; $railh 
 
 tML 
 
 
 ^»r <t-i '•^K^^fc. ! ^3B' m' fJ 
 
 
 
 I mm 
 
 
 '^.■*i?\ 
 
 
 
 *4w 
 
 &>w 
 
 
 
 T»W(t "';*: 
 
 ^Nfet *£ 
 
 KftiB 
 
 '.-"'■' 
 
 
 w&n 
 
 VM 
 
 
 W&&E& 
 
 W-WuS&sm 
 
 ■'■ftfflzsm 
 
 
 Wk 
 
 *!,<, 
 
 
 
 
 ■'-«.. * 
 
 ft •'**'" ■''•' 
 
 - *" 
 
 &&fe 
 
 ft*" 
 
£5 
 
 d 
 
 
 ^T 
 
 D_ 
 
 
 •S" 
 
 ro 
 
 
 •5r 
 
 1c 
 
 
 $ 
 
 -a 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 1c 
 
 
 *Z Ha 
 
 a. 
 
 
 # W 
 
 
 
 
 Cfc & 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 *0 § 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 w O 
 
 bfl 
 
 
 cs* 
 
 *£5 ^ 
 
 <t 
 
 
 S> 
 
 l^ g 
 
 ~a> 
 
 
 <s. 
 
 to 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 O M 
 
 cj 
 
 
 •sS 
 
 ^ g 
 
 c/) 
 
 » 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 O 
 
 JQ 
 
 
 
 a> 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 \ & ' 
 
 CD 
 in 
 
 
 %» 
 
 CL 
 
 So 
 
 
 -SC:g 
 
 ^ 
 
 ?yz# 
 
Jl~ 
 
 r 
 
— , 
 
 ^Truth Vindicated*, 
 
 I N.' 
 
 Several Branches thereof , 
 
 AND 
 
 Many OBJECTIONS fairly 
 and foberly Anfwered. 
 
 To which is annexed 
 
 A little jfreatife of the COVENANTS, 
 
 . containing a Defcription of the Covenant 
 of Grace, and feveral Marks of diftin&i- 
 on, by which it appears, That theCove- 
 nant that was made with Abraham and his 
 Natural Seed, coniidered as iuch, Was not 
 the Covenant of Works, nor yet the Co- 
 venant of Grace, but a peculiar Covenant. 
 
 What thing foever 1 command yon, that obferve 
 and do j thoufhah not add thereto , nor dimi- 
 nish from ity Dent. 1 2. 32. 
 
 Co ye therefore^ and teach ail Nations^ baptiz- 
 ing them in the Name of the Father , and of 
 the Sony and of the Holy Ghoft, Matth, 28. 19. 
 
 Teaching them to obferve all things what foever I 
 have commanded you^ and lo I am with you al- 
 way^even unto the endofthe World hmen.v.io. 
 
 LONDON, 
 Printed for the Author. 1695. 
 
 1 
 
/ 
 
TO THE 
 
 READ 
 
 Courteous Reader, 
 
 THou baft here thefubftance of what 
 hath pajl in Writing between a 
 !Baptift and a ^edo-baptifty about 
 the point of fiaptifniy that hath been long 
 Controverted among us. The reafon why the 
 (pedotbaptifk goes TSLamelefs, is becattje the 
 Author hath a ^efpeSl for him : Firft, Up* 
 on the account of his Abilities. Second- 
 ly, Upon the Account of his Moderation, in 
 Writing, not dipping his Ten Jo much hi 
 Vinegar as others have done, ^dnd, Third- 
 ly, Upon the Account of his ConVerfation. 
 To which is annexed a little Treatife of the 
 Covenants. Nolft? tho there are feveral 
 things contained in the Covenants that arc 
 handled in the frji part of the booh, yet 
 it's thought mcejjary to print them by 
 
 A % them- 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 themfehes, where thou mayeft fee the fco^t 
 of them more fully and clearly. All that 
 the Juthor dejites of thee 7 is, that thou 
 wouldefl read with an unprejudiced Eye, and 
 weigh it in the ballance of the Santtuary : 
 Try it by the Word, which is the great 
 flandard, a Touch^jlone of Truth, and fo 
 far as it hath foundation in the Word, re* 
 ceiVe it, and no further. ' Farewell. 
 
 _ — : 
 
 ■ - 
 
 Y reafon of the Author's great diftance from th 
 Prefs, feveral Remarkable Errors have been let\ 
 flip, which the Reader is defired to take Notice of, 
 and to amend, which are as follows. 
 
 P. 2. ofthe Epiftlel.7. for a x.and. p.5i.l.i8. 
 blot out not . p. 1 26. 1. 3 3 . r. not after the word doth. 
 p. 154.I. 24. add, In order to the enjoyment of fome 
 New- Covenant Bkffings, p. 168. after the nth. line 
 add, Ninthly, Seeing they rejetted all the means of their 
 Converfion^ it is evident that they were not the Children of 
 the Promife. p. 260. 1. 30. for Heb. 5. r. Heb.S. p. 
 283.I. 13. for Redeemed r. Redeemer, p. 279.I. 29. 
 add, this word for is a word canfial. p. 280. 1. 2. 
 for Pofterityv. Projperity. p. 292. 1. 4 1. for Covenant 
 r. Covenants. What other Errors there are, may he 
 corrected by the fenfe. 
 

 AW* 
 
 I N 
 
 Several Branches thereof 
 
 S 1 Ry 
 
 Have received your Paper, entitled, Infant- 
 Bapt ifm Vindicated, a nd ha ve r e t u r n ed m y 
 
 Anfwer. 
 Your firffc Argument is this, Tbofe that are 
 to be entredimo Covenant with God,' and to be admitted , 
 Members of the vifible Church Joave a right to Baptifm^ 
 and ought to be baptized, there being no other way of 
 divine inftitution (under the Gofpel) of admijfion of 
 members , but by bapt ifm. 
 
 But the Infants of believing Parents ought to be ad- 
 mit tedinto covenant with God, members of th 3 vifible 
 Church, therefore they have a right to bapt ifm, 
 
 Firfi, I anfwer, As to the confequence of your 
 ^%> Proportion, which is this, That tliofe thac 
 are (blemnly to be admitted into the vifible 
 Church, (if by the viilble Church you mean an 
 iuftituted Church ) have a right to baptifm, I . 
 grannie, though I deny that Baptifm isxhe formal 
 conftitutiiig caufe of Church- Memberlhip: For 
 that Which may be but once adminiftred, is not the 
 formal, contouring caufe; but Baptifm maybe 
 
 A ? b,u; 
 
2 <Wwii) ^intricate?)* 
 
 but once adminiftred, therefore it is not the for-, 
 mal conftituting caufe. For Example, A Per-fo* 
 may be jultly e jetted, and upon repentance receive 
 ed again : But if baptifm were the formal conftitu- 
 ting caufe, then rauit he be as often baptized as 
 received. 
 
 Secondly, I deny your Minor % which is, That 
 Children of Believing Parents ought to be entred 
 into covenant with God, and admitted Members 
 pf the vifible Church. 
 
 ( i.) You fay, the Covenant that God made 
 with Abraham, belonged to his Seed ; and while 
 his feed were in an infant- ftate, they were in cove* 
 riant, and engaged to God by circuracilion, which 
 was then the feal of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7,8, 
 n, 12. 
 
 To this I anfwer, Firfi, This proves not that 
 the Children of Believers ought foiemnly to be ta- 
 keji into covenant with God,and admitted Church- 
 Members, the Difpenfation being changed, you 
 •your felf do not tye to the rules of that difpenfati- 
 on : Under the legal difpenfation a Baftard was not 
 to enter into the Congregation of the Lord unto 
 the tenth Generation, Dent. 23.2. but you will 
 admiE a Baftard to enter in. 
 
 Secondly, I deny that ah the feed of Abraham 
 werecircumcifed \ they were the Males only that 
 were circumcifed, and yet the Females were his 
 Seed alfo. 
 
 Thirdly, I deny that covenant to which circam- 
 cifion was fet as the token, Gen. 17. 11,12. to be 
 the covenant of Grace : Thac covenant that might 
 be broken was not the coveuant of Grace ; but the 
 Covenant- to which Circumcidon was fet as the 
 tolsen, was a Covenant that might be broken, Gen* 
 17.14.. therefore not the covenant of grace. 
 
 C 2. ) You 
 
( 2. ) You fay, that under the Government of 
 Mofes, Parents and Children entred into covenant 
 with the Lord, Dent: 29. 10, 11 .,12. 
 
 Firfl, Avfwer, 'Thisl grant you ; but I deny 
 that covenant to be the covenant of Grace, for 
 the Scripture makes a manifeft difference between 
 thefe two covenants. 
 
 Firft, They differ in refpecl of the Subjects j 
 thefubjects of that covenant, Deut. 29. were the 
 natural feed, confidere'd as fuch,buc thefe were not 
 , the fubjeits of the. covenant of Grace, Rom. 9.6,7,8. 
 Not as though the word of God hath taken none ejffetl, 
 for they are not all J [rati that are of Ifrael -, mithtr 
 beewft they are the feed of Abraham, are they all chit- 
 dr en, but in Ifaac fl?all thy feed be called : So then they 
 that arc the children of thsfleflo, thefe are not the children 
 of God, but the children of the promt fe are accounted for 
 the feed : The Apofllediftinguirfieth here between 
 the children of the. flelh and the children of the 
 prornife; and the fame might be noted of Jacob 
 and EftUy the one being hated, and the other lo- 
 ved : Mud Efau be owned a fabled of the covenant: 
 of Grace, who was an object of che Fathers hatred ? 
 There are no more to be accounted the fubje&s of 
 the covenant of Grace, either of Jews or Gentiles^ 
 then are related to Chrut, Gal.$. 29. If ye be 
 Chrifts, then are ye Abrahams feed, and heirs according 
 to the prornife. 
 
 Secondly, That Covenant contained curfes, ( as 
 well as bleffings ) JDeut. 29. 20, 21. which might 
 fall on the fubjecls thereof without a fandiiSed ufe 
 of them, as they did on the evil figs, Jcr. 24.. 8,9, 
 10. but the covenant of Grace contains bieillngs 
 only, Jer. 31. 33, 3 f. That thefe were two cove- 
 nants,. appears, 
 
 Fir:}, B;caufe thai; covenant was broken, verfs 
 
 32. 
 
4 Cntty tawfiicatea, 
 
 32. but the covenant of Grace can't be broken, 
 Jer.qi. 40. 
 
 Secondly* That Covenant/rontained only tempo- 
 ral bleffings, Dent. 28 . God did never promifea 
 New Heart and a New Spirit by vertue of r hat co- 
 venant j if he had, all the natural feed fhould 
 have had the enjoyment of it, for he is a faithful 
 God, a covenant- keeping God ; but the covenant 
 of Grace contains fpiruuai bleffings, Jer. 31. 33, 
 34. I will write my law in their hearts , they Jluli ail 
 kgow me : I a ill forgive their iniquities, and remember 
 their fins no more. 
 
 Thirdly y That Covenant was conditional, as ap- 
 pears in that it was broken, Jer.$i. 32. but the 
 covenant of Grace is abfolute, ^r/^33,34. That 
 covenant was an old covenant, Heb.K.laft. the 
 covenant of grace a new, Hcb. 9. 15. That cove- 
 nant was the fuft,the covenant of Grace the fecond, 
 Htb. 9.18. The covenant of Grace was a t>etter 
 covenant, Heb.S.6, the promifes were better. 
 
 fir ft, In that they contained fpiritual bleffings. 
 
 Secondly, In that they were abfolute; that cove- 
 nant is abrogated, Zach. 11.10, H. but the cove- 
 nant of Grace frill remains : That covenant being 
 thus diftingoiihed from the covenant of grace, no 
 Argument can be drawn for the Church- mernber- 
 ihip and baptifm of the children of Believers under 
 the Gofpel from that covenant difpenfation. 
 
 In the next place you endeavour to prove that 
 covenant to be the covenant of Grace, to which I 
 need make no reply, it being anfweted already j 
 only I (hall examine your Sciiptures, Rom. 4. 15. 
 GaL$. 14, 15, 17. That the covenant here fpokea 
 of is the covenant of Grace, I grant} but thefe 
 prove not the covenant, Deut* 29. to be the cove- 
 nant of Grace, and that's the Work you have to 
 do. Secondly, 
 
<®vutfy mintimttt}. 5 
 
 Secondly , Thefe Scriptures do not prove the natu- 
 ral feed to be the fubjecls of the covenant of Grace, 
 but the contrary - he faith riot of feeds,as of many, 
 but of one, that is Chrift, Chrift Myilical, Head 
 and Members, Chrift and the Elect, verfe 29. // 
 ye be Chrifts, then are yc Abraham *s feed \ and heirs dc- 
 cordingto theprornife. 
 
 Firfi y ?rove your relation to Chrift,and then you 
 may conclude your relation to Abraham\X.Q Abraham 
 and to his feed were the Promifes made, not to eve- 
 ry believer and his feed : Abraham had but two 
 feeds, a natural and a fpiritnal ; the Gentiles are noc 
 his natural feed, nor can they be known to be fpiri- 
 tual, till they walk in the fteps of Abraham's faith. 
 
 Secondly, As 1 have denied that covenant that was 
 figned by circumcifion tojpe the covenant of Grace, 
 fo I deny that the natural feed of Abraham did en- 
 ter into that covenant by circumcifion, their in- 
 tereft in that covenant was antecedent to their cir- 
 cumcifion. 
 
 Firftj The covenant was made with Abraham 
 fourteen years before circumcifion was appointed, 
 Gen. 15. 18. compared withc?^. 17. 
 
 Secondly ,' They were born intereftcd in the co- 
 venant, but not circumeifed till the eighth day - if 
 they had not had an intereft in the covenant, then 
 neglect of circumcifion could not have been a 
 breach of the covenant, as it was, Gen. 17. 14. 
 
 Thirdly^ThQ Females were not circumeifed at all , 
 and yet they had an imereft in the covenant as 
 well as the Males. 
 
 Fourthly, I deny that intereft which the natural 
 feed had in that covenant, and that Church- rsem- 
 berfhip which then they enjoyed, to be fu Indent to 
 priviledge them to Baptifm. Thofe that came to 
 John to be baptized, ■ Mut. 3. and Lull* 3. and 
 
 were 
 
6 Crut^ vftiDtcatefc 
 
 were reje&ed, had an intereft in that covenant, 
 they were Church-Members, they had Abraham to 
 their Father, but this would not do, they muifc 
 bring forth fruit meet for repentance \ yet had they 
 as ftrong an argument as any you have brought for 
 the baptizing of infants. 
 
 They were all interefted in the covenant, all 
 Church- memberSjto whom Chrift and 'John preach- 
 ed j but firft difcipled, and then baptized, John 4. 
 1. 
 
 Yonr lad: Argument is this, That if admitting in- 
 fants Into covenant with 'God, and fo into the vijible 
 Chttrchjbe repealed, it belongs to us to [hew when andhow, 
 
 I anfwer, before you challenge me to {hew a re- 
 peal,you fhould firft.provethat this was once a Go- 
 fpel-inititution, as you hinted in your firft: argu- 
 roent,yet I am not to feel? for a repeal of that Mem- 
 berfhip, and that covenant intereft that you infill: 
 upon jit was then repealed when Chrift was offered 
 up, when they weighed for his price thirty pieces 
 of filver, Zach. 11. 10. then was the covenant 
 broken that God had made wtih all the people,their 
 Covenant pnviiedges then ceafed, their Church- 
 Hate was then diHoived, their Tabernacle fell, all 
 their Church Ordinances were at an end - 7 Ifrad 
 was no longer a feparate people. • 
 
 That it was then repealed, may further appear, 
 in that as foon as Chrift was rifen, there was a new 
 commifiion given out, Mat. 28. 19. Marh^\6. 15. 
 according to which the Apoftlcs were to 2cl } the 
 old meafures that you have infifted upon were laid 
 by, and new meafures were then taken, Church- 
 Memberihip was no longer a birth-priviledgc ; 
 Henceforth know we no man after the fit ft, 2 Cor. 5 . a 
 Jew that before was born a Church- Member was 
 no longer accounted fuch, untefs in the judgment 
 
 of 
 
of Charity he was new born, i Cor. 12. By one 
 ftirit are we all baptized into one body^ and made to 
 dr'wklnto one fpirit , whether Jew or Gentile. Epb. 4. 
 4. There is one body^ and one fpirit ^ even as ye are called 
 in one hope of your calling : And to every one of us is gi- 
 ven grace according to the meafure of the gift of 'God .• 
 And can we think that this one bapfifm belongs to 
 more than the members of that one body ? The 
 univerfal vifible Church extends not it felf beyor.cl 
 the limits of this one body, and there is not one 
 uncalled and unfan&ified member to be found in 
 this body ; they are all fuch in the judgment ot Cha- 
 rity, and in receiving members into a particular in- 
 itituted Church the^Apoftles keep clofe to the 
 commhTiori, ^3*2.41. Thqj fir ft difci pled, then 
 baptized, then added unto the Church ; as many 
 as Gladly received the word were baptized, and the farm 
 day there were added unto them about three thoufand 
 fouls. The Titles given to particular Churches 
 fnew that they were Saints, fuch as in the: 
 judgment of charity were inherently holy, each 
 individual member that was judged meet to (land 
 in a Church-ftate was fo accounted, 2 Thef 1. 3. 
 Your faith groweth exceedingly , and the love of every 
 one of you all aboundeth : Tnis is not applicable to 
 .infants, Phil. 1. 5,6,7. He that hath begun a good 
 work in you , will not ceafe to perfcEi the famt '., as it is 
 meet for me to think fo of you all. 
 
 Your conclufion is this, That if tlk infants of Be- 
 lievers are ft ill in the covenant, thin they have a right- 
 to Baptifm, thefcal of the covenant. 
 
 I anfwer, This feeoieth to be diverfe, if not con- 
 tradictory to what precedes : Firft, You contend 
 for entrance into the covenant by baptiim : Now 
 you make an Interelt in the covenant the ground 
 $f baptifm, which you fay is the feal of their in- 
 
 tercfh 
 
8 crtrtlj wwfoitattK 
 
 tereft. Before I return you an anfwer to this, I 
 defire you to fhew me the Scripture that calls bap- 
 tifm the Seal of the Covenant. 
 
 Arguments for Believers Baptifm in off option to In* 
 fant Baftifm. 
 
 Give me leave how to offer you fomething for 
 Believers Baptifm inoppofkion to Infants. 
 
 If fuch as are difcipled to Chrift by the Word are the 
 only fubjebh of baptifm, according to Chrift 7 s Commif- 
 fion, then Infants are not. 
 
 Bttt fuch as arc difcipled to Chrift by the Word are 
 the only fubjeSlsof Baptifm, according to Chrift 1 s Com~ 
 miffion, therefore Infants are not. 
 
 The firft Proportion I prove thus, 
 
 Fir ft. If Infants be uncapable of being difcipled 
 to Chrift by the Word^then they are not the fub- 
 je&s of ^aptifm according toChrift's commiflion ; 
 but they are fo, &c. 
 
 Secondly, If Infants be uncapable of learning 
 Chrift by the Word, then they are uncapable ot 
 being difcipled to Chrift by the Word -, but they 
 are fo, &c< 
 
 Thirdly, If Infants are uncapable of learning Self- 
 denial for Chrift by the Word, then are they un- 
 capable of being difcipled to Chrift by the Word ; 
 but they are fo, &c 
 
 The fecond Proportion is proved, Mat. 28. 19. 
 Go, difciple to me all nat ions, baptising thcm,&tc. Firft 
 difciple,and then baptize. That the fubjefts of bap- 
 tifm muft be difcipled, I fhall add one Argument : 
 
 If the Apoftles, who well underftood their Lords 
 eommifion, did firft difciple and then baptize, 
 then are difciples the only fubjetts of Baptifm, but 
 theydidfo, Atlsz.+i* This was their practice 
 
 every 
 
every where, not one inftance can be given to the 
 contrary \ there is no prefident of their baptizing 
 of Infants, no, not one, and the want of a prefi- 
 dent does ftrongly conclude that there was no pre- 
 cept 5 now if there be neither precept nor prefi- 
 dent to be found, then is there no fuch thing as 
 Infant- baptifm of Divine-inftitution. 
 
 I come now to reply to your fecond Papers, 
 which you fent to vindicate Infanc-baptifui, as you 
 entitled them. 
 
 Your Major Propofition you fay I grant, which 
 was this," That thofe that onght to admitted members 
 of the vifible church? ought to be baptized. % 
 
 Reply, Here you mifteprefent;K ? I .fa id, if by the 
 vifible Church. you meant an inflituted Church, X 
 did grant it y I know no formal way of admitting 
 members into the univerfai vifible church, unlefs 
 you call the preaching of the word the formal way, 
 for thofe that are called out of the world by the 
 preaching of the Word to embrace Jefhs Chrift, 
 are upon their owning and profefiing of him, to be 
 judged members of the univerfai vifible Church, 
 provided their converfation does anfwer their 
 profeflion. % 
 
 But here you fay, I deny that IJaptifm is the for- 
 mal caufe of their admiflion y and the reafon I give 
 for it is this, that if baptifm were the formal caufe 
 of Church-memberfliip, then it muftbe repeated. 
 when an Excommunicated Perfon is reftored. 
 
 To this you anfwer, that there is no need to re- 
 peat baptifm, for Excommunication does not 
 wholly unchurch a perfon, or make him no member 
 of the Church. 
 
 Reply, Here I mufl: take your own word, for 
 you offer no proof to ic, and your bare word can- 
 not in thelealt fbake my Argument y and new give 
 
 sr.e 
 
to ©Wftft WitlttiMZh 
 
 me leave to tell you, that a perfon juftly excommu-i 
 nicated is nor only cut offf rom communion, but is 
 caft out from being a member of that particular bo- 
 dy in which he once flood, 1 Cor. 5.13. Wherefore 
 pit away from among your f elves that wicked perfon - 
 Mat. 28. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen Man 
 or a Publican, 
 
 Your Minor Propofition you fay was this, But 
 the children of believer s ought to be entred into cove- 
 nant with God y and admitted members of the vifible 
 Church, This you fay I deny, though i grant that 
 the covenant of God made with Abraham took in 
 his thildren,and that they were Church-Members 
 under the Law. You fay,the reafon of my denial is 
 this, becaufe the adminiftration is changed, the 
 Gofpel-adminiftration differs from that under the 
 Law, fo that it does not follow that the children 
 of Believers are now to be admitted by Baptifm. 
 Your anfwer to this is, that the covenant of grace 
 is differently adminiftred under the Law and Gof- 
 pel, but thofe different adrainiftrations do cot 
 make the covenant different. 
 
 Reply, Firft, Here is a'grant given that the ad- 
 ' rniniftration is changed, arifiiffo, then mu ft we 
 take our meafures from the law of the new admi- 
 juftration, and not from the old. 
 
 Secondly, I grant the covenant of Grace to be 
 the fame ; that which I denied was, that the cove- 
 nant which was figned with circumcifion was the 
 covenant of Grace. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, the covenant that God made 
 with Abraham zxA his feed was the Gofpel- Cove- 
 nant. 
 
 Reply, I never denied that neither, (ii by his feed 
 
 are intended his fpiritual feed) that which I denied 
 
 was, that' the covenant God made with Abraham 
 
 *t afcd 
 
Crotfy taintofcatea. n 
 
 and his natural feed, (conildercd asfuch) was 
 the covenat of Grace. 
 
