little abused from whom I suppose you you will shortly hear If those debates be blessed to discover the truth to your self or any other and add any thing to the making up of the breach that the Lord may be one and his Name one amongst us in these points wherein we yet differ I shall have what I aimed at and the God of Truth and Peace shall have all the Glory Amen FINIS POSTSCRIPT HAving had an opportunity to make further Inspection into Dr. Homes his Vindication I find that he hath Answered to the very same Testimonies you produce long since produced by Mr. Tombes whose large Piece it seems to me you have epitomized But take not the least notice that I can perceive of the overthrow the Doctor hath given to those abused-humane Authorities but bring them in as new things of your own as if nothing had ever been replied to them You needed not have spent so much Paper had you but read what hath been replied by him and many others to your Arguments which you pass over in silence as if nothing had been said against them My prayer to God is and shall be that God would deliver his people from being deluded by dark and covert dealing which tends to the obscuring of the Truth and to a specious promoting of errour It is matter of grief to see many honest and simple-hearted Christians suck up your mistakes as infallible undoubted and unanswerable Truths The God of Truth make the Truth to appear with such evidence as that they that are misled may embrace and receive it in the love of it and may be reduced into the way of Truth and established therein Books sold by R. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in Paul's Church-yard 1674. FOLIO's CRitica Sacra in Biblia 10 Vol. 16 l. Buxtorfii Concordant Heb. 1 l. 10 s. Cotgrave's French and English Dictionary corrected and enlarged 1673. 1 l. 4 s. Twiss de Scientia Media 12 s. Scapulae Lexicon Graco-Latinum 1 l. 10 s. Dr. Heylin's Cosmography 1 l. 4 s. The Life of Archbishop Laud by Dr. Heylin 10 s. Schroder's compleat Chymical Dispensatory English 10 s. Lord Cooks four Institutes of the Laws of England viz. 1. His Comment on Littleton 1 l. 2. His Comment on Magna Charta largest paper 16 s. 3. Pleas of the Crown 6 s. 4. Jurisdiction of Courts 8 s. Blunt's Law-Dictionary 9 s. Mr. Farindon's Sermons compleat 1672 in 3 Volumns Lord Bacon's Natural History 8 s. The Works of Dr. Thomas Jackson in 3 Volumns with many Additions and a large Table 1672. 3 l. 10 s. Cambridge Concordance second Edition 1672 16 s. House of Mourning a collection of Funeral Sermons 16 s. Mr. Joseph Mede's Works 1 l. 10 s. Dr. Jeremy Taylor 's Sermons 1 l. The Jesuits Morals 10 s. Bartholinus's Anatomy English with Figures 12 s. Dr. Allestree's Sermons 8 s. Chillingworth against the Papists 12 s. Lord Bacons Advancement of Learning 10 s. Isaac Ambroses Works 1 l. 6 s. QVARTO's GValt Charletoni Onomasticon Zoicon Mantissa Anatomica 6 s. Duport Versio Psalmorum Graec. 4 s. Prideaux Fasciculus Controversiarum 3 s. 6 d. Duport Gnomologicon Homericum 6 s. Davissoni Comment in Sever. Dani Ideam Med. Philos Dr. Manwaring his Method of Cure 6 d. Caryl on Job compleat twelve parts 4 l. Description and History of the future state of Europe 1 s. The Jesuits Intrigues 1 s. Burroughs Jewel of Contentment 2 s. 6 s. The Works of John Gregory of Christs-Church 6 d. Dr. Tho. Pierce's Sermons 6 s. Sinner impleaded in his own Court 6 s. Correct Copy of some Notes conc God's Decrees 1 s. Fowler 's Defence of the Design of Christianity against John Bunyan 1 s. Goldmans Dictionary with large Additions 1674. 18 s. Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery first part 2 s. Lyfords Discovery of Errors Heresies of the Times 4 s. Dr. Sherlock's Visitation-Sermon at Warington 1659. 6 d. Dr. West's Assize-Sermon at Dorchester 1671 6 d. Mr. Dobson's Sermon at Lady Farmors Funeral 1670. 