 You fay, it was the Gofpel Covenant, and that 
 God promifed to be a God to him, and to his feed 
 after him, implying that he would afford to them 
 that were in covenant with him all bkflings that 
 could be expecled from a. gracious God, Gen. 17.7. 
 
 Reply, Fir ft, I grant that covenant Gen. 17.7. 
 to be the covenant of Grace ; but here take no- 
 tice, the feed were his fpiricuat feed, not his na- 
 tural, confidered as fuch, Verfe $$. A Father of 
 many nations have 1 mads thee ■: The Apoflle 
 Rom. 4. 16, 17. quotes this very Text, and applies 
 it to the fpiritual feed. 
 
 Secondly, God hath here made himfelf over to 
 be their God,abfolutely to bellow on them all blef- 
 fings that might be expected from a gracious G»;d, 
 and what can thefe be lefs than juftification, San- 
 &ification,and Glorification ? And if fo, thefe two 
 things will follow : Fir ft, That none of the fub- 
 jecls of this covenant fhall mifs of either of thefe 
 blellings. Secondly, That fuch of Abraham's feed 
 that go without thefe bkflings were never the 
 fubjecls of this covenSnt. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, the covenant that God made 
 with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. is more likely to be the 
 covenant of Grace than that Gen. 15. 18. which I 
 grant to be the covenant of Grace. 
 
 Re fly ^ This is your miftake, in faying, I granted 
 that covenant Gen. 15. to bethe covenant of grace, 
 I granted no fuch thing -, however, I thank you for 
 telling me that, that Gen. 17. 7. is more likely to 
 be the covenant of grace than the other, for I de- 
 ny the other to be the covenant of grace, for itcon- 
 tained temporal biefhngs only •, Vnto thy feed have I 
 given this whole land, And now that there may be no 
 
 raore 
 
is €tutf) ©utDfcateD. 
 
 more miflakes, I will fhew you that covenant I de- 
 ny to be the covenant of Grace } it's that which 
 God made with Abraham and the natural {had 
 Gen. 15. 1 8. which was again renewed Gen. 17.8! 
 and fo to the 1 5. and that was dedicated with the 
 blood of the facrifices, £^^.24.8. and that was 
 again renewed, Zfcjtf.29. 10,11. in all which places 
 the fubje&s are the fame, the natural feed, con (id er. 
 ed as fuch j-the inheritance the fame,the land of Ca- 
 naan ^ this is that covenant that contained temporal 
 bleffingsonly, that covenant that is diftinguifhed 
 from the covenant of grace, 3^.31.32,33. asap. 
 pears by comparing the 3 2 verfe with Dent. 29. 25. 
 this is that covenant which is diftincl: from the co- 
 venant of grace, Heb. 8. 6, 7. and fo to the end 
 and Heb. 9. 16", 17,18. 
 
 Fourthly^ Yqq fay, that when God renewed this 
 covenant with Abraham, he promifed in more plain 
 terms, that in his feeed all the nations of the earth 
 fbouldbe bkffed, Gen. 22. 18. 
 
 £*/>/y," I grant that the covenant of grace was 
 here renewed, and that here is a promife of all fpi- 
 ritual bleffings, Grace here, and Glory hereafter, 
 which is and fnall come upon 'every individual per- 
 fon that is a fubjecl of that covenant : But this pro- 
 mife was made to the fpiritual feed,not to the natu- 
 ral : This promife was made in Chrift,and to thofe 
 only that are Chrifts ; If ye be Chrifis, then are ye A- 
 braham'sfeed, and heirs according to the promife, Gal. 
 3. 29. This promifetakes not in every individual 
 perfon of all Nations, though its faid all the Nati- 
 ons of the Earth (hall be biefled, but fuch only as 
 are related untoChrift,6W. 3 .8,9, 10. God preach, 
 ed the Gofpel to Abraham, faying, in thee JhaU all 
 the Nations of the earth be bkjfed: So then, they that 
 are of faith ;( chat is of Chrift,faich being taken ob- 
 jectively ) 
 
&t«ti> mihbitattt i* 
 
 jeftively ) are bleffed with faithful Abraham : For as 
 many as are of the works of the Law, are under the curfe* 
 If this promife had been made to the natural i<SQd t 
 confidered as filch, not one of them fhould have 
 gone without the benefit thereof. Hath God made 
 this promife to the natural feed, and yet many of 
 them go without the bleffing thereof? How will 
 it then harmonise with Rom. 4.16. It is of faith*, 
 that it might be by grace , to the end the promife might 
 be made fure to all the feed, &c. 
 
 Fifthly , You fay that this bleffing that is come 
 on them in Chrift, that is, on the Gentiles •, is no o- 
 ther but the Gofpel Promifes and Priviledges 
 which were made to them in Chrift by covenant, 
 Cal. 3. 14, 17. 
 
 Reply. This 1 readily grant you, but it did not 
 come on all the Gentiles, but fuch only as were 
 Chrifts, as I have fhewed you already ; nor did it 
 come on all the Je ws, J)ut on fuch of them as were 
 Chrifts, and if fo, then it was never put into that 
 covenant in which the natural feed flood, confide- 
 red as fuch ; for if it had,they would have enjoyed 
 the benefit of it. And this anticipates 1 your con- 
 clufion, which is this, that the covenant that God 
 made with Abraham, which was figned with cir- 
 cumcifion, is the covenant of Grace ; for had that 
 teen the covenant into which thefe bleflings were 
 put, they fhould have ccrae on all the natural feed, 
 who were the fubjedts thereof. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, it was no other than the cove- 
 nant of grace into which the Jews entered, Dent'. 
 i$. 12,13. That he may eft ablijh thee to bi i a people , 
 and that he may be to thee a God. And thefe words 
 are ufed by the Prophet to exprefs the covenant of 
 Grace as diftincl from the ceremonies of the Law, 
 fer. 7. 22, 23, 
 
 8 Rcplp 
 
i4 cnttfy winnitatta. 
 
 Reply. As to the 29th. of Dent. I have fpoken al* 
 ready, and if I muft remind you of what I faid, 
 then compare 25. with 3^.31.32,33. and you 
 may fee it'sdiftind from the covenant of Grace ^ it 
 was the covenant God made with them, when he 
 brought them up out of Egypt, and that was not the 
 covenant of Grace : This Note of diftinctipn be- 
 tween the covenant Lent. 29. and the covenant 
 of Grace, I gave you in my laft \ but you have not 
 made a word of Reply j and whereas you fay that 
 Jer. doth diftinguifh the ceremonies of the Law 
 from the covenant of Grace, there is not one word 
 of the covenant of Grace in the place you have quo- 
 ted ^ but I fuppofe you gather it from thefe words, 
 Obey my, voice, and I will be your God ; but this is no 
 more than God promifed to the natural feed,by ver- 
 tue of the peculiar covenant, in the fame terms - 
 this proves not that covenant to be the covenant of 
 Grace : God here makes himfelf over upon Condi, 
 tional Terras, but the covenant of Grace is abfo- 
 lute j obedience to God is the fruit of our relation 
 by vertue of the covenant of Grace, not the Con- 
 dition : This is no more than God promifed, Gen. 
 17. 8. Alfo, / will give unto thee, and to thy feed after 
 thee, this whole land wherein thou, art aftranger, and I 
 wiH be their God. 
 
 This Covenant contained temporal blefiings on- 
 ly, and the moft of them hung on conditions too, 
 Jbeut . 28. Now for God to be their God by vertue 
 of this Covenant, was but to make good the promi~ 
 fes thereof; if they ihould break Covenant by their 
 difobedience, as they might, Gen. 17. 14. and as 
 they did, Jer. 31 . 32. God was at liberty to give 
 them a bill of divorce, 4 as he threatned in the 
 place you laft quoted, Jer. 7. 28, 29. Thou fhalt 
 fay unto them, this is a Nation that obeyeth not the voice 
 
of the Lord their God, nor receive th correction ; truth 
 is perijlied and cut off from their month : Cm ojf thy 
 hair , O Jerufalem, take up a lamentation, for the Lord 
 hath rejecled and forfakgn the generation of his wrath* 
 And is this the covenant ot Grace, the fubje&s 
 of which may be forfaken ? and are thefe the 
 iubjecls of the covenant of grace, that the Lord 
 calls the generation of his wrath, and whofe 
 Carcafles he threatens ihall be meat for the fowls 
 of the Air ? Thefe are curfes, and not New-cove- 
 nant bleffings, that were to fall upon them* Hof. i, 
 7. Call his name Loammi, for ye are not my people, nei- 
 ther will I be your God : And yet he was once their 
 God by vertue of this peculiar covenant 5 but when 
 God makes himfelf over unto a people by vertue 
 of the covenant of Grace, he is their God for e- 
 ver, Jer.$x\ 40. 
 
 Seventhly, You fay, if this be not the covenant of 
 Grace, then the covenant of Grace was not efta- 
 blifhed under the Law. 
 
 Reply. It does not follow that the covenant of 
 Grace was not efhblifhed under the Law,if this be 
 denied to be the covenant of Grace -, the one may 
 be denied,the other granted : What I have written 
 already, fliews that I own the covenant of Grace 
 to be from the beginning, to be eitablifhed with 
 Abraham and his fpiritual feed, Gcn.ij,j. and 
 to be confirmed, Gen.2z.1S. In the next place: 
 you come to examine the differences that I laid 
 down between this covenant and the covenant of 
 Grace. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THe firlt yon fay is this* That the covenant 
 that God made with the Jews, was a Cove- 
 nant that might be broken, that it contained &£= 
 
 B z fe* 
 
i6 $ftmt> wuftfcatett 
 
 fes as well as bleflings, that might fall on the fub- 
 jedts thereof without a fanftified ufeofthem; but 
 the covenant of Grace can't be broken, and that it 
 contains only bleflings. This you fay is a ftrange 
 property of the covenant of Grace, that it cannot 
 be broken, and that there had need be more proof 
 to it than my bare fay fo,to perfwade any reafona- 
 ble man to believe it. 
 
 Reply. You had more than my bare fay fo to 
 prove it, if you would but nave call your eye upon 
 It ; and I think more than you can anfwer, becaufe 
 you dipt it without a reply. I gave you for -the 
 proof of it, Jer. 32.40. 1 will make an ever lofting 
 covenant with them, that I will never turn away from 
 them to do them good, and I will put my fear into their 
 heart s^ that they pall not depart from me. If God 
 will never turn away from the fubjefts of this co- 
 venant to do them good, then he will always Hand 
 by them to do them good, and to do them all the 
 good that they need, or can expert from a God of 
 Grace and Mercy ; and if he will put his fear into 
 their hearts, that they (hall not depart from him, 
 then let any rational man tell me how this cove- 
 Kant can be broken. Bat feeing there wants fo 
 much proof to a truth fo plain and clear, I (hall 
 endeavour to pmt it beyond difpute. 
 
 Firftj ft cannot be broken on Gods part, Heb. 
 6. 17, 18. God willing more abundantly tojhew to the 
 heirs of his promt fe the immutability of his counfel, con- 
 fir fried it by his Oath : That by two immutable things by 
 which it was impojfiblt for Cod to lye, they that had 
 jled to lay hold on the Hope fet before them might have 
 ftrong confolation. The Word is unchangeable, 
 the Oath is unchangeable, and it's impoflible for 
 God to lye, that hath promifed, that in Abra- 
 banfs Feed ail the Nations in the earth Qmtld be blejfed, 
 
 Gal. 
 
iial. 3. 17. And this I fay, that the Covenant that 
 was before confirmed of God in Chrift, the Law that 
 was four hundred and thirty Tears after could not dif- 
 anul, that it floould make the Promife of none effeff. 
 Pfalm $$. 28, 29, &c My Mercy will 1 keep for 
 him for evermore, ( that is P Chrift ) and my Cove- 
 nant fhallftandfaft with him ; if his Children breakmy 
 Law, and walk^ not in my Statutes, I will vifit their 
 Iniquities with the Ro3, and their Sin with Stripes ; 
 but my loving-k&idntfs will 1 not take from them, nor 
 fitffer my faithfulnefs to fail ; My Covenant will J not 
 break, nor alter the thing that is gom out of my Lips. 
 If God will not take his Love from him, then not 
 from them that are one with him : If his Cove- 
 nant fhali ftand fall with him for evermore, then 
 with them that are one with hint by vertue of the 
 fame Covenant. Bat you will fay, Will not God 
 break his Covenant, when his Children break his 
 Laws? I arsiwer, No, he will correct them, but 
 not dilinlierit them, The breach of Gods L.3WS 
 was a breach of that Covenant- wherein the natu- 
 ral Seed flood, coofklered as fuch, but not the 
 breach of the Covenant of Grace -, wherein the 
 Children of Chrift ftands, Htb, 9. 17. A Tefta- 
 went is of force when Men are dead, otherwife us of 
 no force at all while the Teflaxor liveth : The Tefta- 
 tor being dead, the Teftament can't be .altered 5 
 not one Name of-thofe that were written in the 
 Lambs Book of Life can be blotted out, nor one 
 Legacy altered. If it be but a mans Covenant, 
 when it is confirmed, no man difanuleth, or ad- 
 deth thereunto. This the Apoitle bringeth to 
 (hew, how unalterable the Covenant of Grace is, 
 being confirmed by the Death of the Teftator. 
 
 Secondly, It can'c be broken by the Subjects there- 
 of: Once in the. Covenant of Grace, and for 
 eYer. B.3 Fir ft? 
 
1 8 ctim} ?aitnuicatea, 
 
 Firfii All their Sins are pardoned, upon the fa- 
 tisfa&ion oi, v -: by Chiift their Surety, Col. 2. 
 13 ^ 14. An&yxm who were dead in your Sins, and the 
 %)ncirciimcifion of your Ficjh, hath he quickened toge- 
 ther with Chrift , having forgiven yon, all fins, blotting 
 mtt the hand-writing of Ordinances that was again ft us\ 
 that was contrary to its, taking it out of the way, and 
 vailing it unto the Crofs. This hand-writing was 
 the Moral Law, which was written and engraven 
 in Stone, which the Apoftle calls The Miniftrati- 
 pn of Death, that was written and inqraven in Stone , 
 
 2. Cor. 3.7. and which he there telleth you is 
 done away, ( I do not fay that the Moral Law 
 is done away in refpecl: of the Precept thereof, 
 that it (houid not be a rule of Life to Believers, 
 for I acknowledge that fuch are ft ill under the 
 ruling Power thereof, as well as others ; this I 
 put down to prevent miftakes) but in lefpect of 
 the Curfe thereof : He hath redeemed us from the 
 Curfe of the Law, being made a Curfe for us, Gal. 
 
 3. 13. That this was the Moral Law, appears, 
 Fir ft, In that he fpeaks to the Gentiles that were 
 not under the Ceremonial Law. Secondly, In that 
 it was a Law that was againft us, that it was con- 
 trary to us, it was that Law by which we were 
 condemned, by which we were bound over to 
 wrath ; the Debt being paid by a Surety, Juftice 
 it felf pleads the difcharge of the Principle, gives 
 up the Bond immediately, there is no more 
 Charge, Aftion or Moleflation, of or againft the 
 Principle ; infbmuch that there is a challenge 
 made, Rom. 8.33. Who (hall lay any thing to the 
 charge of Cods Ehtl ? it y s God that juftifieth',whofttall 
 condemn I its Chrifi that died^ yea rather th^at is ri- 
 fen agaitf. He dates their difcharge from the time 
 of Ghrifl's Oblation : Now the Debt paid was 
 
 not 
 
' €vm% witatc&wi; i-9 
 
 not this or that particular Sin fatisiled for, but 
 this and that, as Sins pall, prefent, and to come. 
 
 Firft, It was the deiign of Chrift in dying" to 
 redeem from all Sin, lit. 2. 14. Who gave himftlf 
 for hs 9 that he might, &c. Either Chrift hath 
 done what he gave hijifelf to do, or he hath not: 
 If he hath, then are they redeemed from all Ini- 
 quity ; if he hath not, it muft be for want of Me- 
 rit in his Blood , and that were blafphemy to af- 
 fert. 
 
 Secondly, What Chrift: gave himfelf to do, that 
 he did, Heb. 10. 14. By one oblation he hath for 
 ever perfetled them that are fanthfied : This Per- 
 fection confifts in the pardon of Sin; and the 
 Word for ever fhews it to be all Sin, paft, pre- 
 fent, and to come : Now where -Remiflion of 
 thefc is, there is no more facrifice for Sin. Either 
 Sin is remitted upon the oblation of Chrift, or it 
 is not ; if it be nor, it will never be remitted;' 
 for without ihedding of Blood there is no Re- 
 million. 
 
 Thirdly, Thofe that are redeemed are eternally 
 redeemed, never to come intp Condemnation 
 more, Heb* $. 12. ' He entered once into the holy 
 flace , having obtained for us eternal Redemption i 
 And it is with refpedl to the Confummation of 
 the new Covenant by the Death of Chrift, that 
 God is faid to be merciful to their nnrighteouf- 
 nefs, and to remember their Sins no more. Now 
 treii, if the Sins of thofe that have an intereft in 
 this Covenant are all pardoned, how can the fub- 
 jects thereof break it ? if this Covenant be broken, 
 it muft be by Sin, but pardoned Sia cannot break 
 it. • 
 
 Secondly, If the Sins of thofe that have an in- 
 tereft in this Covenant may break it, who then 
 
 B 4. (half 
 
fhall remain inrerefted in it ? In many things we of- 
 fend all: I do not judge that you do diftingmih 
 between Mortal and Venial Sius, or that there 
 is any fuch diftin&ion to be made •, Sin as Sin de* 
 ierves Death. 
 
 Thirdly, God hath promifed to put his fear in- 
 to the Hearts of the Subjects of this Covenant, that 
 they fhall not depart from, (that is) they fhall 
 Hot totally and finally depart from him ; So that 
 now I hope that my affeition ftands good, that 
 the Covenant of Grace can't be broken \ and if fo, 
 then its a good note to diftinguifh it by ; from 
 the Covenant into which the natural Seed were 
 taken, ( confidered as fuch) which was a Cove- 
 nant that might be broken, and that was broken. 
 
 'Secondly, You fay, though God will not fail to 
 afford us Grace,fufficiently to enable us to keep his 
 Covenant, 7^.32. 40. yet it is too pofTible for 
 \is, through our own default, to receive his Grace 
 in vain. 
 
 Re fly. If God will never turn away from us to 
 do us good, but will put his fear into our Hearts, 
 that we fnall not depart from him, then it is 
 not poffible for us to receive his Qrace in vain j 
 and if you intend for the proof of your AfTertion, 
 iCor.6.1. that will be no evidence for you in 
 this matter : It's- not the infufion of Grace, but 
 the Doctrine of Grace that is there intended, as 
 appears by the Coherence, and that I grant may 
 be received in vain ; and is, when it is received 
 into the Head, but not into the Heart ; when it 
 is received in the Notion, but not in the Life and 
 Power thereof. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, God doth not compel us to, 
 be good, nor to obey any of his Laws, without 
 pur-own endeavour. 
 
 Refly. 
 
Reply. God doth not compel us againfl our 
 Will, I grant ; that is not the way that God ta- 
 keth 5 but he doth by a Work of Regeneration 
 alter and change our Will, and makes us of un- 
 willing to be willing, Ffalm no. 3. Thy People 
 {hall be willing in the day of thy Power : ' This New- 
 Covenant Promife reacheth all the Subjects there* 
 of. 
 
 Secondly, The Heart mult be changed by the 
 infufion of new Principles, before we can hear* 
 tily endeavour, or can pleafe God in what we do, 
 Rom-. 8. 7. The carnal Mind is enmity again ft Cod, 
 and is not fub jell unto the Law of God 1 neither indeed 
 canbe ; Now this change of the Heart is a New- 
 Covenant BlelliDg, which all the fubjects thereof 
 fhall in time enjoy, Fuh 36. 26. A new Heart 
 alfo will I give mto you, &c. This Promife is 
 made to all the fpiritual Jfrael, and to them on- 
 ly, Heb. 8. 10, 1 1 . This is the Covenant that I will 
 make with \thehoufe of Jfrael, 1 will write my Law in 
 their Hearts, &c. an infeparable Companion of 
 which is the pardon of all their Sins, ver. 34, 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, we may through* our own 
 perverfe Wills refufe his Counfel, andabufehis 
 Grace, Prov. 1 . 24, 28, 29. 
 
 Reply. I grant where the Gofpel is afforded, 
 Sinners as Sinners have a call to come to Jefus 
 Chrift -, and 1 do not fcruple to fay, it is a graci- 
 pus call, which yet may be abufed by the moft 
 of thofe that are within the found thereof : Many 
 are called^ but few are chofen. Yet there is not one 
 of the fubjedts of this Covenant that fhall go 
 without an Effectual Call, Rom. 8. 2p. There is 
 not one link of that golden Chain that lhall ever 
 fail, John 10. 16. And other Sheep 1 have , that ars 
 n:tof this fold ^ them alfo J muft bring, and there fhall 
 
 be 
 
22 €vutfy winMt&m. 
 
 be one Shepherd, and one Fold. John 6.37. All that 
 the Father giveth me fhall come unto me. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that there are too many that 
 forfakc their ow 1 Mercy, and tranfgrefs the Go- 
 ipel to their own Deftruttion. 
 
 Reply, A Gofpel Call is their own Mercy '. I [rati 
 bad a cay ^ If thou hadft known in this , thy day; 
 it was their own day -, the great Gofpel-command 
 hath been, and is tranfgreffed, a»d men fhall be 
 damned for that Tranfgreffion. You bring a great 
 many Scriptures here, to prove that the Gofpel 
 Covenant may be broken, and that it threatens a 
 curfe for the breach thereof; I fay, you bring a 
 great many Scriptures, fuch as thefe, to prove 
 this, 2 Thejf. 1.8. He jhall come in flaming Fire, 
 rendering vengeance on them thai know not God, nor 
 obey the Gofpel of our Lord Jefw Chrifl, &c. But 
 do you look on thefe to be the fubjecls of the Co- 
 venant of Grace ? fure I am, it is not your bare 
 fay fo will clear it ; there is only one Text that 
 need to be confldered, and that is Heb. 10. 28, 29. 
 And have troden under foot the Son of God, and have 
 counted the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith they were 
 fanclificd, an unholy thing, and have do?ie defpitc to 
 the Spi fit of Grace . • 
 
 Reply. This cau't be taken of real Sandiifkation, 
 but of Sandification in appearance, unlefs we in- 
 terfere with other Scriptures, Phil. 1.6. He that 
 hath begun a good work-in you, will not ceafe to perfeU 
 the fame, unto the coming of our Lord Jefus Chrifl : 
 Where Chrifl: begins a work of Sanctification, he 
 will finilh it ; if he hath given the Soul living wa- 
 $er, it (hall be in him a Well of Water, fpringing- 
 pp to Everlafting Life : And if fuch as have made 
 a Profefllon, and fecmed to be fanctified, do to- 
 tally aed finally fall away, it may be laid of 
 
 them, 
 
them, as the Apoftle fpeaks, They are gone out from 
 us, but they were not all of us } for if they had been of 
 #S) they would no doubt have continued with us^but they 
 went out from us 7 that it might be manifeft that they 
 were not all of us : But who were they then ? I an- 
 fwer, the Children of Hagar, not of Sarah \ the 
 Sons of the Bond-woman, not of the Free. 
 
 You Query, Do not thefe Scriptures prove, 
 that the Covenant of Grace may be broken, and 
 that it threatens a carfe for the breach thereof? 
 
 Reply. They prove that the commands of the 
 Gofpel may be tranfgreffed by wicked men, and 
 that they (hall be damned for that Tranfgreffion ; 
 but they do not prove, that the Covenant may be 
 broken by the fubjecls thereof. 
 
 Seventhly, You Query, If the Covenant may not 
 be broken, how can any Man be damned that 
 profefTes the Gofpel, though he walk contrary to 
 that ProfefTion, feeing he is condemned for no- 
 thing, but for breaking of the Gofpel-Covenant? 
 
 Reply. I would ask again, How tbofe may be faid 
 to break the Covenant, that never frad an interef!; 
 in it ? and how it appears that fuch as are damned 
 had ever an intereft in the Covenant of Grace?they 
 were none of Chrifls Sheep \ for ifthc*y had, they 
 fhould have heard Chrift's Voice, -and have follow- 
 ed him,and fhould have had Eternal Life, John 10. 
 27,28 • My Sheep hear my Voice , and 1 give to them E~ 
 ti rnd Life, and they (Imll never pcrijh, &c. And if they 
 are none of Chriil's, then they are none of Abra- 
 hams Seed, and fo not heirs according to Promife. 
 
 Secondly^ How doth it appear, that wicked men 
 are condemned for breaking of this Covenant? 
 Where does the Scripture fay, that their Con- 
 demnation is for the breach of the Covenant of 
 Grace ? That of the Hebrews will not reach it : 
 
 Men 
 
24 €itxti) minhmttu: 
 
 Men may trample under foot the Blood of the Co- 
 venant, by defpifing of Jefus Chrift, and by reje- 
 cting of him,that had never an intereft in him,and 
 may have the denomination of fanctified ones, 
 that were never really fan&ified. All the Churches 
 of Chrift are ftiled Saints, profeffing themfelves 
 fuch, though there are Hypocrites among them: 
 And if men do totally and finally fall from their 
 Profeflion, its an evident demonstration that they 
 were never really fanctified, that they were ne- 
 ver regenerated, never born of God, nor had 
 ever an intereft in the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 Fir ft , That they were never born of God, 
 I John 3.9. He that is born of God doth not commit 
 Sin , neither cpn he^ for his Seed remaineth in him. 
 He can'c yield the full Confent of his Will, nor 
 Sin with conftant allowance 9 lis the thing that J 
 would not) that 1 do- faith the Apoftle, Rom. 7. If 
 men Sin willingly after they have received the 
 Knowledge of the Truth, as thefe do, Htb. 10. 
 its a fure fign that they were never born of God, 
 and if they were never borri of God, they were ne- 
 ver really fandlified. 
 
 Secondly ^ It's a fure fign that they had never an 
 intereft in the Covenant of Grace : Such as have an 
 intereft in this Covenant, are fecured by the Pro- 
 mifes thereof from total and final A'poftacy, Jer. 
 32. 4°- 7^10.27,28,29. Mat. 16* 18. Vpon 
 this Rock will ] build my Churchy and the gates of Hell 
 friall not prevail againft it : Its the Houfe that's 
 built upon the Sand that falls, not the Houfe that's 
 built upon the Rock 3 every true Believer is built 
 upon this Rock. 
 
 SECT. 
 
SECT. II. 
 
 YOU fay , the fecond difference that I make 
 between thefe two Covenants is this,*that 
 into which the Jews entred with their Seed was 
 conditional, bat the Covenant of Grace is abfo- 
 lute. Here you grant the former, and deny the 
 latter. You fay the Covenant of Grace is condi- 
 tional : 
 
 Reply. Thefe Terms I fuppofe areinconfiirent; 
 if it be the Covenant of Grace, then its not condi- 
 tional -, if it be conditional, then its not the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, Rom. 11.6. If it be of Grace, then 
 it's no more of Works, otherwife Grace is no more 
 Grace j and if it be of Works y then it's no more of 
 Grace, otherwife Works are no more Works : So that 
 nnfcfs the Nature of thefe two are changed,* 
 Grace and Works, as Conditions, willnotiiand 
 together. v 
 
 Secondly, You fay, a Covenant neceffarily im- 
 plies a mutual Obligation -, and as God in the Co- 
 venant promifeth blefiings on his parr, fo he re- 
 quires Conditions oik cur part, in order to obtaia 
 thofe blefiings. 
 
 • Reply. Firft, I deny that a mutual Obligation is 
 efiential to a Covenant, as fuch, though it may be 
 to fome Covenants; a Covenant may be mads 
 without it, Gen. 9. God made a Covenant with 
 all Flefh, as well irrational as rational, the To- 
 ken of which Covenant you have feen. This Co- 
 venant is abfolute, there could be no Condition 
 required of, nor performed by irrational Crea- 
 tures, in order to obtain the Blefiings ; and Ihould 
 rational Creatures be as wicked, yea, more wicked 
 then they were before the Flood, yet has the 
 
 Lord 
 
<l6 cnrtt? ?»m&tcate& 
 
 Lord bound himfelf by this Covenant, that he 
 will drown the World no more. Again, we have 
 the Lords Covenant with the Day, and with the 
 Night, Jer. 33. 20. That they fhould continue 
 for ever in their feafon \ but where the mutual ob- 
 ligation lies, I do not know. 
 
 Secondly , A Covenant may be made between 
 two, for, and in behalf of others, wherein they 
 mutually engage to each other 5 as that between 
 Laban and Jacob, in behalf of Laban s Daughters, 
 Gen. 31.5. which Covenant wasabfolute with re- 
 flect to the Subjects thereof, that Jacob fhould 
 not abufethem, nor take other Wives to them. 
 Such is the Covenant of Grace, it was tranfacted 
 between the Father and the Son, for, and in be- 
 half of the Elect, I fa. 49. from 1, ton. wherein 
 there is a mutual engagement between the Father 
 and the Son, both for Redemption, Vocation, and 
 Glorification, Tit, 1.2. In hopes of Eternal Life, 
 which God that cannot lye promifed before the World 
 was: Whom could this Promife be made. to but 
 Chrift, and for whom could it be made but t^ie 
 Elect ? How could Paul have bottomed his Hopes 
 on the Promife, if he had not had an Interelf, in 
 It ? 2 Tim. 1.9. Who hath favedus, and called us\ not 
 according to our Works, but according to his own pur- 
 pofe and Grace, which was. given to hs in Chrift Jefm 
 before the World was.: This Grace of God, which 
 was the original caufe of all good, was made over 
 to a peculiar People, before the Creation of the 
 World, which Gift was free and abfolute 5 it was 
 given to all thofe, and only thofe, who in time arc: 
 faved and called. 
 
 - Thirdly, You fay, that God requireth Conditi- 
 ons to be performed by us, in order to obtain his 
 BiefBngs.- 
 
Reply, That there are duties required of the 
 Subjects of this Covenant, I grant ; tliat thefe 
 are Conditions, I deny; for whatever God requires 
 of the Subjects of this Covenant, he hath promifed 
 to give them a Heart to perform, and that nsulfc 
 'be made good on Gods part, antecedent to any 
 thing done by them, that is any way plealing un- 
 to God : Without Faith it's impoffible to plea ft: God 5 
 and Faith they have not till Go<4 gives them a new- 
 Heart ; So then they that are in the Fkjh canrot pleaje 
 God, Rom. 8. 8. I lay, what God requires of them, 
 he hath promifed to give them an Heart to do, 
 ££.^.36. 26, 27. 
 
 Secondly, If God requires Conditions of us, then 
 thefe Conditions mult be performed, antecedent 
 to the receiving of the Bleflings ; and who then 
 fhall ever be the better for them, who hach given 
 to God firft ? 
 
 Thirdly, A new Heart is one of God's bleflings^ 
 E&k: 36". 26. A Will to do what God requires is 
 one of Gods Bleffiogs, Pfalm no. 34 and what 
 can be performed acceptable unto God, before 
 thefe Bleflings are given out ? 
 
 Fourthly, When God gives out thefe Bleffings^ 
 he doth not beftow them on us for what we have 
 done, Tit. 3.5. nor yet according to what we 
 have done, 2 Tim. 1. 9. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, the Covenant on Gods part 
 hath this Seal j the Lord knoweth who are his, he 
 will own and reward them that are faithful to 
 him. 
 
 Reply. That God will own and reward them that 
 
 "are faithful, I grant to be a great Truth, but I 
 
 can't think it's the genuine Senfe of this Text ; the 
 
 Text tells you, The Foundation of God ftandeth 
 
 fure^ having this Seal, the Lord knoweth who 
 
 are 
 
s8 Csatlj wintiwttti. 
 
 are fc# : This I look upon to be his decree of Ele- 
 ction, which was his Foundation-Adt of Grace, 
 that ftandeth fure, and the Seal is his Knowledge 
 of them •, he knoweth whom he hath chofen, 
 and he will own them, ftand by them, and pre- 
 Ferve them in an apoftatizing-time. And though 
 Hymeneus and Fhiletm, who once feemed as Stars 
 of the greateft magnitude, had by their Apoflacy 
 difcovered themfeFves to be but Comets, yet fuch 
 as God had chbfen fhould be preferved. 
 
 Fifthly , You fay, that we on our part fet t6 
 our Seal, and oblige our felves to depart from InU 
 quity. 
 
 Reply. Ifyoucaft your Eye again on the Text, 
 you may fee that it's the Lord that obligeth us to 
 depart from Iniquity ^ its not hiftorical,but precep- 
 tive ^ And let every one that nameth the Name of 
 Chrifii depart from Iniquity. 
 
 Sixthly, You Xay, that place Jer. 31. 33. ex- 
 prefly declares the Condition of the new Covenant, 
 both on Gods part and ours too, that he will be 
 our God, and we (hall be his People. 
 
 Reply. I think a man muft be very quick-fighted, 
 that can efpy a Condition in a Text that is wholly 
 promiflbry ; he muft needs be a very great Artift, 
 that can turn a Priviledge into a Condition *, / will 
 be their God, and theyjliall be my People \ its a choice 
 Promiie, and holds out the Priviledge of the Sub- 
 jects thereof; you may as well make the next 
 Words a Condition as thefe } Th^y fhall all know me, 
 from the greateft to the leaft - 7 and if you do, by the 
 People ot God underftand iuc(i as are his by Voca^ 
 tion, then their call is here promifed, they fhall 
 be my People ; but how fhall this be effected ? the 
 Text tells you } I will write my Law in their Hearts, 
 bndput u In their iward parts ; This is that that 
 
 dothf 
 
doth difpofe them to anfwer a Gofpel-call ; this 
 is abfolutely promifed, and what farther Aftiltance 
 may be needed (hall not be wanting ; thofe that 
 God loved with an everlafting love he will draw 
 unto Chrift with cords of Love, he hath engaged 
 to afford them the Affiftance of his Spirit to 
 enable them to anfwer a Gofpel-call. 
 
 Seventhly, Yoa fay, that to approve our felves 
 to be the people of God, we muft not only believe, 
 his Promifes, but obey his Will, and walk in 
 his ways. 
 
 Reply. Muft all thefe be done antecedent to our 
 relation, and as conditions of our relation to God ? 
 that all thefe are matter of duty, and that they 
 are the means by which we approve our felves to 
 be the people of God, both to our felves and o- 
 thers too, I grant, but that they are conditions en- 
 titling us to God,as our God, 1 deny. You fay un- 
 lefs we be obedient unto God, and behave our 
 felves as his people, he will not be our God td 
 blefs us, and to crown us with Happinefs. 
 
 Reply. Firjl, God muft blefs us with a principle 
 of Obedience, before we can yield an act of Obedi- 
 ence ; that is, an acl: of fincere Obedience ; and ii 
 it be not fincere, it's neither acceptable unto God^ 
 nor fpirkually profitable unto our felves. The 
 carnal mind is enmity again ft God, and is not fabjeth un- 
 to the Law of God, neither indeed can be : So that aa 
 acl of Obedience is not antecedent to thebleffing, 
 and therefore not a condition thereof ^ and tho* 
 obedience be antecedent to happinefs, ( by which 
 I fuppofe you intend a Crown of Glory ) yet it 
 is not the condition of that happinefs. Glory may 
 be confidered as an end following obedience, pre- 
 paring, fitting/or and clifpofing to it, but not as 
 an end depending on obedience", as a means procu- 
 ring* G Bighthly i 
 
Eighthly, You fay the great ble flings of the Go- 
 fpelare pronaifed on condition of Faith, and fmr 
 cere Obedience. 
 
 Reply. Here I would query, 1 Whether Faith and 
 fincere Obedience be not great Gofpel Bleftings 
 themfelves, or whether they will be found to grow 
 in Natures Garden ? mull noc the heart firft be 
 changed, before a man can believe, or yield fincere 
 obedience? the eflence of Faith lyeth in the ad of 
 the Underftanding, and of the Will, neither of 
 which can be put forth till the heart be renewed, 
 the underftanding can't behold Jeius Chrift ; The 
 natural man reccivetb not the things of the Spirit, nor 
 can he know them, for they are fpiritually difcerned : 
 And fuch a one wantsa Ipiritualeye, i John ^. r. 
 He that believe th that Jefus is the Chrift, is bo^n of 
 God; to know God to be the only true God, and Jefits 
 Chrtft whom he hath fent, is the gift ofjefus Chrift, 
 John 17. 2,3. and this gift is bellowed on them 
 only that are given unto Jefus Chrift : And as for 
 the a& of the Will,thatalfo is a New-covenant blef- 
 fing, Pfal. 1 1 0. 3. Thy people fljall be willing in the 
 day of thy power. And' what is fincere Obedience but 
 a New-Covenant-bleffing alfo, a fruit of the free- 
 grace of God? Phil, 2. 13. IPs God that workethin 
 yon, both to will and to do of his own good pleafure : I 
 doubt not but faith and fincere obedience may be 
 called great bleflings of the Gofpel as well as others, 
 and what I pray arc the conditions on which thefe 
 are beftowed ? 
 
 Ninthly, You bring three places to prove this, 
 that Faith and Obedience are the conditions on 
 which the great bleflings of the Gofpel are given 
 out, All's 10. 43. He that beleiveth fljall receive re- 
 rhijfion of fins. 
 
 Reply. It's one thing fcr fins to Sa remitted, and 
 
 another 
 
another thing for a perfon to receive remiflion. Sin 
 was remitted from the time of Chrift's oblation,(a5 
 I fhewed you in the preceeding head) remiflion of 
 fin lyes in our reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5. God was in 
 Chrift reconciling the world to himfelfnot imputimr unto 
 them their trefpajfes ;then was the Attonement mode, 
 out we receive the Attonement when we believe* 
 Rom. 5. 11. By whom alfo we have now received th 
 Attonement : Our receiving remiflion is not the con- 
 dition of our pardon, that was procured by Chrilfc 
 long before -, that of Prov. 2$. 18. mews us the 
 way in which God will be found ; tie, that coufejjeth 
 his fin , and forftketh it jfoall find mercy . God doth 
 not fet his grace and mercy to fale, hepardoneth 
 freely ; repentance is not the condition of pardon, 
 but the way to attain the fence thereof. The other 
 Scripture, 1 John 2.7. is plainly an evidence, not a 
 condition ; He that doth right eoit[nc ft is righteous, as 
 he is righteous, 
 
 Tenthly, You fay,without obedience we (hall ne- 
 ver enter into happinefs j Without holinefs none Jhall 
 fee the Lord. 
 
 Reply. This is readily granted, yet is not the 
 holinefs and* obedience of fan&ified ones the con- 
 dition of their intereil in the covenant, but the 
 fruit thereof. 
 
 Eleventhly, You fay, that God will not pardon 
 fins while wecontinue impenitent ; For the wrath of 
 God is revealed from heaven again ft all nmighteoufnefs 
 of men, Rom! 1.18. 
 
 Reply. That thq,w^ath of God is revealed from 
 Heaven, is granted 5 and the gieateft wrath is reveal- 
 ed againfi the fins of thofe that are the fubjscts of 
 this covenant, for whom Jefus Chrifl: flood a, fure- 
 ty : God laid all their fins upon Chrifl*, If a. 53"* 
 6, and poured out all that wrath upon Ghnit that 
 
 C 2 . wai 
 
j 2 €tutf) tumfctcatetj. 
 
 was due to them, verfe 4.. Surely be hath born our 
 grief Si he hath carried our forrows^ that which we 
 ihould have born and carried ; he was wounded for 
 our tranfgrejfwns^ and by his ft ripe s are xve healed } all 
 this wrath was born upon the account of the fub- 
 jectsof this covenant, ver/e%. forthetranfgrejfions 
 of my people was he (Iricken. Jefus Chrift in bearing 
 this wrath for us hath born it from us, 1 Thef. 1 . 
 10. Even Jefus who hath delivered us from the wrath 
 to come : When Chrift was made a curfe for us, then 
 did he redeem us from the curfe, in whicft redemp- 
 tion there is *emiffion \ then did he confummate 
 that New-Covenant, Htb. 8. at which time God 
 pardoned all the fins of the iubje&s thereof; when 
 the Teftator was dead,the Teftament was of force, 
 snd from that time there is a challenge made, Who 
 Jhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Eletl ? it*s God 
 that jufitfiesi &c Rom. 8.39. 
 
 Twelfthly^ You fay, if this Do&rine were gene- 
 rally embraced, and put in practice, it would de- 
 ftroy the Chriftian Religion. 
 
 Reply. I take this to be a hafty conclufion, which 
 the Premifes will not afford j I know no one duty 
 deftroyed by it, neither Faith nor Repentance, nor 
 any adt of Obedience, either to moral or Evangeli- 
 cal[Precepts there is enough for us to do, though 
 not as conditions •, though we are not bound to 
 work for life, yet is there work enough to be done 
 from life, ^nd our capacity to obey where God 
 commands is a fruit of onr intereft ^ a new heart 
 and a new fpirit, Ez.eks 36. is a fruit of our inte- 
 reft ; the fpirit enabling us to pray is a fruit of our 
 relation to God, GaL 4. 5 . Becaufe ye are fons y God 
 hath fent forth the fpirit of his Son into your heart s, cry- 
 ing Ahba^ Father. The Doctrine of the freenefs 
 and abfolutenefs of this Covenant never opened a 
 
 Gap 
 
Gap to licentiaufnefs to a gracious foul, though 
 poflibly others may abufe it as they do the Scrip- 
 tures, wrefting them to their own deRruclion. X 
 know no Doctrine that is more binding to a graci- 
 ous foul than the Doctrine of Free- Grace is ; ft 
 teacheth him to deny all Vngodlinefs and Worldly Lufts^ 
 and to livefoberly, right eonjly and godly in this prefent 
 World, Tit. 2. 1 1. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 YOu fay, the the third difference thatl make be- 
 tween thefe two Covenant is this, that the 
 one contains temporal blefiings, the other fpiritu- 
 al ; your Anfwer to this is, that though this Co- 
 venant that the Jews were under with their kc6, ; 
 contained a great many temporal bleflings, yec 
 there were fome fpiritual bleflings, for God pro- 
 mifed to clrcumcife their hearts, and the hearts of their 
 children, Deut. 30. 6 . Eph. if. 1 9, 20. God pro- 
 mileth to give them One heart, andto+take away the 
 ftony heart out of their flejh, and to give them an heart of 
 flejh, that they fhould walk in his ftatmes, and that he 
 would be their God, and they fhould be his people . 
 
 Reyly. I fuppofe my Argument yet ftar.ds good, 
 and that the fame Anfwer may ferve which I have 
 given already ; if this had been a branch of that 
 covenant in which the natural feed flood, confi- 
 dered as fuch, Bern. 29. thenlhould they all have 
 enjoyed the benefit thereof. God makes no pro- 
 mife, but he performs It too. 
 
 Secondly, You fay that many of them refufed to 
 perform the conditions on which thefe promifes 
 were made, and therefore they went without the 
 benefit thereof. 
 
 Reply. Firft) You do not declare what thofe 
 
 C 3 con- 
 
34 ctutt? ainutcateij. 
 
 conditions were, nor do I know what conditions 
 may be performed antecedent to a new heart : If 
 you fay it was fincere obedience, which is the like- 
 lied to be pitched upon, there lies the Propofal, 
 Dent. 30. 2. Jf thou (halt return, and obey the voice of 
 the Lord, according to all that I command thee, thou 
 and thy children joith allthy heart and with all thy foul ; 
 Is this the condition ? if it be, then were they un- 
 der an impoflibility to perform it ; this can't be 
 done without heart-circumcifion,antecedent there- 
 unto : The carnal mind is enmity againft God, and is 
 not fibjrcJ unto the law of God, neither indeed can be, 
 Rom. 8. 7. Men can't obey the law of God till 
 God write his law in their hearts, they can't ob- 
 ferve his judgments till he puts his fpirit within 
 them, fo that heart-circumcifion that follows fin- 
 cere obedience can't be underftood of the firft 
 work of fanclifkation,but of a farther carrying on 
 of the work thereof. 
 
 Secondly, If you read the Book of the covenant, 
 Exod. 11, 22 #2.3. Chapters. You will find no fuch 
 promife there ; that thefe Chapters contained the 
 book ofthe Covenant, appears, Exod. 24. 8. if you 
 >read the 28//;. ofDeut. where you have a lift of all 
 thebleflings of this covenant,you will find no fuch 
 promife there, and yet Mofes tells them Chap. 29. 
 1. Thefe are the Words of the covenant that the 
 Lord commanded him to make with them ; and in, 
 ths 25 verfe. you may fee that this was the Cove- 
 nant the Lord made with them when they came out 
 of Egypt j by which note its dlftingifhed from the* 
 covenant into which heart-circumcifion was put, 
 Jer. 31, 3 2, 3 3 . and as for that promife that God 
 made of a heart to walk in hisftatutes, Eukz 1 l • 
 i t 9, 20. k was made to a peculiar people that 
 God had among the Jews, or to the fpirituai feed : 
 
 it 
 
CWt$ WinMcatth. ?5 
 
 If one Scripture, may help to interpret another, 
 Jer.i^ This proraife was made to the good fig« , 
 not to the evil } there is a fearful curfe threat ned 
 againfc them \ it was the fame captivity thai '£*,*- 
 kjsl relates to. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 YOu fay, the fourth Differen.ce that I make be- 
 tween thefe twocovenants,is in refpect of the 
 fubjefts : The fubje&s of the oik being the natu- 
 ral feed of Abraham^ confidered as fuch, the fub- 
 jefts of the other being the fpiritual feed, true 
 Members of Chrift, really regenerate and holy : 
 Bqt this expofition of the Members of Chrift is 
 your own,and not mine : To this you fay, that the 
 difference between the Covenant of Grace under 
 the Law, and under the Gofpcl, is not Co great 
 sa to make them different Covenants. 
 
 Reply. I know no differenee in the Covenant of 
 Grace then and now, nor did I endeavour to make 
 any, I only diftinguifh the Covenant of Grace from 
 that Covenant that the natural feed were in, con- 
 fidered as fuch. 
 