8 d. Directions for Improvement of Barren Land 6 d. Culverwel's Discourse of the Light of Nature 3 s. 6 d. Dr. Meric Causabons Letter to Dr. Du Moulin about Experimental Philosophy 6 d. Dr. T. Jacomb's Sermons on Rom. 8. 1672. 9 s. Lord Hollis's Relation of the Unjust Accusation of certain French Gentlemen charg'd with a Robbery 1671. 6 d. OCTAVO's GValt Needham de formato Faetu 3 s. 6 d. Gregorii Etymologicon Parvum Hottingeri Cippi Hebraici Pasoris Lexicon Grae. Novi Testimenti 5. s. Grammatica Grae. Novi Testaments 4 s. Syntaxis Erasmiana constrictior 2 d. Ross Gnomologicon Poeticum 4 d. Commenii Vestibuli Linguarum AuctuariuÌ„ Lat. Eng. 4 d. Dionysius de situ Orbis Graece Vossii Elementa Rhetorica 4 d Duport Versio Psalmorum Gr. Lat. Id. Grae. Markam's Perfect Horseman enlarg'd by Thetford 1s 6d Gâ—uge's Word to Saints and Sinners with his Prayers and Catechism 2 s. Dr. Simpsons Chymical Anatomy of the Yorkshire Spaws With a Discourse of the Original of Hot-Springs and other Fountains and a Vindication of Chymical Physick 3 s. His Hydrological Essays with an Account of the Allom-Works at Whitby and some Observations about the Jaundice 1 s. 6 d. Dr. Cox his Discourse of the Interest of the Patient in reference to Physick and Physitians and Detection of the Abuses practised by the Apothecaries 1 s. 6 d. Organon Salutis Or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach With divers New Experiments of the Virtues of Tobacco Coffee with a Preface of Sir H. Blunt 2 s. Doctor Cave's Primitive Christianity in 3 parts 6 s. Dr. Bryan's Interest and Duty of Believers 2 s. 6 d. A Discourse of the Nature Ends and Difference of the Two Covenants 1672. 2 s. Vavasar Powel's Concordance to the Bible 4 s. 6 d. Dr. Mainwairing's Compleat Physician 2 s. Assemblies Confession of Faith Catechisms Lat. 2 s. The shorter Chatechism Grae. Lat. by Harmar 1 s. Sir Thomas Overbury's Characters 2 s. Leyborne's Carpenters Rule 2 s. Langley's Rhetorick 2 d. Lo. Hollis Judicature of the House of Peers asserted 10 s. Ign. Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness 1672. 1 s. 6 d. Lipsius's Discourse of Constancy 2 s. 6 d. Roll's Sober Answer to the Frieudly Debate 3 s. 6 d. Hodges Apology for the Nonconformists 1 s. 6 d. Davenports Power of Congregational-Churches 1 s. Hardcastle's Christian Geography Arithmetick 1 s. 6 d. Mathers Sermons of Conversion 1674. 1 s. 6 d. Mr. Blinmans Answer to H. D'anvers of Baptism 1674. 1 s. 6 d. Willis Anglicisms latiniz'd 3 s. 6 d. Walkers English and Latin Proverbs 9 d. Mystery of Jesuitism 3d. 4th Part. 3 s. 6 d. Buckler of State and Justice against France's Design of Universal Monarchy 1673. 2 s. 6 d. A Free Conference touching the Present-state of England at home and abroad in order to the Designs of France 1673. 1 s. Lord Berkly's Historical Applications 1 s. 6 d. Dr. Samways Unreasonableness of the Romanists 1 s. 6 d. Record of Urines 1 s. DVODECIMO's REusneri Symbola 2 s. 6 d. Burgesdicii Ethica 1 s. 6 d. Pemble de Origine formarum 1 s. Johnstoni Thaumatographia Molinaei Characteres Ethici 1 s. 6 d. Oweni Epigrammata 1 s. Vav Powel's Concordance to the Bible 2 s. Dyer's Works 2 s. Meriton's Duty of Constables 1 s. 6 d. Drexelius of Eternity 2 s. New help to Discourse 1 s. 6 d. Abbot's Young-Mans Warning-piece 8 pence Dr. Taylor 's Discourse of Friendship 1 s. Wits Commonwealth 1 s. 6 d. Dr. Hacket's Christian Consolations 1 s. 6 d. New-England Psalms 1 s. 6 d. 16 24. LVc Florus Lat. 1 s. Pharmacopaea Londinensis 2 s. Quintus Curtius Lat. 1 s. 6 d. Suetonius Lat. 1 s. 6 d. Plauti Comediae 2 s. 6 d. Bicaissii manuale Medicorum 1 s. 6 d. Clerks Companion 1 s. Crums of Comfort 1 s. Valentine's Devotions 1 s. Warwicks Spare Minutes 6 d. Grimstons Christian New-years-Gift 6 d. Childs-Book and Youths-Book 6 d.