 Secondly^ You fay, that all that were admitted in- 
 to the Church of the Jcws y and profefled that reli- 
 gion, were in the covenant of Grace ^ and all that 
 are admitted into the Church of Chrift, and pro- 
 fefs that religion that he hath taught,are in the co- 
 venant of Grace, under the Evangelical Admini- 
 ftration j and much to this purpofe you have 
 ■brought, without one Text of Scripture to prove 
 it, therefore I fhall let it pafs till I come to your 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, there are many promifes 
 of Pardon and Salvation, which are fpecial parts 
 
 C 4 of 
 
$ 6 <&wfy witibitatm. 
 
 of the Gofpel-Covenant made to the wicked, on 
 condition of repentance, as I fa. 55.7. Ez.tk: 1 5. 
 20. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft , The offer of the prpmife is to all 
 where the Gofpel comes, but its one thing to have 
 the offer, and another thing to have an intereft in '' 
 the promife. 
 
 Secondly , The Promifes,though offered unto all, 
 yet are made to none but the fpiritual feed} to Abra- 
 ham andhis feed were the promife s made j he faith not 
 to feeds , as of many , but unto thy feed, as of 'one , which is 
 Cbrift, Gal. 3. 16. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that thofe of the natural feed 
 that were not the Children of God, Rom. 9. were 
 fuch as rejected Chrift, and fought Juftification by 
 the works of the Law. 
 
 Reply. 1 grant they rejected Chrift, but this An- 
 fiver is befides the Qaeftion ; the Qaeftion is, Whe- 
 ther they had an intereft in the promife ? they 
 were the Children of Abraham, but not the Chil- 
 dren of the Promife, which were accounted for 
 the' Seed. 
 
 Secondly, How came they to reject Chrift ? Was 
 it not becaufe they had no fnsereft in the Promife, 
 tfo Relation unto Jefus Chrift ? I fuppofe Chrift 
 bottoms it there, John 1 o. 26, Te believe not>> be- 
 caufe ye are not my Sheep, as I faid unto you. The 
 Covenant of Grace tyas made with Ifrael, Jer. 
 31. 33. But all are not Jfrael that are of Ifrael -, 
 Not as though the Word of God has taken none 
 effetl : Thofe to whom God hath promifed Grace, 
 to tbem he gives it; but that was to Jfrael, not 
 all of Ifrael. 1 mentioned Jacob and Efau too, the 
 one loved, and the other hated ; and put the Que- 
 ftion, Whether a Perfon hated of God, might be 
 considered a fubject of the Covenant of Grace ? I 
 
 . like- 
 
likewife mentioned Gal.i. 16,29. 7f ye be Chrifts, 
 then are ye Abrahams Seed, and Heirs according to 
 Tromife : I (hewed you, that Abraham had but 
 two Seeds, a natural and a fpiritual Seed ; that 
 the Gentiles are not his natural Seed, nor can. they 
 be known to be his fpiritual Seed, till they walk 
 in the fteps of Abrahams Faith ; but there is no re- 
 ply to all this. 
 
 Firfti You Query, if formal Profeflbrs have no 
 Intereft in the Covenant of Grace, how then can 
 they be faid to tranfgrefs it ? 
 
 Reply. 1 know not where it's fo faid, though I 
 deny not but Gofpel-laws are broken by them. 
 
 Secondly, You Query, how they could have any 
 hope of Mercy and Salvation, in cafe they repent, 
 if they have no Intereft in the Covenant ? 
 
 Reply. I never denied, that thofe have an Inte- 
 reft in the Covenant, that do in time come truly 
 to repent -, that which I deny, if, that thole which 
 live and die impenitently had ever an Intereft in 
 the Covenant 01 Grace. 
 
 Thirdly, You Query, if none have an Intereft in 
 the Covenant but the fpiritual Seed ofaAbraham, 
 fuch as are truly regenerated, then how could any 
 upon fure grounds be admitted into the Church by 
 Baptifm ? 
 
 Reply. I know none but fuch as are for Infant- 
 Bsptifm, that do make Intereft in the Covenant 
 the ground thereof, nor any ground they have fo 
 to do as yet, though you have written fo many 
 Lines about it. We fay, a true Faith gives the 
 Subject a right to challenge it, a Profeffion of that 
 Faith gives a call jo the Adminiftrator to admini- 
 fter it, and his Authority fo to do is from the 
 Commiflion, Mat. 28. 
 Secondly, I deny that ever I faid, that none but 
 
 thofe 
 
3 8 • €vutfy minUtattt}. 
 
 tbofe that are truly regenerate are the fubjects of 
 the Covenant, (that is, thofe to whom the Pro- 
 mifes are made) and now that I may prevent this 
 miftake for the future, I (hall fhew yon, who they 
 are that I do own to be the Subjects of this Cove- 
 nant. 
 
 The Subjects of the Covenant of Grace are the 
 Eledtof God, that are given unto Jefus Chrift ; 
 and here I (hall premife two things : Firft, That 
 there are an Eieft People, a Particular People, 
 that. God hath chofen in Chri(t out ot the Mafs of 
 Mankind, before the Foundation of the World, 
 unto Salvation as the end, and to Sanclification as 
 the means. 
 
 Firft, They are chofen to Salvation as the end, 
 2 Theff. 2. 13. God bath choftn you to Salvation from 
 the beginning : Eph . 1 . 4 . According as he hath chofen 
 us in him j before the Foundation of the World, that we 
 fhould be holy, and ^without blame before him in Love. 
 There are four things which lie in the very furface 
 of the Text : Fir ft , This choice is of particular 
 Perfons, Pad and the Ephefians. Secondly, They 
 were chofen in Chrifh Thirdly, This choice was 
 before the Foundation of the World. Fourthly, 
 It was that they fhovild be Holy, not upon a fore- 
 fight that they w r ould be Holy. Holine£ is an 
 effect of Election, notthecaufe. 
 
 Secondly, Thefe Elect were given unto Chrift, 
 John 17. Thine they were, and thou gaveft them unto 
 me :. This Gift of the Father to the Son was ante- 
 cedent to the Knowledge of God, and Jefus Chrift 
 given to them by the Son, John 17. 2, 3. That I 
 may give Eternal Life to as many at thou haft given un- 
 to me: Some men are the Sheep of Chrift, fome 
 men are not the Sheep ,of Ghrift, when both are 
 Unbelievers, John 10, id. compared with the 2d. 
 
 vcrfe. 
 
v erft. I faaN now prove, that thefe are the fub- 
 jettsofthis Covenant. 
 
 Firft, It appears, in that the Bleflings of this 
 Covenant belong *to them, Eph. i. 3. Who hath 
 bleffed us with all fpiritual Blejfings in Chrift,* accord- 
 ing as he hath chofen us in him ; They have a Title 
 untoall, and in time (hall eri joy all, when all others 
 will fall fhortof it, Rom. 11.5* What then Jfrael 
 hath ndt obtained, that which it fought after , but the 
 Eleclion hath obtained it, and the reft were blinded. , 
 
 Secondly, It was for their fakes that Chrift had 
 his Name Jefus given to him: Thou flialt call his 
 Name Jefus, J or he (hall fa*ue his People from their 
 Sins, Mat. 1. 21. his People before they were a fa- 
 ved People. 
 
 Thirdly, U was upon their account that Chrifl: 
 underwent all his Sufferings, John 10. 15. / lay 
 down my Life for the Sheep : 1 fa. 53. 8. For the 
 Tranfgrejfions of my People was he ftricken : He loved 
 the Church, and gave him ftlf for them : Eph. 5. 25. 
 For their fakes he fanclified himfelf: John 17. 19. He 
 . prayed for them 7 he prayed not for the World, but for 
 them that were given him of the Father ; and if he 
 prayed not for the World, I conclude he died 
 not for the World. 
 
 Fourthly, It appears, in that thofe only are the 
 fpiritual Seed of Abraham to whom the Promifes 
 were m de, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Chrift 's, then are ye 
 Abraham s Seed, and Heirs according to the Promife. 
 Thefe, and thefe only are the Perfons that in time 
 come to believe, John 6, 37. All that the Father 
 giveth me frail come unto me: John 10. \6. Other 
 Sheep I have that, are not of this Fold, them alfo I 
 muft bring ; (hew me a true Believer, and I wiil 
 fhew you an Elect Perfon : So then, I conclude 
 with you, that the regenerate are not the only 
 
 &b- 
 
V ®tuty wfttiricateD. 
 
 fubje&s of the Covenant of Grace. There were 
 moreMarks of difference that I gave you of thefe 
 two Covenants, among which this was one, the 
 Covenant of Grace was a\ better Covenant^ efta- 
 blijhed on better Promifes. There can't be a de- 
 gree of comparifon where there is but one. I 
 fhewed in what refpefts the Promifes were better, 
 but you were pleafed to pafs all without a reply, 
 and to conclude from what was written, * that 
 there was no fuch difference between the Cove- 
 nant of Grace and that Covenant that the natu- 
 ral Seed were in, but thai in fubftance it was the 
 fame, though the Prenrtfes were far enough from 
 being cleared, 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 YOU come now to challenge a repeal of Chil- 
 drens Church- memberfhip, though you had 
 it before \ I told you it was then repealed, when 
 the Covenant by which they were conftituted a 
 Church was broken, Zach. 1 1. 10. I (hewed you, 
 there was a new Commiffion given out after Chriffc 
 W2S rifen, according to which the Apoftles were 
 to aft, Mat. 28. 19; 20. 
 
 Your Anfwer to this, is, that the Ceremonial 
 Law is fometimes called the firft and old Covenant, 
 Heb.S.j, 13. the Jewifh fhadbws vanifhed, their 
 carnal Ordinances and Sacrifices ceased. 
 
 Reply. The ApoftJe here fpeaks of the Cove- 
 nant it felf, and not of the Ceremonial Law, as 
 diftinft from the Covenant : Though I deny nor, 
 but when the Covenant was abolilhed, the Ordi- 
 nances were abolifhed too, which Ordinances 
 were but the adjunfts of the firft Covenant, di- 
 ftincT; from the Effence, Heb. 9. 1. Then verily 
 
 the 
 
the firft Covenant had alfo Ordinances of Divine 
 Worflrip, &c< to make the Covenant here to be 
 but the Ordinances, is to deftroy the Sence ; then 
 it mutt be read thus, then verily the firft Admini- 
 flration had alfo an Admin iftration., or the firft 
 Tabernacle had alfo a Tabernacle. 
 
 Again, to take Htb. 8. 7. for the Ordinances, is 
 to reflect upon God himfelf, who teils you it was 
 notfaultlefs^takeit oftheOrdinaces,and then they 
 muft either be politively fauity,or privatively faul- 
 ty : Politively faulty they were not, for they were 
 Gods own appointments :, privatively faulty they 
 were not, for they did anfwer the end for which 
 they were appointed ; they did ihadow out Jefus 
 Chrift, the Elect were brought to a light of Chrift 
 by them, not one of them mifcarried , but the 
 Covenant it felf was faulty, not politively, for h 
 was a good Covenant, though not fo good as the 
 new Covenant, yet it anfwered all the ends cf 
 God in making it -, one great end of which ( as 1 
 conceive ) was the keeping the Seed of Abraham 
 in an entire Body,." till the Median was brought 
 forth, that it might appear that God had made 
 good his Promife made to Abraham, that in his 
 Seed all the Nations of the*Earth mould be bkffkd ; 
 but though this Covenant was fufficient to anfwer 
 all the ends for which it was made, yet it was not 
 fufficient to anfwer all the ends of God, to relieve 
 all the necefllties of his People. Pardon, and Peace 
 and Reconciliation, a new Heart, and a new Spi- 
 rit, Grace here, and Glory hereafter, were never 
 put into this Covenant : If there had, been a Law 
 given that could have given Life, verily Right eoufnefs 
 jhodd 'have been by the Law. Dr. Onen well ob- 
 fervesupon this place, that though many of lira- 
 el that were under this Covenant went to Heaven, 
 # yec 
 
42 <&mm minUcatt^ 
 
 yet there was not one of them that went to Heaven 
 by vertue of this Covenant, but by vertue of the 
 Covenant of Grace ; if this Covenant had been 
 faultlefs, then fhould no place have been fought 
 for the fecopd : this fecond Covenant is a better 
 Covenant,eftabhfhed on better Promifes-, Promifes, 
 That Godwill write hit Law in their Hearts, that he 
 will forgive their Iniquities, and remember their Sins 
 no more. If thefe are the better Promifes that 
 the new Covenant is eftablilhed upon, then they 
 were not in the firft, for if thefe Promifes had 
 been in the firft Covenant, that Covenant would 
 have been as good as the fecond, and the fame 
 Promifes would have been as good in the firft Co- 
 venant as in the fecond •, and this firft Covenant 
 which is faid to be old, vcr. 13. is diftingui/h- 
 ed from the Covenant of Grace, verfe 9. by that 
 fame Mark that I have mentioned already , it was 
 theCovenant he made with them, when he brought 
 them up out of Egypt? which was that fame Co- 
 venant that h'e made' with them Dent. 29. 10, 11. 
 as appears verfe 2 5. and yet Hill you proceed to 
 prove, that the Covenant laft mentioned is the 
 Covenant of Grace, by contparing Gen. 17. 7. 
 with Dent. 29. 13. Hef.%. 10. but feeing it is fo 
 near at hand, I (hall return no other anfwer but 
 this, pray compare Heb.%.9. with Dent.29.25. 
 amd confider what I have laft written, and you 
 may fee that they are diftinft Covenants. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, you grant that the legal Or- 
 dinances being repealed, there was a new Admi- 
 mftration of the Covenant of Grace, eftabliflied 
 by our Saviour after his Refurre&ion. 
 
 Reply. In granting a repeal of the legal Ordi- 
 nances, you grant a repeal of the Jewifh Church- 
 ftate, in which their Children ftood members, and 
 
 now 
 
€ftut$ wintfcattD. 4; 
 
 now hence forward you muft prove their Church- 
 memberfhip by this new Adminiftration that is 
 eftablifhed by Chrift, the old Adminiftration be- 
 ing out of doors, granted by your felf. Its ridicu- 
 lous for a man that grants the change of the Admi- 
 niftration,,, to look to that which is done away; 
 in this new Adminiftration there is a new Confti- 
 tution of Churches ; the Church was national un- 
 der the legal Adminiftration, it's Congregational 
 under the Evangelical; then all Judea, and I may 
 fay all the Regions round about, were but one 
 Church j but now there were Churches in Jttdea^ 
 Gal. 1. ii. We read of the Churches oiGalatia y 
 1 Cor. \6. nothing lies plainer in the Word than 
 this, that Churches are now Congregational, the 
 matter whereof is vifible Saints, and the form mu- 
 tual Agreement, neither of which are Children in 
 an Infant-ftate capable of; and if you can give me 
 but one Inftance by any one clear Text, that ever 
 one Child was received into any one of thefe 
 Churches in an Infant-ftate^l will giveyou the caufe. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, you dolikewife grant, that 
 the chief Commiffion that the Apoftles received 
 from Chrift, was to make Difciples by Inftrucli- 
 on, #nd then to receive them into the Church by 
 Baptifm. 
 
 Reply. Their receiving into the Church by Bap- 
 tifm I have excepted againft already, and hav^ 
 given my reafons to the contrary; but here is a 
 grant, that the chief Commiffion what the Apoftles 
 had from Chrift, was to, make Difciples by In- 
 ftruclion, antecedent unto Baptifm 5 but if this 
 was not the only Com mi (lion, then pray Ihew 
 me 'another; and if there be another, either it's 
 larger, ( with refpect to the fubjecls of Baptifm ) 
 or it is fnorcer*, if it be ir.rger, then this is not 
 
 * the 
 
44 €tutty ©tnaieatea. 
 
 the chief-, if it be (hotter, it will not relieve you : 
 But I believe there is no other that takes in In- 
 fants \ if there had, if I had not found it my felf, 
 I iho.uld have heard of it by you c're this time. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, the Apoftles were fent to 
 convert Aliens to the Faith, and fo the Jews being 
 Aliens were to be difcipled unto Chrifb before 
 they were baptized ; and though the Jews were 
 members of the Church, and fubjects of the Co- 
 venant of Grace under the legal Adminiftration, 
 yet they were not members of the Chriftian Church, 
 and fubjetts of the Covenant of Grace, according 
 to the Gpfpei Adminiftration, till they were con- 
 verted to the Chriftian Faith, and made Difciples 
 ofChrift. 
 
 Reply. ( Setting afide their Intereft in the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, of which there has been enough 
 fpoken already) I know not what more can be 
 granted :, as to the repeal of the Jewifli Church- 
 ftate, * and of that memberfhip which Children 
 once had, and were the controverfle here to end, 
 I fuppofe any unbiafTed man would judge you had 
 given up the caufe ;, but you revive it again on the 
 old bottom. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that when believing Parents 
 are baptized, and received into the Chriftian 
 Church, their Children with them are interefted 
 •in the Covenant of Grace, not by Nature, but 
 by Vertue of God's Ordinance ; for Peter faith, 
 The Promife is *to you, and to your Children, Adts 
 a. 39 
 
 Reply. What right the Children are here faid to 
 have, they had before their Parents did repent 
 and were baptized, and received members of the 
 Church*, the Exhortation was to every one of them, 
 re^nt, and be baptized : the Motive to enforce 
 
 • the 
 
favutt) wivfotiattb. 4? 
 
 the Exhortation was this, The Promt fe is to you, and 
 toyowr Children*, fo that this right did not defcend 
 to the Children by the Ordinance of <?od, upon 
 the Parents Repentance, nor yet. upon their being 
 baptized, and received members of the Church. 
 
 Secondly^ I deny the fubjecls to be Believers^ 
 when the Apoftle told them, The Promife is unto 
 yott, and to your Children ; and its enough for me to 
 deny it, its your work to prove it \ yet will I of- 
 fer fomewhat for what I fay. 
 
 Fir ft i They were pricked at the Hearty that's all 
 the account is given of them \ they were under 
 fome Conviction \ now Conviction and Conver- 
 fion are two things, a man may be convinced 
 that is not converted ; he muft be convinced be- 
 fore he can be converted - The whole need not the 
 Phyfician, but they that are fick. 
 
 Secondly^ They were ignorant of the way of Sal- 
 vation, They cried out, Men and Brethren what fijaU 
 we do f and that a Perfon can't be that does be- 
 lieve i Faith is as well the act of the Undemand- 
 ing as of the Will. 
 
 Thirdly , They did not all believe at laft, thougla 
 many other Words were ufed by way of Exhorta- 
 tion to 'em, to fave themfelves from that unto- 
 ward Generation, verfe 41 . Then they that gladly 
 received the Word were Baptized ; now there is no 
 Argument to be drawn to prove a Priviledge to 
 Believers and their Seed, from what was fpoken to 
 Unbelievers. 
 
 Secondly, I deny that Intereft in the Promife is 
 here intended, and that for thefe two Reafons, 
 Firfty Such as have an intereft in the Promife fhall 
 certainly enjoy the good of the Promife ; the Heir 
 of the Promife (hall inherit in time ; it cannot be 
 that the Word of God fhould have taken none? 
 
 D Effect, 
 
46 €mti& wttfticsteb 
 
 "Effeftj Rom 9. The Promife contains Juftificdti- 
 on, Sanctification, and Glorification. None will 
 aver, chat all the Children of Believers fhall be 
 faved} and yet they could not mifs of it, had they 
 an intereft in the Promife. 
 
 Secondly, Once an Intereft in the Promife, an$ 
 for ever an intereft therein, Jcr. 32.40. / will 
 make an Ever lading Covenant with them, that 1 will 
 never turn art ay from them to do them good : and I will 
 put my fear into their Hearts, that they fhall not depart 
 fiom me. . t 
 
 Thirdly, I deny that barely Intereft in the Pro- 
 mife is the ground ofBaptifm: The Apoftle did 
 not lay it down here as the ground of Baptifin, 
 but as a Motive to enforce the Exhortation: Re- 
 pent and be Baptized; that's the Exhortation \ For 
 the Promife is toyok t and to your Children, is the Mo- 
 tive. If the Queftiorvthen be, What muft tbofe 
 do to whom the Promife is? The Anfwer will be 
 this, Repent and be Baptised : If it be objected, 
 Repentance was enjoined the Parents only, noc 
 the Children, I anfwer, Baptifra alfo was in join- 
 ed the Parents not the Children. 
 
 Fourthly , I deny the Children were Baptized 
 when their Parents were, verfe qi. Then they that 
 gladly received the Word were Baptized ^ in which 
 number their Childrea could not Hand. 
 
 Secondly, They were not added to the Church, 
 though the number were about three thoufand, 
 yet were there no more added than continued in 
 the Apoftles Doctrine and FelJowfhip, and break- 
 ing of Bread, and Prayer, which Children were 
 not capable of. No Church- member was ever de- 
 barred anyone Church- Priviledge, till by their 
 ciiforderly walking they debarr'd themfelves. 
 
 SECT. 
 
SECT. VL 
 
 YOU would again argue Childrens Church- 
 membedhip, from the Jewifti Children being 
 received with their Parents by Cireumcifion. 
 
 Reply. The Administration being changed, gran- 
 ted by your felf, page 17. we mult not now take 
 our meafures from the old Adminiftration, but 
 from the new; we mull fee that we have Comtnii- 
 fion from Ghrift for what we do. 
 
 You fay, the Priviledges of Chtiftians are as 
 great under the Gofpcl, as thofe of the Jews were 
 under the Law. 
 
 Reply. I grant their perfonal Priviledges are as 
 great, and in fome refpects greater, but then the 
 Queflion will be, Who are .the Chriftians you in- 
 tend ? They were the Difciples that were called Chrijii- 
 ans, Ads 11. 26. and thefe Difciples were Believ- 
 ers. c 
 
 Secondly, You fay, if the Children of Believers 
 may be exciuded from the Covenant and Church 
 of God, then their Priviledges are lefs, and their 
 condition worfe than thofe under the Law. 
 
 Reply. Firft, Their Interefl in the Covenant of 
 Grace is no otherwife now than it was then, and 
 as for their Church-memhedhip and carnal Ordi- 
 nances, ( as y° a Y our fetf ca N them ) it was th§ 
 pleafure of God they fhould enjoy them for a time, 
 and then to repeal them, and to diflblve their 
 Church- ftate, and our Wilis muft be refolved into 
 the fovereign Will of God. All things are of God, 
 who hath reconciled us unto himfelf by jefus 
 Chrift, and that muft flop the Mouth of all -Obje- 
 ctions i then from that time no Man was to be 
 known after the Fled), then- Bivth-priviledge* 
 
4 s €tufy wintttatzb 
 
 were utterly ceas'd, then a Jew which was befofe 
 bom a Member of an inftituted Church, could no 
 longer be owned fo much as a Member of the uni- 
 versal vifible Church, unlefs in the Judgment of 
 Charity he were new-born : By one Spirit are ye all 
 baptized mo one Body, and made to drink into one Spi- 
 rit, whether Jew or Gentile. 
 
 Thirdly, They have the Word now as well as 
 then, as foon as they are capable of it, and that 
 much clearer than it was then, and in this refpeft 
 their Priviledge is greater than of the Children of 
 Turks and Pagans, ( though you fay they have no 
 more ) and this the Apoftle calls the chief Priyi- 
 ledge of the Jew above the Gentile, Rom. 3.1,2* 
 and if by no means their Priviledges mud be aba- 
 ted in any one thing, no not in a tittle, then tell 
 me, what you allow them in the room of the Pafs- 
 over, which then they had a right to? Exod. 12. 
 3,4. A Lamb for a Honfe : That Children are a 
 part of the Houfe is yotfr own Argument, there- 
 fore they had a right to the PafTover. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, if the Children of Believers 
 are not Church- members, nor anyway in Cove- 
 nant with God j How then can they be in any 
 ftate of Salvation ? For it is by the Covenant of 
 God in Chrift that we are faved. 
 
 Reply. 1 never denied Children to be in the Co- 
 venant, as I have clear'd it already : That which I 
 deny is, that the Children of Believers are in the 
 Covenant, confidered as fuch \ God knows what 
 Children are in the Covenant, whether of Belie- 
 vers or Unbelievers, I cannot tell ^ fure lam, that 
 all the ElecJ are in the Covenant, and they do 
 not ail come out of the Loins of Believers. 
 
 Foarthly, You fay, there is good ground to 
 hope, that the Children, of Believers fhall be faved - 7 
 
 For 
 
Cwtij wivfoicam. 49 
 
 For of [neb is the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 14. 
 
 Reply. Firftj If you have fuch good ground of 
 their Salvation, why do you not commit them 
 to the Duft in fore and certain hope of the Re- 
 furrection to Eternal Life, when they dye unbap- 
 trzed ? 
 
 Secondly, Chrift fpeaks not here of the Children 
 of Believers, but of Children, confidered as*fuch. 
 
 Thirdly y Chrift does not fay, that all fuch are 
 faved, but of fuch is the Kingdom of God. I be- 
 lieve, that Children are capable of Salvation as 
 well as grown Perfons, and that fuch of them as 
 are faved, are faved by vertue of the Covenant of 
 Grace ; but how many, and whofe Children are fa- 
 ved, neither you, nor I can tell ^ its a fecret lockt 
 up in the Bread: of the Almighty, it belongs not 
 to us to enquire ; but your Inference from this, 
 that all the Children of Believers have an Intereft 
 in the Covenant, and have a right to Baptifm, is a 
 meer groundlefs Conclulion. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay,- 1 think you contradift your 
 felf in faying, if Infants have an Intereft in the Co- 
 venant, they have a right to Baptifm, when be- 
 fore you contended for their entrance in by Bap- 
 tifm; to this you fay, the right they have to Bap- 
 tifm is by Intereft in the Covenant, and unlets 
 they have an Intereft in the Covenant, and be re- 
 puted Church-members, they ought not to be Bap* 
 tized. 
 
 Reply. If they werein the Covenant before, then 
 they are not entered in by Baptifm : If they be 
 entered in by Baptifm, then they were not in be- 
 fore. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, I grant, that the Children of . 
 the Jews had an Intereft in the Covenant before 
 they were Circumcifed. 
 
 D 3 Replp 
 
50 cvuti) sam&tcattfj. 
 
 Reply. That's true, 1 did grant it, but it's as 
 true, that I denied, that they were entered in by 
 Circumcifion. I told you, the Female had an In- 
 tereft in the Covenant as well as the Male, though 
 they were never Circumcifed. 
 
 Stvemhly, You fay, that your calling Baptifra 
 the Seal of the Covenant, you think the Nature 
 of the Ordinance does afford ground for it. 
 
 Reply. 1 know no external Seal belonging to the 
 Covenant of Grace, by which a Perfon may be 
 known to have an Interelt therein \ nor do you 
 well to call it fo without Scripture- ground. 1 
 fear, that attributing fo much to Baptiim as fome 
 do, hath a great tendency to make Perfons fe- 
 pure. 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 
 YOn fay, at laft I take upon me the place of an 
 Opponent, which is contrary to the rules of 
 Pifpiuatio f n, and offer fomething againft Infant- 
 Baptifm. 
 
 Reply. I never pretended to much skill in the 
 rules of Difputation, nor do I yet : I know not 
 but fome of them may be broken now.. If I keep 
 within the bounds of Truth and Moderation, it's 
 as much as I look for. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that men are bound to pray, 
 and worfhip God, and perform Duties of Holi- 
 nefs and Rigbteoufnefs; but Children that are not 
 capable of performing thefe, are not guilty of any 
 aciuaiSin in omitting of them. 
 
 Reply. Are not Children capable to worfhip 
 God? whv then muff they be baptized? is not 
 paptffm, that i$fo much contended for, a part of 
 grods woi/hip? Secondly , Men are bound to repent, 
 
 and 
 
and be baptized, but Children that are not capa- 
 ble of the performance of thefe Duties, are noc 
 guilty of aclial Sia ia the Omiffion of them. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that all thofe Scriptures that 
 require Faith and Repentance before Baptifrn, are 
 to be retrained to thofe that are made Difciples 
 firffc at Age ; but Infants of Believers have a right, 
 by vertue of the Gofpel-Covenant,before they can 
 repent and believe. 
 
 Reply. Here again you offer no proof to what 
 you bring, and that is Hill- expecled by me, and a 
 bare denial is all that I (hall return, till proof be 
 offered. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that Children are capable of 
 entring into Covenant with God, though at pre- 
 fent they know not what Baptifm means, or what 
 they are engaged to. In Mofes's time the little 
 ones entered into Covenant, Dent. 20. 11, 12. 
 
 Reply, I do not* difpure their Capacity, but the 
 Authority of it: Shew me as good Authority for 
 it as Mofes did, Dent. 29. t, Thefe are the words 
 of the Covenant, -that the Lord commanded me to make 
 with the Children oflfrael : Do but fliew me where 
 the Lord hath commanded ir, and I will give }ou 
 the caufe. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, the firft Objection that I offer 
 againft lafant-Baptifor is this, that if thofe that 
 are difcipled to Chrift by the Word, are the only 
 fubjects of BaptifQi,according to Chrifts Commiffi- 
 on, tr n Infants are not: But fuch as are difcipled 
 to Chrift by the Word, are the only fubjefts of 
 Baptifm according to Chrifts CommhTion, there- 
 fore Infants are not. 
 
 Your aiifwer to this is, that if by thofe that 
 are difcipled ro Chrift by the Word are meant 
 fuch as are difcipled by actual Initru&ion, then 
 
 you 
 
52 Cratfj fl*inbicate& 
 
 you deny the Minor : Yon fay, thai Chrift com- 
 manded, that thofe that bedifcipled to Chrift by 
 teaching, orotherwife, (hould be baptized. » 
 
 Reply. Firfly I wonder, that you have fo foon 
 forgotten what you granted, Page 17. You de- 
 clared, that you did acknowledge, that the chief 
 Commiflion that the Apoftleshad from Chrift, was 
 to make Difciples by Inftruftion, and then to Bap- 
 tize them, and now it's quite another thing with 
 yon. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that there is any other way of 
 difcipling to Chrift by the Word, but by adtual 
 teaching : Produce an inftance if you can, of any 
 one that ever was difcipled to Chrift by the Word, 
 without a&ual teaching. 
 
 Thirdly, I deny, that Chrift hath commanded 
 to baptize any more than are difcipled by lnftru- 
 ttion or Teaching. The Commiflion is, <3o and 
 teach all Nations , baptizing them: See whether you 
 can find one more in the Text to be Baptized by 
 them than were taught : The Word them is rela- 
 tive to all Nations taught and difcipled. Erafmns 
 in his Paraphrafc upon the New Teftament reads 
 the Commiflion thus, Go and teach all Nations , and 
 when they have learned, dip them : I defire to 
 know, how Minifters can Difciple to Chrift by the 
 Word, otherwife than by adtual Inftru&ion j is 
 was by preaching the Gofpel that they were to 
 Difciple, fo Mark^ has it, Go preach' the Gofpel to 
 every Creature: Men cannot preach the Gofpel 
 without a&ual Inftruftion : He that is called a 
 Difciple, Mat. 28. is called a Believer, Marl^ 
 16. 16. and if Faith cometh by hearing, as the A- 
 poftle tells us, Rom. 10. this can't be without attual 
 InftruQion. 1 conclude then, that to baptize fuch 
 as are difcipled to Chrift, either by teaching or 
 
 other- 
 
otherwife, is not in the C ommiflion j the word o- 
 therwife is not in the Tranflation, nor in the 
 Greek-, but is an Addition of your own. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, the-Children of Believers are 
 Difciples of Chrift, though they are not capable 
 of Learning. 
 
 Reply. You had as good fay, they have learned 
 Chrift, though they are not capable of Learning. 
 
 You fay, Difciples may be taken two ways, ei- 
 ther for fuch as are made Difciples by teaching, 
 or for fuch as are in a ftate of Difciples \ you 
 fay, the Infants of Believers are born Difciples, 
 by vertue of the Gofpel- Covenant, and that 
 Ghrift himfelf would have the Infants of Believers 
 received in his Name, and accounts the receiving 
 of them the receiving of him, Mark 9.37. Luke 
 9« 48. 
 
 Reply. Firft, There is no mention whether this 
 was the Child of a Believer or not ; that there were 
 many of the Jews that did not believe, is beyond 
 difpute, John 10. Te believe not, becaufeye are not my 
 Jke/vfaith Ghrift ; and whether this was the Child 
 of a Believer or not, you do not know. 
 
 Secondly, You ftiould have compared it with 
 Mat . 18. by which,as the Addition to Fool's Anno- 
 tations obferves, Mark and Luke mufl: be expound- 
 ed, and then you might have feen, that it was not 
 a little Child, conlidered as fuch, nor yet as con- 
 fidered the Child of a Believer, but a Difciple of 
 Chrift that hath humbled himfelf, and is become 
 as a lictle Child, Mat. 18.5. Whofoever fiall offend 
 one fuch child that believes on me. Where three 
 Evangelifts do fpeak of the fame thing, as here 
 they do, its good to examine all, and take the 
 fence from him that fpeaketh moft large and 
 clear. 
 
 Seventhly^ 
 
54 ®wtij ©itititcatek 
 
 Seventhly, You fay that Peter doth in effect call 
 Infants Difciples, Att$\%. 10. Why tempt ye God 
 to put a yoke upon the necl^of the difciples : The yoke 
 that the falfe Apoftles would have put on their 
 Beck was Circumcifion, as engaging. them to keep 
 the law } this was circumcifion after the manner 
 ofMofes, and then Children being the fubjects 
 thereof, mull needs be inclucled under the name of 
 Difciples. 
 
 Reply. There is not one Word of Children in 
 this whole Controverfie, verfei. They taught the 
 Brethren, that they muft be circumcifed after the man- 
 ner of Adofes: The Brethren are the Subjects the 
 manner of Mofes refpects, the form the cutting off 
 the fore-skin - 7 the Brethren are the Subjects than 
 were thus tobecircuracifed, among which Chil- 
 dren of eight days old could not be numbred. 
 For, 
 
 Firfl, They were fuch as had received the Holy 
 Ghoft, v. 8. Secondly, They had purified their 
 hearts by Faith. Thirdly, They were fuch that 
 from among the Gentiles were turned unto God, 
 V' 19. 
 
 Secondly, It was not circumcifion barely confide- 
 red, but circumcifion together with the falfe Do- 
 ctrine that was this intollerable yoke} for cir- 
 cumcifion barely confidered was born by Chil- 
 dren of eight days old, but circumcifion in point 
 of juftincation,as here it was urged,was a yoke that 
 neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear ; 
 now though circumcifion might have been impofed 
 on Children of eight days old, yet the falfe Do- 
 ctrine could not. 
 
 Thirdly, To expound this of Children, is to ex- 
 pound it contrary to the fence of the word difci- 
 ple,as you well know,and contrary to Luke 14..EX- 
 
 cept 
 
cruttj wintricatefe 55 
 
 f ept a man hate Father and Mother , yea 7 and his own 
 life, he cannot he my difciple. 
 
 Eighthly, You fay, ifChidren of Believers are ho- 
 ly in fuch a fence, as to have right by the Covenant 
 of Grace to be admitted members of the vifible 
 Church, then they mult needs be difciples of 
 Chrift; but they are fo, i Cor. 7. 14. Elfe were 
 your Children unclean^ hut novo Are they holy 7 that is, 
 fcederally holy. 
 
 Reply. I deny both the Major and the. Minor. 
 Firfi, I deny the Holinefs to be icederal ; there 
 was a cafe fenttorhe Apoftle for refblution, whe- 
 ther it was lawful for the believing Husband or 
 Wife to continue with his or her unbelieving Yoke- 
 fellow ? which he anfwers i 1 the affirmative } but 
 how doth he clear it ? Firfi, He proves the lawful- 
 nefs of their continuance trom the lawfulnefs of 
 their ftate ; The unbelieving husband is fantlifie din or 
 to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is fantlified in or to 
 the husband \ they were fanclified each to other by 
 the ordinance of God, when both were Unbeliev- 
 ers, according to that Text, Marriage is honoura- 
 ble among all, and the Bed I an defiled : This he il- 
 ludrates by an inftance of the lawfulnefs of their 
 product, Eljewere your Children unclean, but now 
 are they holy. 
 
 Secondly, The holinefs of the Child does not 
 arife from the faith of the believing Parent, but 
 ..from the fanctification of the unbeliever, and none 
 does call that fanctification fcederal holinefs 7 now 
 fuch as the fountain is, fuch are the dreams, the ef- 
 fect is not greater than the caufe. 
 
 Thirdly, Hefpeaksof their Children indefinite- 
 ly, as well thofe that were born when both were 
 unbelievers, as thofe that were born after one Pa- 
 rent believed, fome of which might remain pro- 
 
 fefs'd 
 
56 ®ruti) gam&icateD* 
 
 fcfsM P^4»j as well as one of the Parents, and yet 
 holy. 
 
 Secondly, I deny that all who were federal- 
 ly holy were Difciples of Chrift, John 4. 1 . Chrift 
 and John made Difciples among the Jews of thofe 
 who were federally holy, antecedent thereunto : 
 We are Mofes Difciples, fay fome, as for that /<?/- 
 low, we know not whence he is ; and yet they were fe- 
 derally holy, John 9. 28, 29. and many inftances 
 more might be given, if need were, to prove that 
 perfons might be federally holy, and yet not the 
 Difciples of Chrift. 
 
 SECT. VIII. 
 
 YOU fay, my fecond Objection is this, if the 
 ttpoftles, who well underftood their JLtfrds 
 CommifTion, did firft difciple before they bapti- 
 zed, then are Difciples the only Subjects of bap- 
 tifm \ but they did fo, Attsi.^x. Your Anfwer 
 to this is, that the chief bufinefs of the Apoftles 
 at the firft planting of Churches,was to make Dif- 
 ciples by inftruttion, and then to baptize them ; 
 and this feems to be one caufe why they have faid 
 little or nothing about baptizing of Children. 
 
 Reply. Till you can (hew me that they had o- 
 ther bufinefs, I (hall take it for granted that this 
 was their only bufinefs, firft to difciple by inftru- 
 £tion,and then to baptize, and that was the rea- 
 fon why they faid nothing about the baptizing of 
 Children ( as you here confefs ) becaufe it was no 
 part of their bufinefs ; and if the Apoftlesfaid no- 
 thing about baptizing of Children, I take that 
 to be the reafon, why you and others that have 
 written about it, have had no more to fay to the 
 purpofe than you have. 
 
 Secondly^ 
 
Crttty sittDfcateD. 57 
 
 Secondly, You fay, a fecond Reafon feems to be 
 this, that at that time there was no doubt made f 
 but that Infants ought to be received with their 
 believing Parents, into the vifible Church. 
 
 Reply. How doth it appear, that there was no 
 doubt made ? you do not affirm it your felf, and if 
 you did, you could not prove it ; yet, I fuppofe 
 that there was no doubt in the caie, it was clear 
 that there was no fuch thing, there being neither 
 precept no prefident for it, there could be no 
 fuch thing of Divine Appointment, 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that though there be no fuch 
 thing in ex pre fs terms recorded, yet it can't be 
 concluded from thence, that they baptized none- 
 A negative argument is not valid in matter of 
 facl. 
 
 Reply. Though it may not be concluded meer- 
 ly for want of a Prefident, yet there being net; 
 ther precept nor prefident, it may be concluded ; 
 for without a precept for it, the ApofHes would 
 not do it, and had there been a precept, I doubt 
 not but there would have been prefidents enough. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that Chrifl: 
 did many things not recorded in No remjin scrip- 
 Scripture, John 20. and fo did turebychrfflerbis 
 the Apoftles. 4$*" °f &f*f 
 
 Reply. What is not recorded, j^Jgg 
 is no rule for us to go by. tbeyfpake it but did 
 
 You fay, its very probable not prance it. 
 that the baptizing of Infants was 
 one of them. 
 
 Reply. Probabilities prove nothing, only you 
 do by this feem to intimate that you have nothing 
 in Scripture for it, nor do you know whether to 
 go to fetch any thing. 
 
 You fay, that the praftifeofthe baptizing of In- 
 fants 
 
fants was fo early in the Church, that it can hard- 
 ly be known when it began. 
 
 Reply. It it can't be known when it began, then 
 it can't be proved by Scripture j if it could, it 
 would be known when it began. Secondly, If it 
 was not from the beginning, then it was nocof 
 divine inltitution, no, though it was in the next 
 age after the Apoftles were deceafed. Thirdly , t>o 
 early as it was, you car/t conclude it more early 
 than can be known, and I have underftood that it 
 can't be proved to be in ufe the firft two hundred 
 years after Chrift, and that's more to me than the 
 the other fourteen hundred wherein it has been in 
 ufe. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that Origen and Auftin re- 
 ports an Apoftolical Tradition for it. 
 
 Reply. I fuppofe you do not lay much ftrefs up- 
 on unwritten Traditions: For, Firft, You know 
 if we own them, we deny the Scriptures to be a 
 perfe&ruie: And, Secondly, If we receive one, by 
 the fame rule we may receive more, and when 
 fhall we know when we have recieved all : I fup- 
 pofe there are plenty of them in the fame (hop 
 out of which this came. Thirdly, It's a fign you 
 have not Scripture to prove it, in that you run to 
 unwritten Traditions, if you had ground for it in 
 Scripture, there were no need to fly to them. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay^ there are fome probable 
 grounds in Scripture, that the Apoftles upon the 
 Parents faith baptized their Children ; when the 
 Goaler was converted, it'sexpredy faid, That he 
 And all his were ftraightvoay baptized, A&S ltf.33. 
 .and it's probable fomeof thefe were Infants. 
 
 Reply. It's not only more probable that here 
 were no Infants, but it's certain there were none: 
 For, firjf, U's faid, They fpal;e to him the word of the 
 
 Lord i 
 
Cniti) winbicatea. 59 
 
 Lord, and to all that were in his houfe, ver. 32. that 
 was before they were baptized. Secondly, He be- 
 lieved in God with all his houfe, ver, 34. 
 
 You fay, it's probable there were forae Infants 
 baptized, in that there were whole Houfiiolds, 
 and Infants are part of a Houfhold. 
 
 Reply. It's more probable that Infants were 
 not baptized, from the iuftances that are given of 
 thefe four houfholds, then it there baa been no in* 
 fiance given of them : For, Fir ft, Had ic been the 
 practice of the ApofUes, to baptize the whole fa- 
 mily upon the profeffion of the Head of the Family, 
 I fee no reafon why thefe families mould be menu- • 
 oned more than others. Secondly, The Goalers 
 family are proved already to be all believers. The 
 fecond is Crifpus, Alls 18. 8. Then Crijpus, the chief 
 rnler ofthefynagogue, believed in God with all his houfe, 
 and many of the Corinthians bdieved^and were baptised ; 
 If whole families beleive, then whole families are 
 baptized \ if but a part believe, then but a part is 
 baptized. The third is the hcuihold of Stephanas y 2nd 
 they are faid to be the firft fruits ofJchaia, and to 
 have addicted themfelves to the Miniftry of the 
 Saints, 1 Cor. \6. 19. The fourth Houfhold is Ly- 
 dia, and no body knows whether fhe was Maid, 
 Wife or Widdow. 
 
 Seventhly, Ybu fay, if Children had been denied 
 Church- Memberfhip, doubtlefs thofe jews tl at 
 were converted to Chriftianity at firft would have 
 raifed a florm about it, as they did about lefler 
 matters. 
 
 Reply* Your doubtlefs proves no more than your 
 probabilities did, and therefore I mall return no 
 Anfwer to it at prefent. 
 
 Eighthly, You fay, there is no exprefs prohibit!** 
 on,forbidding us to recieve infants into the Chuich 
 by baptifm. Reply, s 
 
50 ctfutfj vititoicateb. 
 
 Reply. There is no need of a prohibition, bfc- 
 caufe it was never of Divine Appointment. 
 
 Ninthly, You fay, there is more need of an exprefs 
 prohibition, forbidding infants to be admitted into 
 the Church by Baptifm, than there is of an exprefs 
 Command or Example for the admitting of them, 
 becaufe, before Chrift's coming they always enjoy- 
 ed the priviledge of being entered into the Church* 
 and if this ancient priviledge be taken away,where 
 is there any plain precept or prefident for it. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft, You have granted a repeal of that 
 ancient priviledge already, that the old or legal 
 adminiftration is done away,that there is a new ad- 
 miniftration eftabliflied by. Chrift, that the Jews 
 ftood as aliens as well as others. 
 
 Secondly^ You have not proved, that Children 
 ftood Church-Members under the new adminiftra- 
 tion, and theretore it's in vain to call for a Re- 
 peal. 
 
 Temhly, You fay, that one or both of thefe is ne- 
 cefiary to warrant us to deny Infants- Baptifm. 
 
 Refly> One or both of ihefe is necejfary to war- 
 rant to baptize them, left God mould fay, who 
 hath required this at your hands, but there is no 
 need of either to warrant us to deny them baptifm* 
 for where there is no law there is no tranfgreflion. 
 
 Eleventhly, You fay,for a conclufion,it can never 
 be proved that Chrift or his Apoftles hath exprefly 
 forbidden Infants to be admitted into his Church 
 by baptifm, therefore they may and ought to be 
 baptized. 
 
 Reply. F'trft, I perceive you are almbft out of 
 breath, ni that you have but a negative argument 
 left for your pra&ice. 
 
 Secondly, It can never be proved, that God did 
 exprefly forbid Nadab and Abihu to offer incenfe 
 
 with 
 
Crtftfy wftttfcateik 6% 
 
 withftrange fire, and yet they were deftroyed by 
 fire from Heaven, for doing it with fire that he 
 commanded them not. 
 
 Thirdly, It's none of our bufinefs to enquire af- 
 ter Prohibitory in matters of worihip, that which 
 we are to enquire after is, whether it be of Divine 
 InftitUtion, Mat. 28. 19,20. Teaching them to ob~ 
 ferve all things ,whatfoever I have commanded you, and 
 lo I am with you always, even unto the end of World : 
 If weexped theprefenceand bkllingof God with 
 us,and on us,in what we do,we mufl be fure to keep 
 clofe to his commands : Thou meet eft him that re- 
 joyceth and worketh riahteoufnefs, that remembreth 
 thee in thy ways, Ifa. 64, 5. God's ways are the 
 ways of his Commands, PfaL 1 19. i, 1, 3. 
 
 Fourthly , That which is not commanded in mat- 
 ters ofworfhip is forbiddemljnderthe Old Tefta- 
 ment it was not expreily forbidden, Beat. 12. 32* 
 )fy hat foever thing I command you, that ob ferve and do, 
 thou jhalt not add thereto, nor dimmifi from it: And 
 we may not fuppofe, that Chrift has left his Wor- 
 fhip more imperfect, or his people more at liber- 
 ty under the Gofpel. Mofes was faithful in God's 
 houfe as a Servant, but Chrift as a Son, Htb.3.2. 
 under the New Teftament difpenfation, that 
 which is not commanded in matters of wor(hip$ 
 is forbidden implicitly and confequentially, Joh. 
 4. 24. God is a Spirit, and they that worjhip him, muft 
 worfoip him in fpirit and in truth : That God that 
 doth exprefly require men to worfhip him in truth, 
 doth implicitly forbid alifalfe waysof Worihip,- 
 that are not ruled by the Word of Truth. 
 
 Fifthly, If that which Chrift hath not exprefly. 
 forbidden may be admitted into the worfliip of 
 God, then may all the burthenfom Ceremonies 
 imaginable be admitted in. 
 
 E 5 
 
62 Cwtty wivfomtz& 
 
 I come now to reply to your third Paper, which 
 you entitled, The vindication of Infant- Baptifm vin- 
 dicated. 
 
 In your firlt Section you fay, I charge you 
 with mifreprefenting my* words ^ in faying, I 
 granted that fuch as ought to be admitted Members 
 of the viflble Church have a right to baptifm, when 
 I granted it only with refpett of an infiituted 
 Church: But feeing my Words were doubtful, 
 ( you fay ) you took them, as you concieved,in the 
 belt fence. 
 
 Reply. Firft^ I have not abufed you in this, but 
 have ftated it as it was. 
 
 Secondly , My Words were plain ; I faid,if by the 
 vifible Church you meant an infrituted Church, I 
 granted it. 
 
 Your Anfwer is this, that Baptifm is more like- 
 ly to be the means of admitting Members into the 
 univerfai vifible Church, than into a particular 
 Congregational Church ; for if a Man were admit- 
 ted into a particular Congregation by baptifm, 
 then when he left that, and is admitted into ano- 
 ther, he muft be baptized again. 
 
 Reply* Here you grant my Argument, ( though 
 under another term ) that Baptifm could not be 
 the4brmal, conftituting caufe, becaufe it could be 
 but once adminiftred, and there may be cafes in 
 which a perfon may be twice formed a Member : I 
 inftanced in a perfon juftly ejected, and afterwards 
 repenting; you inftance in aperfons removing 
 from one Church to another, which is the fame 
 thing in effect ; and this is the Church I intended, 
 when I faid an inftituted Church. I told you in my 
 la ft, I knew no formal way of adraiffion into the 
 univerfai vifible Church, unlefs you call the preach- 
 ing of the Word the formal way. A Perlon called 
 
 out 
 
out of the World by the preaching of the Word, 
 is upon his embracing of Chrift to be owned a 
 Member of the univerfai vifible Church. 
 
 Secondly , Yoa fay, there is a great deal of diffe- 
 rence between-conltitufinga Man a Member of the 
 Church, and receiving ot one that was a Member 
 before ; a Man mult be a real Member of the 
 Church, before he can be folemnly received by 
 baptifra, and declared a vifible Member. 
 
 Reply. If I do rightly underftand this, here is a 
 grant,that thofe that you baptize are not Members 
 of the Vifible Church, antecedent thereunto, and I 
 think I am not miftaken, for in page 6j. you fay* 
 that Children are invifibly, and before God inte- 
 refted in the Covenant, and Church- members be- 
 fore they are baptized : Now pray tell me how 
 you know, that fuch as you baptize were really 
 Members of the vifible Church ^ if they were not 
 vifibly fuch, we cannot judge but by viability. 
 
 Thirdly , You fay, that Baptifm is a means to ad- 
 mit perfons into the vifible Church, and as you 
 takeic, the Scripture is on your fide in it, for which 
 you bring three Scriptures, Rom, 6% 3. As many of 
 you as were baptised into Chrift. 
 
 Reply. This i peaks not of baptizing into the 
 Church, but into Chrift j and thefe that are herg 
 faid to be baptized into Chrift,were not only real, 
 but vifible Members of the univerfai vifibleChurch, 
 antecedent thereunto * they were Believers, they 
 had made a verbal profefiion of their Faith, which 
 was enough to declare them Members of the uni- 
 verfai vifible Church,before they were baptized. 
 
 Your Second Text is, AEls 2. 41. Then they 
 that gladly received the Word were baptized, and the 
 fame^ day there were added unto them about three thou* 
 [and Souls, 
 
 E 2 keffyi 
 
c \ Ctutij sinDf cateu* 
 
 Reply. Firft, They were members of the untver- 
 fal vifible Church before they were baptized, their 
 profcfTed Reception of the Word declared them 
 
 fach Secondly, Their, being added, was to a 
 
 particular inftituted Church, or a Congregatio- 
 nal Church, where the Supper of the Lord was to 
 be enjoyed. You grant your felf, that Baptifrn 
 does not form a Perfon a member of an inftituted 
 Church j for if it did, a Perfon mufi be as oft 
 baptized as he is received. 
 
 Your third Text is, i Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit 
 are ye all baptized into one Body, Sec. 
 
 Reply. I confefs this is the univerfal vifible 
 Church, but here I have two things to Object : 
 Fir ft, Thefe were not members before. Secondly^ 
 This is not Wster-baptifm, but Spiritual baptifm, 
 or Regeneration, fo that neither of thefe Scrip- 
 tures do prove what they are brought for. 
 
 Fourthly^ You fay, that a Perfon juftly excom- 
 municated is not wholly unchurched, but only ex- 
 cluded from the outward Communion till he re- 
 pent. Againft this you fay, I object, that an ex- 
 Communicated Perfon is cut off from that particu- 
 lar Body whereof he once flood a member. The 
 Scripture that 1 brought to prove this, it feeras 
 does not fatisfie you ; that in Matthew you fay 
 declares a Perfon to be in the fame circumftances 
 as a Heathen-man, in regard of outward Communi- 
 on, but this is your own diftinctior, there is no 
 fuch thing in the Text ; the charge is, Let him be 
 to thee as a Heathen-man or a Publican, and fuch a 
 one is no member of that particular Body ; and as 
 for that in 1 Cor. 5. They are bid to put away from 
 • among tbemftlvts that wicked Perfon: How he ihould 
 be put away from amongft them, and yet continu- 
 ed a member with theaj, I do not know. 
 
 Fifth- 
 
cmt^ wftUrfcateit. 65 
 
 Fifthly^ You Object, that a man excommunica- 
 ted may retain the Profeffion of his Faith, and be 
 heartily grieved for his Sins, which flrongly ar- 
 gues him a member of the univerfal vifible Church. 
 
 Reply. Fir (I, If he be truly humbled and grieved 
 for his Sins, he ought not tobe'excommunicaced j 
 therefore want of this is neceflarily fuppofed, 
 when a Perfon is juftly eje&ed. 
 
 Secondly, If Grief and Humiliation do appear af- 
 ter he is eje&ed, it argues him a member of the uni- 
 verfal. Church, I grant; but not a member of that 
 particular Body out of which he ^was caft, as they 
 are confidered an inftituted Church. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, the Apoflie writes to them to 
 forgive him, and comfort him., that is, to abfolve 
 him from the punilhment, which flrongiy argues he 
 was not received in as an Alien. 
 
 Reply. The Queftion is not, after what manner 
 he was to be received? but whether he was call 
 out, and that you do not deny \ now to be call out 
 from among them, and at the fame time be conti- 
 nued a member with them, are terms iaconfiilent ; 
 and if he were formally cad out, as it appears he 
 was, he mull be formally received again, before he 
 could be owned a member of that particular Con- 
 gregation. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 YOu fay, I blame you for not taking notice of 
 the excluding of Baflards under the legal Ad- 
 miniflration, which feems to contradict your pre- 
 fent practife in receiving them. You fay, you 
 made no Anfwer, becaufe you thought it imperti- 
 nent to the true fenfe of the Text, which is Dent. 
 23. 2. where a Baftard is forbid to enter into the 
 
 . E 3 Conjre* 
 
66 ctut^ sainm'eateD* 
 
 Congregation of the Lord to the t cnth Generation. The 
 Criticks ( fay you ) expound it thus, that a Ba- 
 ftard was not to bear Office in the Church to the 
 tenth Generation. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft, You had done well, if you had 
 told me, who thofe Criticks are that give this Cri- 
 tical Exposition. Pool in his Synopfis, whofe work 
 it was to colleft them, mentions no fuch. thing, as I 
 am informed. 
 
 Secondly , I know not how the Criticks do ex- 
 pound the Words, I know the Text is plain, and 
 a Text may be wier-drawn in the Expoiuioii of it, 
 beyond what the fen fe will afford : Nor do I fee 
 what ground there is either from the coherence of 
 this or any other Text thus to expound it. 
 
 Thirdly, I cannot yet accept of that Critical In- 
 terpretation, and that for thefe Reafons : 
 
 Firft, 1 do not find that the Females were ad- 
 mitted into ordinary Offices at all under that aif- 
 penfation, ( and of fuch I fuppofe you intend it ) 
 but a Ballard might be Female as well as Male. 
 
 Secondly , God chofe the Tribe of Levi to offici- 
 ate in that-Church-ftate, but a Ballard might be 
 pf any other Tribe as well as of that. 
 
 Secondly, You offer one Argument to prove, 
 that the Text did not intend an Exclufion from 
 the means of Salvation; for God hath declared, 
 That the Son fiiall not bear the Iniquity of the Father^ 
 Ewk. 1 8. 20. and never did God punilh the Chil- 
 dren with fpiritual Punifbrnent, as fometimes he 
 doth with Temporal, for the Fathers fault. . 
 
 Reply. Firft ^ Your Quotation is Impertinent, for 
 
 that refpe&s a temporal Punilhment, their being 
 
 in Babylon, which they thought was a ftroke laid 
 
 ppon them meerly for their Fathers fault. 
 
 Secondly^ Your aflertion will not hold good, 
 
 God 
 
€vutfy winMcatzb. 6 7 
 
 God threatned that the Man-child that was not, 
 Circamcifed the eighth day, fhould be cut off from 
 the Congregation of his People^ and yet the fault lay 
 not in the Child, but in the Parent, Get/. 17. 14. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 YOu fay, I own the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. to 
 be the Covenant of Grace ; but that I deny 
 the Covenant Gen. 17. 8. and fo to 15. to be the 
 Covenant of Grace, and thatbecanfe it was made 
 with the natural Seed,confIdered as fucb, and con- 
 tained temporal Blefiings only ; and that I would 
 have all this granted to me without proof. 
 
 Reply. I offered proof to what I afTerted, but if 
 you take no rioiice of it, the fault is yours, and 
 not mine. As for the Seed mentioned in the eighth 
 verfe, its granted that they were the natural Seed, 
 that needs no proof, and for the fpiritual Seed 1 
 quoted the fourth verfe of the fame Chaprer ; As 
 for me % my Covenant fli all be with tine, and a Father of 
 many Nations will I make thee • and thy Name fjall 
 no mofe be called Abram, but Abraham (hall thy Name 
 be, for a Father of many Nations have 1 made thee ; 
 Thefe are the fpiritual Seed, as appears Rom. 4. 
 and this is the fame Covenant with that in the 
 7. verfe, as appears in that the Lord hath made 
 himfelf over to Abraham, and to his Seed abfolute- 
 ly, and. fo he hath not to any but the fpiritual 
 Seed, or the myfticai Seed, which is that I intend. 
 
 Secondly^ You fay, here is but one Covenant 
 mentioned, Gen. 17. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft-, Here is a Covenant mentioned in 
 which the Land of Canaan was not put as the Inhe- 
 ritance, verfe 4, 5. the Gent He shad no Title there- 
 unto, and they are the many Nations there intend- 
 ed. E 4 Secondly, 
 
68 Crutty tnj$nt>icates> 
 
 Secondly, Here is a Covenant, in which the Land 
 of Canaan was put as the Inheritance, verfe 8,9. 
 therefore there are two Covenants mentioned. 
 
 Thirdly, The Lord makes himfelf over abfolute- 
 ly with refpecl to the fpiritual Seed, verfe 7. and 
 he makes himfelf over conditionally with refpect 
 to the natural Seed, verfe 8, 9. which is fufficient 
 to prove that there are two Covenants mentio- 
 ned. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, there is a fpiritual Promife 
 exprefl in the Sth. verfe, in the fame words as in 
 the jth.^ Jnd I mil be their God- 7 which confutes my 
 Interpretation, and defeats my Dedgr. 
 
 Reply. Firfi , I defire you to ftay a little, I have 
 not yet replied ro ir. Secondly, The Promife is 
 not in the fame words, there is fome variation in 
 them> Thirdly, It is not in the fame Senfe, now 
 if it be worded never fo much alike its nothing, if 
 it differ in the fence -, in the 7th. verfe it's abfolute, 
 in the %th. there is a Condition annexed, To/tjhall 
 keep my Covenant ; a failure in the performance of 
 which Condition was a breach of the Covenant, 
 verfe 14. 
 
 Thirdly, It confutes rot my Interpretation, for 
 when I laid, the Covenant of Grace contained fpi- 
 ritual Bleflings, this temporal only, I explained 
 my meaning, that God never promifed a new 
 Heart and a new Spirit,by vertue of that Covenant 
 into which the natural Seed were taken, •confider- 
 ed as fuch \ for which I brought Bern. 28. 
 where you have a Catalogue of the BlelTings of 
 that Covenant, but the Covenant of Grace con- 
 tains fpiritual BlefTings, Jer. 31. 33, 34. That God 
 will write his Law in their Hearts, that they (Iia/i all 
 know him, that he will forgive their Sins. 
 
 Fourth'^ It defeats not my Defign, though the 
 
 Lord 
 
€vutl) wintfcatefe 6g 
 
 Lord promifed to be their God •, you have here 
 found nothing that is new to me, nor more than 
 I offered you in my laft ^ wherein I fhewed you 
 the vaft difference between the Lords making him- 
 felf over to the fpiritual Seed,by vertue of the Co- 
 venant of Grace, and his making himfelf over to 
 the natural feed, by vertue of this Covenant. 
 
 pirft, In that the Promifes of the Covenant of 
 
 Grace were better Promifes, Fleb. 8. 6. better in 
 
 that they contained fpiritual Blefllngs, Juftifkati- 
 
 on, Sandification, and Glorification - 7 but the 
 
 Promifes of this Covenant contained temporal 
 
 Blefllngs only, and thefe for the moft part hung 
 
 on Conditions too. Now according as the Tenor 
 
 of the Covenant is, by which God makes himfelf 
 
 over unto a People, fuch is the Priviledge of the 
 
 People that have an Intereft in him, by vertue of 
 
 the Covenant of Grace - he was their God toblefs 
 
 them with Grace here, and to crown them with 
 
 Glory hereafter. You fay your Mf, Book, 2. 
 
 Page 3. That God promifed Abraham, Gen. 17.7. 
 
 That he would be a Cod to him, and to his Seed after 
 
 him ^ implying, that he would afford to them thac 
 
 were in Covenant with hicn, all blefllngs that 
 
 could be expected from a gracious God j and what 
 
 can be. expected lefs than Grace here, and Glory 
 
 hereafter ? But I never found that God did afford 
 
 all thefe Bielfings, or any. of them, to the natural 
 
 Seed, confidered as fuch \ but for God to be their 
 
 God, by vertue of that Covenant into which they 
 
 were taken, was but to give them thofe outward 
 
 Bkflings that were put into that Covenant, as the 
 
 Land of Canaan, and a flourifliing Eftate in thac 
 
 Land, and mod of thefe hung on Condition of 
 
 their Obedience too } who could expect more 
 
 from God by vertue of that Covenant, than what 
 
 tlie Lord put into it? Second* 
 
7 o flftttt^ ©tnt)icate& 
 
 Secondly, Intereft in God by vertue of the Co- 
 venant of Grace cannot be loft, PfaL 48. 14. This 
 God is our GW,even our own God,/br ever and ever, 
 he will be our guide to Death, Jer. 32.40. but inte- 
 reft in God by vertue of this Covenant might be 
 loft, Hof. 1. Call his name Loammi, for ye are not 
 my People, neither will I be your God. Ten Tribes 
 cut off at once. ,So though God be an eternal 
 God, yet was their Relation to him by vertue of 
 this Covenant but Temporal, and in this refpect 
 it may well be faid, that this Covenant contained 
 Temporal Blefiings only. I cannot yet fee, that 
 my Interpretation is confuted, or my defign de- 
 feated. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that though there be no- 
 thing in Gen. 17. to demonftrate that the Cove- 
 nant of Grace was made with Abraham and his 
 fpiritual Seed, yet I think I have an unanfwera- 
 ble one, Gal. 3. 29 . If ye be Chrifls, then are ye At- 
 brahams Seed, and Heirs according to the Promife, 
 Your Anfwertothisis, that the Apoftle doth not 
 here mention all that are in Covenant with God, 
 in regard of external Priviledges, but only de- 
 fcribes the fpiritual Seed of Abraham in regard of 
 faving Grace. 
 
 Reply. Firft, How (hall I know, that the Apo- 
 ftle would have us thus to diftinguifh : He only 
 tells v%,That thofe that are Chrifls are Abrahams feed, 
 and Heirs according to Promife. . I would now Que- 
 ry \ Firfi, Whether fome of the Subjects of the 
 new Covenant have a right to faving Grace, and 
 not aU ? God promifed it to all, Jer. 31. 33. with- 
 out excepting any \ I will write my Law in their 
 Hearts, and they flnill alllinow me, from theleafl to the 
 crcatcft. You fay your felf, page 14. that God 
 wii! no: fail to do .us good, and to afford us Grace 
 
 fuffi- 
 
mixta HAixfoicato}. ? t 
 
 fufficient to enable us to keep his Covenant * and I 
 fuppofe, by this you mean all the fubjects of this 
 Covenant, or elfe you do nothing, and is not this 
 faving Grace ? I know no difference between 
 Grace to enable us to perfevere, and faving 
 Grace. Secondly , I would Query, Whether the 
 Covenant of Grace be made with any but Abra* 
 ham and his Seed, Gal. 3, 16. Now to Abraham 
 and his Seed were the Promifes made ; he faith not, of 
 Seeds, as of many, but unto thy Seed, as of one, which 
 is Chrtft. Give me but one Scripture that extends 
 the Promifes beyond the Seed of Abraham. Third- 
 ly, Whether Abraham had any other Seed among 
 the Gentiles to whom this was fpoken, but the fpi- 
 ritual Seed ? Abraham had but two Seeds, a natu- 
 ral and a fpiritual ; the Gentiles are not his natu- 
 ral Seed, they muft be his fpiritual, or not at 
 
 all. 
 
 Fourthly, Whether there be any more of the 
 
 Gentiles that are his fpiritual Seed than thofe that 
 
 areChrift's? And fifthly, Whether thofe that 
 
 are Chi ift's can be known by us to be the Seed of 
 
 Abraham, till they walk in the fleps of AWahamh 
 
 Faith ? The fubftanae of thefe things I offered 
 
 you twice before, but as yet have not obtained 
 
 one Anfwer. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that none but true Believers 
 and found Members of Chrift are the Spiritual 
 Seed of Abraham, and none but fuch fliall receive 
 remiffion of Sins and Eternal Life. 
 
 Reply. Fir(t, If none but true Believers are the 
 fpiritual feed of Abraham, then none but true Be- 
 lievers are the fubjects pf the Covenant of Grace : 
 To Abraham, and to his Seed, were the promifes made, 
 he faith not of feeds, &c. Why then do yon labour 
 to bring in fuch to be the fubjeclsof this Cove- 
 nant 
 
72 %xvify 3»mt>icateD> 
 
 nant that are not the fpiritual feed ? The Gen* 
 tiles are not his natural feed, nor can they be made 
 partakers of the promife, but in Chrift, Ephef. 3.6. 
 
 Secondly , I deny that none but true Believers are 
 the feed of Abraham, the Text faithj/fre be Chrifts, 
 then are ye Abraham's feed: Now if I prove them 
 to be Chrift's, antecedent unto Faith, I prove 
 them to be Abrahams feed, antecedent unto Faith ; 
 for the proof of this take two Scriptures, John 17 . 
 23. That he may give eternal life to as many as thou 
 baft given unto me, and this is life eternal to know thee 
 to be the only true God, and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft 
 fent : This is faith,- as its confidered the act of the 
 underftanding, but thefe were given unto Chrift, 
 before Eternal Life was given unto them by 
 Chrift \ and if they were given to him, they were 
 Chrifts, PfaL no. Thy people [hall be. willing in the day 
 of thy Power : Thy People before they were a will- 
 ing people, and if they were his People before they 
 were awilling people, they were his People before 
 they did believe -, and if they were Chrifts before 
 they did believe, then were they Abraham's feed be- 
 fore they did believe } fuch as were given him by 
 Covenant, Rom. 4, A father of many Nations have 1 
 made thee ; fpeaking of thofe things that are not, 
 as if they were. If Abraham was their Father, then 
 were they his Children \ tho' they are not fo in 
 our Eye, yet they are fo in God's Eye. 
 
 You fay, that none but thofe that do believe 
 mall receive remifllon of fin, and inherit eternal 
 life. 
 
 Reply. It's true, if you refpeft grown perfons ; 
 and it is as true, that fuch who in time believe, had 
 their fins pardoned, and a title to eternal life an- 
 tecedent thereunto ^ but I (hall find another place 
 to handle this. 
 
 Sixthly, 
 
€tuty tsuintiicateii. 72 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, tho' none but Believers do 
 inherit Eternal Life, yet there are many Go- 
 fpel-Priviledges which come on thofe that em- 
 brace and profefs the Gofpel ; they have many 
 offers of Grace, and Promifes of Pardon made to 
 them, on condition of Repentance and new Obe- 
 dience, which clearly fhews, that they are fub- 
 jeclsof the Gofpel- Covenant, in relpedt of Exter- 
 nal Priviledges. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I would know what you mean by 
 embracing the Gofpel? whether it be heartily of 
 feignedly ? if it be heartily, then they have not on- 
 ly external Priviledges, but internal alb *, if it be 
 but feignedly, then they have no more priviledge 
 than others have to whom the Gofpel comes, that 
 never do embrace it*, they have the tender of the 
 promife of Pardon and Salvation as well as thefe; 
 the Jews^ that contradicted and blafphemed, AcJs 
 13. had the offer as well as others*, thofe that did 
 not receive the Word, Alls i. had the offer as 
 well as thofe that did, the Pagans or Heathens had 
 the offer,wherever the Apoftles preached to them. 
 
 Secondly, The Offer is free *, Go preach the Go- 
 fpel to every Creature \ Mark 16. 15. Chriil freely 
 offers bimfelf in the Word ; The Spirit and the 
 Bride fay come , and let him that is athirfi come, and 
 whofoever will, let him come and drinkof the water of 
 life freely : Sinners, as Sinners, are invited *, Such as 
 have no money, are bid to come without momy 
 and without price, Ifa. 55. 2. Look unto me, and 
 be ye faved, all the ends of the Earth. The rea- 
 fon why Men go without it, is, becaufe they will 
 not accept of that which is freely offered *, there 
 is no prequaiiHcation required in any to the accept- 
 ing of Jefus Chrifl:. 
 
 thirdly, The Offer of Grace does not at all 
 
 argue 
 
74 ^wtft witttricattii; 
 
 argue perfons to be the Subjects of the Covenant, 
 far then thofe Jews that had the ofFer,and rejected 
 it, Pagans and Heathens alfo, to whom this Go- 
 fpel was preached, were the Subjects of the Cove- 
 nant, and this is contrary to your own principle. 
 You fay your felf, that the Jews were Aliens as 
 well as others, and were not fubje&s of the Co- 
 venant, till they were converted, and yet they had 
 the offer before. 
 
 Seventhly, You fay, if many of thofe that are 
 externally in Covenant, do not obtain the fpeciai 
 benefits and promifes of the Covenant, the reafon 
 is, becaufe they do not perform the conditions 
 thereof. The Promife is firm- on Gods part, he 
 will not fail to perform what he hath promifed to 
 all true Believers, but it is too poffible for mar to 
 fail of his duty, and fo to come fliorc of the Benefit 
 promifed. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft, I defire to know, whether there 
 be no benefit promifed to any but true Believes ? 
 whether Faith it felf be not a New-Covenant Blef- 
 fing or Benefit? or whether it be to be found in 
 Nacures Garden ? this I defired in my la ft, but 
 could not obtain an anfwer,at lead not in words at 
 length. However, there is this granted me, page 
 3*. that the firft degree of Grace, by which our 
 Underftanding is enlightned, and our Wills re- 
 newed,is abfolutely prormfed,aod if fo,then is faith 
 promifed ; for the Eflence of Faith lieth in the Act 
 of the underftanding,and of the wil), and when the 
 Lord hath performed this promife, then is a Soul 
 a true Believer ; and if the Lord will not fail to 
 perform what he hsth promifed to all true Be- 
 lievers, then he will not fail to fave them, for that 
 is his promife to all true Believers, Marl^\6. 16, 
 John 3. id. He that hlievuh % frail be faved* Nor is 
 
 is 
 
it pofiible for any of the fubjedts of this Covenant, 
 to whom God will give the firft degree of Grace, 
 by which the Underftanding is enlightned, and 
 the Heart and Will reformed, (which you fay 
 are abfolutely promifed ) fo to fail of their duty, 
 as to come fkort of the benefit promifed, feeing 
 its as abfolutely promifed, that when God hath gi- 
 ven them a new hearty that he will put his Spirit within 
 the'm^and can fe them to walkjn his Statutes^ and obferve 
 his Judgments* 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 YOU fay, the main thing contended about, is, 
 Whether the Covenant, Dm.29. be the Co- 
 venant of Grace or no : You fay, the very Tenour 
 of the Covenant of Grace is, I will he to them a God y 
 and they Jhallbeto me a people , Hel). &. 10. and the 
 Tenor of the Covenant, Dent. 29. is the fame, 
 That 1 may eftablifh thee a people unto my felf y and 
 that I may be toyon a God : And fare the Tenor of 
 the Covenant is the belt Evidence to know the 
 nature of the Covenant by. 
 
 Reply. Firft, 1 deny that the Tenor of the Co- 
 venant, Dent. 29. is the fame with that Heh 8* 
 there is a manifeft difference \ the Tenor of the 
 Covenant of Grace, Heb.8. is, I will write my Law 
 in their heart s y and in their minds y and will be their 
 Gody and they fliall all know me from the Itafttathe 
 greate(l y for I will forgive their Iniquities , and re- 
 member their fins no more y bvit the Tenor of the Co- 
 venant in Deutr. is only this, That the Lord may 
 eftablifl) thee to be a people unto himfelf y and that he 
 jnaybetothee a God : Here is not a Word of wri- 
 ting his law in their hearts ^ not a word, That they 
 frail all kyow him, from the kafl to the great eft ; nor 
 
7<S Ciruty ©tttDicatcD. 
 
 yet, That he will be merciful to their unrighteonfnefs^ 
 and remember their fins no more. 
 
 Secondly, The Bleflings of the Covenant of 
 Grace were never prDmifed to the Natural Seed, 
 as fuch, nor did they ever enjoy them ; yet when 
 God makes himfelf over to a people by covenant, 
 it is to give out to them, and beftow on them the 
 bleflings of that covenant. When the Lord made 
 himfelf over to the natural feed by covenant* in 
 was to beftow on them the bleflings of that cove- 
 nant, according to the Tenor thereof, a Catalogue 
 of which bleflings you have, Vent. 28. but not 
 one fpiritual blefling among them - 7 it was accord- 
 ing to thofe words Dent. 28. that God made a 
 Covenant with them Dent. 29. as appears verfe 1 . 
 the note that I gave you, veifez^. by which its 
 diftinguifhed from the Covenant of Grace, you 
 have deferred the Anfwer too till fooie other 
 place, only you fay, if it be fuch an effentiai 
 mark of difference, it is to be applied to the cere- 
 monial Law that gave to Jfrael when they came 
 out of Egypt.' 
 
 Reply. The Ceremonial Law was but annext 
 to this covenant, it was diflinft from the efTence 
 thereof, Heb. 9. 1. Then verily the frft Cove- 
 nant had alfo Ordinances of Divine Worftip, &C. 
 The Ordinances contained in the Ceremonial Law 
 were but the adjuncts of the firft covenant : Now 
 thaf mark, Dent. 29.25. refers to the covenant it 
 felf, and not to the adjuncts thereof. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that the very words of the 
 covenant, Dent. 29. i§. are declared by the Pro- 
 phet, Jeremiah 7. 22, 23. to diftinguilh the Cove- 
 nant of Grace from the Ceremonial Law : / [pake 
 not unto your Fathers, nor commanded I them, in the 
 day that I took^ them by the hand 9 to bring them out of 
 
€tuti) tBirtbimzt if 
 
 concerning burnt-offerings, but this thing commanded 
 I them, faying, obey my 'voice, and I will be your God, 
 andyoujhall be my people. To this you fay I replyed, 
 that there is not one word of the Covenant of 
 Grace in this place. 
 
 Reply A dd yet ftand to it,nor is there one mark by 
 which the Covenant of Grace may be known 5 and 
 in that it was fpoken to them, or a covenant made 
 with them, in the day that God took them by the 
 hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt, ic 
 plainly appears, that it was not the covenant of 
 Grace,for that covenant that he made with them \a 
 the day he brought them up out of Egypt, is diftin- 
 guifhed from the covenant of Grace Jer. 31,32. 
 Barely for God to be the God of a People, tho* 
 by covenant, is not fufficient to dembnftrate it to 
 be the covenant of Grace. God was a Husband un- 
 to Ifrael, by vertue of tiie Covenant he rnade with 
 them, and if their Husband, then he war. their 
 God, yet was that Covenant diftinct from the 
 Covenant of Grace, verfe 31,33. compared . A 
 
 Secondly, He was their God on condition of Obe- 
 dience, and that was fufficient to difcriminate it 
 from the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, there is the fubftance of that 
 Covenant Jer. 31.33. tobe found in this, therefore 
 there is ground to conclude that this is the Cove- 
 nant of Grace: This is the covenant that J will make 
 with the houfe ofjfrael^aftey thofe days, faith the Lord, I 
 will write my Law in their hearts, and put it in their in- 
 xtardparts,I will be their God,andtheyj%all be my people* 
 
 Reply. Firfi, That covenant Jer. 31. 33. isabfo- 
 lute, / will be their God ; that in Jer. 7. is conditi- 
 onal, Obey my voice, and 1 will be your God, and yoa 
 fiiall be my People* 
 
 Secondly, There is a promife, Jer.^i. That God 
 
 f will 
 
70 WlllU) WlWJtWlKV* 
 
 will write his law in their hearts, that they fhall all 
 know him, that he will forgive their Iniquities , and re- 
 -member their (in no more ; but there is no fuch pro- 
 mise Jer. 7. therefore the fubftance of the one is 
 not in the other. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that when God is faid to 
 do ail in the work of our San&ification , there our 
 endeavours are always fuppofed. 
 
 Reply. Firft, The principle of Grace mull be 
 wrought in us without our own endeavours, 
 granted by your feif, fag. 31. That by which the 
 understanding is enlightned, and the will renewed, 
 thefe Bleflings ( you fay ) are freely bellowed 
 upon us, not for any work of righteoufnefs that 
 we have done. 
 
 Thirdly, Whatever endeavours are put forth 
 by us, they are the fruits of his Grace, Phil. 2. 13. 
 It's Cod that worketh in yon, both to will and to do of 
 his own good plea fur e, Ezek. 36. 27. 
 
 Fourthly, Where there are the greatefl endea- 
 vours put forth by us, future Bleflings do not de- 
 pend on them as means procuring, Rom. 9. fothen 
 it is not of him thatwiileth, nor of him that run- 
 neth, but of God that fheweth mercy. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that where the Scripture feems 
 to lay the whole work of Sanctification on us, and 
 requires us to puriSe the heart, as it doth James 
 1.5. 2xe£. 15.31. I fa. 1. 17,18. there the 
 Alliftsnce and Operation of God's Grace is flill 
 fuppofed. 
 
 Reply. Firft, It's one thing to have the affiftance 
 of God's Grace fuppofed, and it's another thing to 
 have it promifed : I deny, that God hath promi- 
 fed Grace to enable all to cleanfe and purifie the 
 heart •, that he requireth fo to do, produce a pro- 
 miie it you can. 
 
 Secondly, 
 
Secondly, Nothing fhortof true Faith will ena- 
 ble us to cleanfe and purifie the hearty and that's 
 not afforded unto all ^ all men have not Faith, 
 no, nor all men where the Gpfpel cometh, John 
 12.37. 
 
 Thirdly-, We can'c purifie our hearts till God 
 giveth a new heart, and when that is done, he will 
 put his fpirit within us, and caufe us to walk in his 
 ftatutes. 
 
 fourthly, You fay, we cannot will nor do, 
 without the Grace of God concuring with us. 
 
 Reply. This is fomewhatobfcure^doyou mean the 
 grace of God without us, or the principles of grace 
 within us. If you meanthe grace of God without 
 us, as I fuppofe you do, then I would query, whotri 
 you intend by the fubje&s ? whether the regenerate 
 or- the unregenerate? If you intend the regene- 
 rate, it's found, for we are not fufficient of our 
 felves to think any thing as of our felves, but then 
 it is not pertinent, for God requires ilnnersas well 
 as Saints to purifie their hearts 7 if you mean the 
 unregenerate, fuch whofe hearts and wills are not 
 reformed, they can do nothing of what God re- 
 quires, granted by your felf fag. 32. The carnal 
 mind is enmity againfl God, and is not fhbjeft unto 
 the Law of God± neither indeed can be 7 Rom. 8. 
 
 7- 
 
 Fifthly i You fay, God will not put his fear 
 
 in our hearts, makeus holy^and preferve us in the 
 way of Salvation without our own confent and en- 
 deavour. 
 
 Reply. Firfty God doth never ask our confent 
 when he beftpws on us the principles of Grace, 
 they are freely given, granted by your felf page 
 31 . the promifes that God will put his fear into our 
 hearts, Jer. 32. 40. that he will write his Law 
 * F 2 there* 
 
go <®tufy minntcate^ 
 
 there, Jer. 31.33. are both abfolute -, the promife. 
 of the Spine alfo is abfolute, Ez.ek. 36. 27. and 
 whatever endeavours are put forth by us, are the 
 fruits of his Grace, Phil. 2. 13. 
 
 Secondly, The fear of God once planted in the 
 heart, will fo operate in the Soul by the Influ- 
 ence of the Spirit, that the Soul (hall not depart 
 from God ; it's a great means of perfeverence : 
 Where the fear of God is, the Soul dares not 
 to allow it felf in do, it cries out, how fhall I 
 do this wicked nefs and fin againft God ? and it's 
 a means to put us forward in duty, we are bid 
 To ferfett holinefs in the fear of the Lord, 2 Cor, 
 
 7- i- 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, We muft vcork out onr Sal- 
 vation with fear and trembling, for it is God that 
 rvorketh in us, both to will and to do of his own good 
 fleafure. 
 
 Reply. I grant it \ to deny this is to deny the 
 Word , yet our Salvation doth not depend on what 
 we do, as a means procuring, but only follows it 
 as a means preparing. 
 
 Seventhly, You fay, when God affbrdeth us 
 fufficient grace to obey the Gofpel, it's pofllble 
 for us, through our own perverfe wills, to abufc 
 his Grace, and to depart from him. 
 
 Reply. Firft 7 Nothing fhort of a New Heart, ia 
 which are all the principles of Grace, is fufficient 
 to make us capable of Gofpel-obedience. 
 
 Secondly, When that is bellowed on us, yet is 
 not that fufficient to enable us to yield obedience 
 to the Gofpel without Divine Affiftance, 2 Cor. 
 
 3. 5- 
 Thirdly, When God hath given us fufficient 
 
 grace to obey the Gofpel, he will not fail to affiffc 
 
 us by his Spirit, fo as that the principle fhall be 
 
 exerted 
 
crittl? winttcam. tt 
 
 exerted in adtual Obedience, Ewk. 30". 27. 
 
 Fourthly, It feems harfh to me to hear you call 
 a renewed and fan&ified will a perverfe will, tho* 
 Igrant that there is perverfhefs remaining in it, 
 yet that does not denominate it a perverfe will, no 
 more than the remainders of Hy pocrifie in a fanft i- 
 fied foul do denominate him an Hypocrite. 
 
 Fifthly, It feems more harfh to hear you fay, 
 that a Soul may abufe the Grace of God, and de- 
 part from him, when God hath faid, He will put 
 his fear in their hearts, that they foali not depart 
 from him. 
 
 Eighthly, You fay, that ifweforfake him, he 
 will forfake us, 2 Chron. 15. 2. 
 
 Reply. Firft, It's granted, that interefl in God 
 by vertne of that covenant that took in the na- 
 tural r^Qd, coniidered asfuch, might be loft} if they 
 departed from God, he was under no obligation to 
 continue with them. 
 
 Secondly, Igrant, that where a perfon doth to- 
 tally and finally forfake God, God will forfake 
 him ; but this proves not that a Gracious Soul 
 may fo forfake God ; and till you do that, you do 
 nothing. Every Hypothefis in Scripture does noc 
 fuppofe a poffibility; If I go up to Heavtn y thou 
 art there ; bat this fuppofeth not a poflibility of 
 his going up to Heaven. 
 
 Ninthly, You fay, the Severity and Goodnefs 
 of God are both on conditions, feverity on theni 
 that fell and rejected the Gofpel, but to- 
 wards Believers goodnefs, if they continue in his 
 goodnefs, otherwife they alfo (hall be cut off, Rom. 
 iu 22. 
 
 Reply. This Quotation is impertinent, either 
 thofe that are herefaid to be Believers were really 
 fuch, or they were not ; if they were, they could 
 
 F 3 no: 
 
82 mufy saitt&wateti* 
 
 not fall away, if they were not ^ their falling away 
 proves not that a gracious foul may fo fall ^ a per- 
 fon may fail from his profeffion totally and finally, 
 but that a gracious foul may fo fall, is denied. 
 
 SECT. V. ¥ 
 
 YOU fay, you come again to examine the dif- 
 ferences that I make between the Covenant 
 of Grace, and that into which the Jews entred 
 with their feed, and to vindicate your Anfwers 
 to them againfl my Exceptions. The firffc Diffe- 
 rence you fay I made was this, that the Covenant 
 into which the Jews entered with their feed was a 
 covenant that might be broken, that it contained 
 curfes as well as bleffings, Dent. 29. 20, 21 . that 
 the Covenant of Grace carmotbe broken, and that 
 it contains only bleffings, and threatens no curfe. 
 Here you fay I blame you for adding to what 
 I faid, that the Covenant of Grace threatned no 
 curfe is put in by your felf. 
 
 Reply. I did not only blame you for adding, 
 butalfofor diminifhing \ I told you, that the cur- 
 fes of the firft covenant might fall on the fubjecls 
 thereof, without a fan&ified ufe of them,as they did 
 on the evil figs, Jer. 24. this you left out then, 
 and now too. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that it feems my Opinion 
 is now altered, and that 1 do now own that it 
 threatens a curfe. 
 
 Re fly. If it feems foto you,yet it does not to me, 
 for my Opinion is ftill the fame ; 1 gave you no 
 grant of any fuch thing, I only blamed you for 
 adding to my words : Sure I am, there is no curfe 
 fchreatned in that which you fa*y f*ge$o. contains 
 the fubftance of the Covenant of Grace, there are 
 
 only 
 
only Bleffings } I will take theftony heart out of you • 
 flefh, I will be merciful to their unrighteoufnefs, their 
 fins and iniquities will I remember no more. This yem 
 Fay is the fubftanceof the Covenant of Grace 5 nor 
 do I find that there is any curfe threatned, Gen. 
 17.7. nortf£».22. 18. nor any where elfe, where 
 the Covenant of Grace is more largely hand- 
 led.' 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that to prove that the Co- 
 venant of Grace can't be broken, I alledge Jer. 
 32.40. to this you fay the promife is not abfo- 
 lute. 
 
 Reply. That promife that requires no conditi- 
 on to be performed, antecedent to the enjoyment 
 of the bleffings thereof, isabfolute; but this pro- 
 mife requires no condition to be performed antece- 
 dent to the enjoyment of the bleffings thereof, 
 therefore it is ahfolute. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, the promife here hath re- 
 fpe&to his peoples coworking with his Grace. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, This is very obfeure in words ; I 
 know not what it is in us thatcoworks with the 
 Grace of God - 7 there are buttwofprings of motion 
 in a gracious foul, a carnal and a fpiritual, a na- 
 tural and a fupernatural, thefe will never co-ope- 
 rate one with another, they being contrary one to 
 the other. 
 
 Secondly, If you mean by co- working, the put- 
 ing forth the ads of Grace, this is the fruit of inte- 
 rest in the promife, not the condition of perfeve- 
 rance. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that it cannot import that 
 God will fanctifie his people, and caufe them to 
 perfevere, without any of their own endeavours. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, The promife of Grace is abfolute, 
 granted by your feif both here and elfe w here ^ 
 
 F 4 and 
 
«4 €wty twinDicatea, 
 
 and if of grace, then of fan&ification, for it's the 
 fame thing. .You fay, that God will not fail to 
 afford us grace, fufficient to enable us to perfeverc 
 in well-doing, and if fo, be will put,his fear in our 
 hearts without any of our own endeavours. 
 
 Secondly, God will not leave. us unto our felves, 
 when he hath put his fear in our hearts j he hath 
 promifed that he will never turn away from us 
 to do us good, he will afford us the influences of 
 his fpirir, by which this fear (hall be exerted, Pfal. 
 103. 1 7. The mercy of the Lord is on them that fear 
 him, from everlafting to everlafting : He hath mer- 
 cifully chofen them, and redeemed them, and 
 fandfcified them, and he will mercifully guide 
 them by his Counfel here, and mercifully fave 
 them hereafter ; but how the mercy of the Lord 
 may be faid to be from everlafting to everlafting 
 on them that fear him, when yet fuch as fear 
 she Lord may fall away, and be damned, I do not 
 know ; nor how everlafting mercy can leave the 
 foul ( that did once truly fear the Lord ) under 
 everlafting mifery. 
 
 Thirdly, That God that begins a good worl^ in the 
 fcui\ ( as he doth when he puts his fear into the 
 heart ) will not ceafe to perfetl the fame to the coming 
 ofChrift, Phil. 1. JefusChrijl hath promifed, that 
 the water that he Jliall give, Jhall be in the foul a 
 veil of water, fpringing up to everlafting life, John 
 4. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, God will not fail to do us 
 good, nor to afford us grace, fufficiently to enable 
 us to continue in well-doing, if we are not back- 
 ward to make good life of his grace. 
 
 Reply. There is no fuch condition in the Text, 
 neither exprefled nor implied, andwemuftheve 
 a care qf fpeaking what the Word fpeaks not ; The 
 
 . promise 
 
Cttrtfc witUK'catefc. 8 s 
 
 promife is abfolute, That he will put his fear in 
 their hearts, and that they (hall not depart jrom 
 bim. 
 
 You alledge here a faying of Juftin, u That 
 " God that made us without our felves, will not 
 Li fave us withqut our felves. 
 
 Reply. This but a Humane Teftimony,whicb fig- 
 nifies little with me -, and if he means by this, that 
 any thing done by us muft be coniidered as_a Con- 
 ditioner .as a Caufe, together with the Free-grace 
 of God, and the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, ( though 
 in a fubordinate way) I deny it. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, we are Agents, by the help of 
 Grace, in the work of our Salvation. 
 
 Reply. At by .Agents you intend Doers of that 
 which does entitle us to Salvation, I deny it, and 
 your bare fay fo will never prove it. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, it's very poflible for us to 
 fail of doing our dnty, and therefore not impof- 
 iible to break the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 Reply. Firft, It's not poflible for the fubjefts 
 of this Covenant totally to fail of doing their duty \ 
 God hath promifed to make them capable of their 
 duty, granted by your felf, and that the promife 
 is abfolute. 
 
 Secondly, God hath promifed to put his fpirit 
 within them, that (hall caufe them to walk in 
 his ftatutes, and obferve his Judgments, and do 
 them, and that his Spirit Jhall be in them, and 
 abide with them for ever, 706014. 1 6,. 17. If the 
 Spirit of God fhall aflift,and that always according, 
 to the promife, then it is not poflible for the Sub- 
 jects of this Covenant fo to fail of their duty 
 as to break the Covenant of Grace, but it (hall fo, 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, I tell ypu, that I will endea- 
 vour 
 
te cwtij ©ttt&icatea* 
 
 vour to put the matter beyond difpute, and that 
 firft I labour to prove, that the Covenant can't be 
 broken on God's part, this you fay no body de- 
 nies, therefore I might have fpared my labour. 
 Reply. Firft) Then I have gained the firft point, 
 . that God will not break the covenant of Grace ; 
 and if fo, then that Covenant which was made 
 with all the people, was not the Covenant of 
 Grace, for God himfelf broke that Covenant, 
 Zach. n. i o. Then I took my ftajf, even Beauty, 
 and cut it afunder, that I might breaks my Covenant 
 that I had made with all the People , and it was bro* 
 ken in that day. 
 
 Secondly, Having gained the firft point, that 
 God will not break the Covenant of Grace, it's 
 a good ftep towards the fecond point, that the 
 Subjects thereof fhall net break it; for God hath 
 covenanted not only for himfelf, but for them too. 
 Firft, That he will never turn away from them to 
 do them good. Secondly, That he will put his 
 fear into their Hearts, that they fhall not depart 
 from him : This Promife or Covenant is abfolute, 
 notwithftanding what you have offered againft it. 
 God hath covenanted to write his law in their 
 hearts, that they fhall all know him from the leaft 
 to the greateft,that he will forgive their iniquities, 
 and remember their fins no more : Now if God 
 will make good the Covenant on his part, all this 
 fnali be done for the fubjedts thereof; and this be- 
 ing once performed, it's impcffible for the fubjedts 
 thereof to break it: Can pardoned fins break the 
 Covenant? and have they any fins that are not 
 pardoned ? 
 
 Secondly, You fay, I endeavour to prove it can- 
 not be k broken by the fnbjedts thereof, and that by 
 three Arguments. My firft Argument you fay is 
 
 this, 
 
this, that all the fins of the fubjects of this Cove- 
 nant are pardoned upon Chrift's fatisfadion, CoL 
 2. 13,14. that Chrift gave himfelf for us, not 
 to redeem us from fome particular (ins, but from 
 all fins, Tit. 2. 1 4. that by one oblation he hath for 
 ever perfected them that are fanctified, Heb. 10. 
 14. All fins pair, prefent, and to come, are re- 
 mitted upon Chrift's fatisfaclion 9 and if the fins 
 of thofe that have an intereft in this Covenant 
 be all pardoned, how then can they break it? to 
 this you Anfwer, That the fatisfaclion that Chrift 
 hath made to Divine Juftice by the Sacrifice of 
 himfelf, is the only meritorious caufe of the Re- 
 miflion of Sin, and Eternal Salvation j but Chrift 
 fatisfied to this end, that God might with fafety 
 to his Juftice, pardon and juftifie us upon our 
 Faith and Repentance *, for God hath fet forth Chrift 
 to be a propitiation through faith in hie bloody to declare 
 his right eoufmfs for the remijfion of fin that was paft ^ 
 to declare , / fay , at this time his right eon fnefs^ that 
 God might be juft, and the juftifier of him that believeth 
 in Jefa, Rom. 3-2$. 
 
 Reply* Firfti Here is a Grant given that the ju- 
 ftice of God is fatisfied by that one Oblation ot 
 Chrift i and if Juftice be fatisfied, the Debtor is 
 discharged, Juftice it felf pleads his Difcharge : It 
 ftays not for Faith and Repentance ; Ton who we r e 
 dead in your fins hath he quickened together with Chrift 
 having for given you all fins. It's inconfiftent with the 
 righteoufnefs of God, to hold a perfon under obli- 
 gation unto Wrath, for whom the debt is paid by 
 a furety. It's true, it was at the pleafure of God 
 whether he would accept of fatisfa&ion by a furety 
 or no } he might have required the uttermoft far- 
 thing of the finner } but having in Grace and Mer- 
 cy declared, that he would receive the debt at the 
 
 hand 
 
hand of a furety, and not only declared it, but 
 bound hirafelf by his Oath fo to do, Heb.j. 22. 
 Chrift was made a furety by the Oath of God ; the 
 Lord did not only fwear him a High-Prieft,as in the 
 2 ifi.verfe, but he did alfo by the fame Oath fwear 
 him a furety, verfe 22. Now the Debt being fully 
 paid, » he could not in Juftice hold the finner in 
 Obligation any longer. 
 
 Firfi, Not in Juftice unto Chrift, with whom he 
 had covenanted to give up the Bond upon the 
 payment of the Debt, and to difcharge from the 
 curie thofe for whom Jefus Chrift Ihould bear the 
 curfe, therefore when the Covenant was con- 
 firmed by the blood of Jefus Chrift, he fet the 
 Prifonersat liberty, Zach.9. ir. As for thee, by 
 the blood of thy Covenant I have fent forth thy pri- 
 foners out of the pit, wherein there was no Wa- 
 ter. 
 
 Secondly, Not in juftice unto thofe for whom 
 the Debt was paid by Chrift, Juftice it felf pleads 
 their difcharge, gives up the bond immediately 5 
 at the time when, and in the place where the debt 
 was paid, the Bond was given up and canceled; 
 Col. 2. 14. Blotting ont the Hand- writing of Ordi- 
 nances that was agalnft us, that was contrary torn , 
 taking it out of the way, and nailing it unto the 
 crofs. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that God hath fet forth 
 Chrift to be a propitiation through faith in his 
 Blood. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, I would enquire, whether Chrift 
 be a propition for none but fuch as have faith in 
 in his blood? You fay your felf, that Chrift is 
 the propitiation for the fins of the whole world, 
 and by the world you intend every individual 
 perfon, and fare I am that all men have not faith. 
 
 Secondly, 
 
€vutfy ajtnt>icaten. 89 
 
 Secondly*) Faith contributes nothing to his being 
 a propitiation, it only applies him who is in him- 
 felf our propitiation : If I rightly underftand the 
 word, it fignifies a peace-making Sacrifice, and 
 that he was in hirnfelf, antecedent to the Appli- 
 cation that faith makes of him, Eph. 2. 14. he is 
 our peace, Col. 1. 20. Having made pace by the blood 
 ofhisCrofs, Peace and Reconciliation were made by 
 the Death of Chrift, God was not made reconcile- 
 able only, (as fome would have it,) but reconciled m 9 
 All things are of God, who hath reconciled tts to hirnfelf, 
 by JefusChrift, that is, by the death of Chrift, Rom. 
 5. 10. If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to 
 Cod by the death of his Son,much more being reconciled, 
 wefhallbe faved by his life. God hath fet torth Chrift 
 in his Word to be him that hath made peace, he 
 hath commiffioned his Minifters to go and pro- 
 claim this peace, 2. Cor. 5 . He hath committed unto 
 them this word of reconciliation-, having made peace, 
 he came and preached peace ; he came by his Mi- 
 nifters, and it is their work where they come to 
 publifh this peace, I fa. 52. 7. They are not to put 
 perfons upon making their peace with God, but 
 to accept of that peace that Chrift has made. 
 Now God having fet forth Chrift as a propitiation, 
 he hath thereby declared how juft and righteous 
 a God he is, in the remiiTion of fins, even the 
 fins, th3t were pair, for which God received 
 not fatis faction till Chrift was offered rp. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that as foon as we believe, 
 and.refolve to lead a new life, he pardoneth our 
 [ins and receiveth us into favour. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft, Either we were reconciled to God 
 by the death of his Son, or we were not : If we 
 were, then our fins were pardoned at his death; 
 Cod was in Chrift, reconciling the world unto him felf, 
 
 not 
 
9 o mutf) winticattb 
 
 not imputing unto them their trefpaffes, 2 Cor. 5. If 
 we were not reconciled by the death or his 
 Son, then we (hall never be reconciled j for if 
 Chrift hath not reconciled us by the blood of 
 his Crofs, then hath he no other way of Recon- 
 ciliation ; Reconciliation is by his death, by his 
 bloody he will die no more, he will bleed no more \ 
 now, to be reconciled to God, and not be received 
 into favour, are terms inconfiftent. 
 
 Secondly , Faith it feif is either a fruit of the fa- 
 vour of God, or it is net ; if it be, then are we in 
 the favour of God antecedent thereunto -, if it be' 
 cot, then (hew me from whence it flows ; it grows 
 not in Natures Garden, we did not bring it with 
 us into the World ; Faith is the gift of God; is it 
 then a gift of his Grace and Favour, or a gift of his 
 Wrath ? 
 
 Thirdly, I would enquire, who they are that 
 fhall live by Faith? whether they be the juft or 
 the unjuft? if they be the juft, then were they 
 fuch antecedent thereunto. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that remiffion of fin is not 
 granted immediately upon Chrift's fatisfadtion ; 
 we mull believe in Chrift before we fhall receive 
 remiflion of fins ; For Chrift is exalted on the right 
 hand of God, and is become a Prince and a Saviour, to 
 give repentance unto Ifrael, and remijfion of fins, Acts 
 
 5-3i. 
 
 Reply. That rcmiflion of fin was granted out im- 
 mediately upon fatisfa&ion made by Chrift, ap- 
 pears, Firft, by the Tefrimony of the Holy Ghoft, 
 Hd\ 1 o. 1 4, 1 5 . By one oblation be hath for ever per* 
 jttted them that are 'fanElified, whereof the HolyGhoft 
 alfo is a xvitnefs, for after that he had faid before, 
 This is the Covenant that I will maize with them, I will 
 write my Law in their hearts, and their fins and iniqui- 
 ties 
 
Csut$ winbi catea. .91 
 
 ties will I remember no more. The perfection fpo- 
 kenof in the 14^. verfe, confifts in the pardon of 
 fin, granted by your felf fage 17. and the word 
 forever, (hews, it's all fin, pad, prefent, and to 
 come ; and this perfection or remiflion was by that 
 one offering, and that there was remiflion by it 
 the Holy Ghoft is a witnefs, which plainly (hews 
 that from the time that Chrift was offered up, at 
 which time the New- Covenant was confirmed, 
 God hath remitted the (ins of the Subjects there- 
 of, and fo remitted them, that he will remember 
 them no more; now where 'remiflion of thefe is, 
 ( faith the Apoftle ) there is no more facrifice for 
 fin. The reafon why the facrifices under the Law 
 were fo often repeated, was, becaufe they did not 
 do away fin ; their (landing daily miniffcring, and 
 offering oft-times the fame thing,was a demonflra- 
 tion thereof: On the other hand, Chrift's fitting 
 down on the right hand of God, after he had 
 offered one facrifice for fin, was a fufficient de- 
 monftration that fin was done away by that one fa- 
 crifice. 
 
 Secondly, It appears, that fin was remitted im- 
 mediately by the fatisfadtion made by ChriiT, in 
 that tbofe for whom Chrift was wounded were 
 then healed, 1 Vet. 2.24. By whofe ftripes ye were 
 healed: He fpeaks in the preterperfeft tenfe, our 
 (ins were laid upon Chrift, he bare thera in his own 
 body upon the tree, there they were, what is be- 
 come of them ? is he difcharged from them, or is 
 he not? if nebs not, he muft bear them for ever $ if 
 he be, are they returned upon us, or are they not? 
 if they are, then we are not healed by bis ftripes, 
 and that is crofs to the Text;' if they are not, 
 then was fin remitted immediately upon Chrift's 
 oblation. 
 
 Thirdly 7 
 
92 €mi) minUtam 
 
 Thirdly, It appears, in that Redemption was 
 ' by the blood of Chrift, Eph. i. 7. Now redemp- 
 tion and remiflion of fin is the fame thing ; In whom 
 we have redemption through his blood, even the forgive' 
 nefs of fin. Either we had remiflion of fin by the 
 blood of Chrifl:, or we had not \ if we had, then 
 v>as (in remitted immediately, upon fatisfa&ion 
 made by Chrift, ( for it was by his blood he made 
 fatisfadtion ) if we had not remiflion of (ins by 
 his blood, then they will never be remitted, for 
 without fhedding of blood there is no remifflon, 
 Heb. 9. 22. 
 
 Fourthly, If we were redeemed from the curfeof 
 the Law when Chrifl was made acurfe for us,then 
 was fin remitted from the time he made fatisfa- 
 £lion ; but we were fo,G^/. 3. 13. He hath redeemed 
 us from the curfe of the Law, being made a cur fe for us : 
 To be redeemed from the curfe of the Law, and 
 not to be difcharged from fin, are terms incon- 
 fiftent : If we are not difcharged from fin,then we 
 are under the curfe of the Latf; and how great 
 an inconfiftency is this, to be redeemed from the 
 Carfe, and yet to be ftill under the Curfe. 
 
 Fifthly, If the Bond was grven up immediately 
 upon fatisfadtion made by Chrift, then fin was im- 
 mediately remitted upon fatisfaftion made by 
 Chrift; but the Bond was given up immediately 
 upon fatisfa&ion made by Chrift,Co/. 2. 13. Now in 
 giving up the Bond by the Creditor, there is a dif- 
 tjiarge given : Who looks forany other difcharge 
 from a debc than for the Bond to be given up 
 and cancell'd by the Creditor, upon the payment 
 of the Debt. 
 
 Sixthly, If there be nothing to be laid to thd 
 tharge or Gods Eleft, from the time of the fa- 
 ustadion made by Chrift, thea are they imrae-* 
 
 diately 
 
€vuity minUcattt 9J 
 
 diately difcharged from the time of'the fatisfactiont 
 made by him, but there is nothing to be laid to the 
 charge of Gods Elect, from the time of the fatisfacli- 
 on Wade by Chrifr, -Rom. 8.33. Who flail lay any thing 
 to the charge of Gods Elett ? It's God that juftifies, who 
 [hall condemn .? IPs Chrift that died, yea, rather that • 
 is rifen again • By his death he procured our Dif-" 
 charge, by his Refurredtion he made itmanifeft, Rom. 
 4. Hft. The not charging with guilt is a Difcharge 
 from guilt -, RemhTion of fin, and the Non- imputati- 
 on of fin, is the fame thing, &w/. 4. 7, 8. You fay, 
 we mult believe in Chrift before we (halUeceive re- 
 miiTion of fin. 
 
 Reply. I grant it, it's one thing for God to remit fin, 
 and another thing for us to receive it ^ remiftion of fin 
 is the Gift of God, now a Gift maybe beftowed upon 
 a perfon long before he receives it; a Legacy may be 
 given upon will, and when the Teftator is dead the 
 will is of force, the gift is his, yet he may not know 
 of it, nor receive it till fome time atter. The Atone- 
 ment was made by the death of Chrift, &>/».$. to. but 
 we receive it not till we believe, verfe 11. Judica- 
 tion is fometirhes held forth befoie Faith, Rom. 4. 
 He jtijtifieth the ungodly. An Ungodly Perfon and a 
 Believer are two things } he juitifieth the Elec% Komi 
 8.33. and they are more in number than Believers. 
 It is fometimes held forth by Faith 5 now when Jo- 
 llification is held forth antecedent unto Fdch, and 
 alfo by Faith, it rauft be taken in a different accep- 
 tation. As it's (Iridtly and properly confidered a dif- 
 charge from guilt, and a title unto Life and Glory, 
 io it cbnfifts in the imputation of Rightcoufnefs, no: 
 in the Application thereof, Rom. 4. 6,7,8, Rom. y 
 j8. The free gift came upon ail men, to the juftificatw 
 of Hft\ tlutis, all men that (land related to the Se~ 
 r^AAdm-j and how did it come on them? why to* 
 
 G gether 
 
94 Cwt$ sUtntrtcatefc 
 
 gether and at once, even as Condemnation came on all 
 Men together and at orce •, but as J unification isconfi- 
 dered in point of Acceptation, and Termination in our 
 own Confidences, fo it is by Faith ; Even we have be- 
 lieved in Jefus Chrift, that we might be juftified by the 
 faith of Chrift, Gal. 2. i6~. In this fenfe Faith hath 
 that hand in our Juftification that no other Grace 
 hath ; it's the nature of Faith to empty the foul of 
 all felf-righteoufnefs, of every thing of our own, and 
 to carry the Soul to Chrift, to receive all from him ^ 
 / would not be found in mine own righteoufnefs, which is 
 of the Law x but in the righteoufnefs of God, which is by 
 Faith in Jefus Chrift, Phil. 3. Faith never pleads good 
 Works performed by us as the condition, and fo 
 challenges remiffion upon it, as the efFeft of fuch per- 
 formance. It follows not that we are not juftified in 
 the former fenfe before we believe, becaufe we are 
 not juftified in the latter fenfe till we believe, no 
 more than it will follow that we are not juftified by 
 Faith alone in point of Acceptation, becaufe we are 
 juftified by Works in point of Manifestation, James 2. 
 24, 25. as for that Text A&s 5. 31. you brought to 
 prove Repentance antecedent to Remiffion of fins, 
 though Chrift gives both, and Repentance be firft 
 mentioned, yet it follows not that Repentance is firft 
 beftowed •, no Argument can be drawn from order of 
 Words in this cafe, other Scriptures placing Remif- 
 fion before Repentance, 2 Tim. 1. 9. there faving is 
 before calling, J fa. 44.25. / have blotted out thy Tranf- 
 grefiions as a cloud, and as a thick, cloud thy fins, therefore 
 return unto me, Ifa.43.25. There you have remiffion 
 of fin, but not one Token cf Repentance in the fub- 
 jc&s antecedent thereunto, as you may fee from the 
 21/?. verfe. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, though Chrift gave himfelf to re- 
 deem us from all iniquity, yet none are actually freed 
 
 from 
 
from the gttilt of fin till they forfake it. 
 
 Reply. To be redeemed from fin, and to be under the 
 guilt of fin, are Terms inconfiftent, for redemption 
 from fin, and remifiion of fin, is the fame thing, Eph. i . 7. 
 In whom we have redemption through his bloody even the 
 forgiveness of fin : Either Chrift: ( when he gave himfelf 
 to redeem us from all Iniquity ) did what he gave 
 himfelf to do, or he did not ; if he did, then are we 
 difcharged from guilt 9 if he did not, it was for want 
 of Merit in his Blood, and that is Blafphemy to aflerr, 
 I gave you this Argument in my laft, but you made 
 no reply to it. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, that we need no new Oblation 
 to merit remifiion of fins ; For by one Offering he hath 
 for ever perfected them that are fantiifted, Heb. 10. 14. 
 Yet we muft be in Chrift, and fan&ified, before we 
 can be perfected j that is, pardoned, and acquitted from 
 the guilt of fin. 
 
 Reply. Firft, J: T ere is a grant that fandified ones are 
 perfected, that £f, pardoned, and acquitted from the 
 guilt of fin: This being granted, it will follow unde- 
 niably, that they are for ever pardoned ^ now this will 
 do my Bufinefs : For, Firft, All the Subjeds of the New- 
 Covenant fhall in time be fandified, Fir ft j ChnLl 
 gave himfeTf to that end, Epb. 5. He loved the Church, 
 and gave himfelf for them, that he might fanctifie and 
 cleanfe them, &c. Secondly, God hath promifed that 
 he will write his Law in their hearts^ that they ftmll all 
 know him, Heb. 8. and this is alfo granted by your 
 felf, ^631, 32. 
 
 Secondly, When fandified, they are for ever par- 
 doned, Heb. 8. 1 2. I will be merciful to their iniquities 9 
 •and will remember their fins no more : And this alfo is 
 in effect granted by your felf in the preceeding lines, 
 fo that I have now gained the fecond point, that the 
 Subjects of the Covenant of Grace cannot break it ? 
 
 G 2, their 
 
<)6 €*uttj tmiuDfcatetu 
 
 their fins being all pardoned, and pardoned fins can't 
 break it. Yoa fay, the Subje&s of this Covenant 
 mull be in Chrift, and fanttified, before they be par- 
 doned. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I have already proved that the Subjects 
 of this Covenant are in Chrift, antecedent to their fan- 
 ftificarion, Johniq.i. They were given to Chrift by 
 the Father, before eternal Life was given to them 
 by the Son, they were Chrifts people before ttey 
 were a willing people, Pfal. no. 3. 
 
 Secondly, The word fa notified is diverfly taken, fome* 
 times for* a Separation: Say ye of him whom the Father 
 hath fanftified and fent into the World, thai he blaf- 
 fhemeth ? wh2t is that fan&ification but a feparation ? 
 God had chofen Chrift from among the number of 
 Mankind, and fet him apart for fo great an undertaking, 
 and in this fenfe 1 take the Word fanctified in the 
 Text that is before us, Heb. 10. 14. Them that God 
 had fee apart for himfelf, for they only were the Sub- 
 jects for whom Chrift was offered up, I fa. 53.8. For 
 the tranfgreffions of my people was heftricken 5 bat if the word 
 fanftified muft be taken properly,as you would have ic, 
 then mull: it be considered as the Mark or Chara&er of 
 thofe who in time may be known to be of the number 
 of thofe that were for ever pardoned by that one Oblati- 
 on •, we can no more conclude that they were fanctified 
 before they were pardoned, than we can conclude that 
 thofe for whom chefe great things that eye had not 
 ieen, nor ear heard, nor had entered into the Heart 
 of man, were prepared, did love God before they were 
 prepared for them, 1 Cor. 2. 9. It was folely by that 
 one offering, without any acl: of theirs, that they 
 were for ever perfected or pardoned ; the Holy 
 Ghoft is a witnefs to this truth, that upon this 
 one offering God would remember their fins no 
 more ; this perfection or pardon that was by this one 
 
 offer- 
 
fatuity minUtatzh 97 
 
 offering was antecedent to his fitting down on the right 
 hand of God, verfes 12, 13. But this man after he bad 
 offered one facrifice for fin, for ever fat down at the riqbt 
 hand of God j and why fo ? bat becattfe by that one offering 
 he had for ever perfected them that were fancJtfed : It was the 
 end of Ghrift in offering up him felt to put away fin by 
 this one facrifice, Heb. 9. 26. and this end of his was an- 
 fwered before he afcended to the Father, Heb. 1.3. 
 When he had by himfelf purged our fins, for ever fat 
 down at the right hand ot God ; eternal redemption 
 was obtained for us, before he entered into the holy 
 place, Heb.$. 12. 
 
 Seventhly, You fay, that none but thofe that ccn- 
 fefs their fins, and forfake them, {hall have mercy, P/ov. 
 28. 13. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft, There is Mercy extended to Men in the 
 change of the Heart, by which they are made capa- 
 ble to confefs their (ins and forfake them, Tit. 3. 5. this 
 mercy they muft have, antecedent to their Confellion. 
 
 Secondly, There is the mercy of the fenfible enjoy- 
 ment of the pardon of Sin, and this mercy I grant you. 
 none lhall have till they confefs and forfake their fin ; 
 but to fay,- that none (hall have mercy till they confefs- 
 their fins, without any diftinction of Mercy, will run 
 a man upon upon great abfurdities ; the Scripture tells 
 us, The mercy oj the Lord is from ever lofting to everlafliug 
 upon them that fear him, Pfal. 103. 17. God extends 
 much of mercy e're ever the foul can confefs and forfake 
 fin. 
 
 Eighthly, Yoa fay, that if the fins of the Elect are for- 
 given upon the bare fatisfaction made by Cbrifr, 
 then they mould be juflified before Converfion, and 
 be at once in a ftate of pardon and falvation, and 
 in a ftate of Wrath and Condemnation too^ but as 
 long as they continue in their fins, fo long they 
 are liable to the Wrath of God, fo long they are liable 
 to condemnation. G 3 Reply* 
 
9 8 €vnt% WliVfoilMZW 
 
 Reply. Firfi i I would query, Whether there be any 
 thing to be laid to the charge of Gods Ekcl ? If there 
 be, then pray anfwer the Apoftles* challenge, Rom. 2. 
 33. if there be not, then are they difcharged upon the 
 bare fatisfaction made by Chrift. 
 
 Secondly, I would enquire, Whether the bare fatis- 
 ' faction made by Chrift, be full fatisfaction unto the 
 Juftice of God or not? If it be not, by whom then 
 ihall the Juftice of God be fatisfied ? if it be, then Ju- 
 fHce it felf pleads their difcharge, gives up the Bond, 
 holds the principal in obligation no longer, Colof. 2. 
 
 14- 
 You fay, that then they fliould be juftified before 
 
 Converfion. 
 
 Re fly. I grant it; this runs me upon no abfurdity, 
 Rom. 4. He jttftifieth the ungodly. 
 
 You fay, that then they muft; be in a ftate of Juftifi- 
 cation, and in a ftate of Condemnation at the fame 
 time, for fo long as they continue in their fins and their 
 impenitency, folong they are liable to wrath and con- 
 demnation. 
 
 Reply. Firft^ I would enquire how the Elect may 
 be faid to be wider Condemnation, feeing the Word 
 declares, that there is nothing to be laid to their charge, 
 and that ft isGod that jujtifies, Rom. 8.33. that Inter- 
 rogation, Who jhall lay any thing to the charge of God? s 
 ffleft? implies a Negation, None jhall ^ Who Jhall con- 
 demn 5' there is another Interrogation, which alfo im- 
 plies a Negation* None jhall condemn; lis God that jufti- 
 fiesj and fure I am, that none can condemn where God 
 juftifies ; lis Chrift- that died^ yea, rather that is rifen 
 again: Their Difcharge bears date from his death, 
 and the manifeftation thereof from the time of his Re- 
 furreclion. 
 
 Secondly, How the Elect can be faid to be under the 
 wath of God> feeing all thas wrath that was due to 
 
 them, 
 
cwtfc mitatmttu 99 
 
 them, was poured on the Lord Jefus as their furety, 
 and in their ftead, Ifa. S3* 4* Surely, he hath born our 
 griefs, he hath carried our farrows } that which was due to 
 us, and which we fhould have born, verfe 5. He was 
 wounded for our tranfgrejfwns, ana by his ft ripe s are we heaU 
 ed, verfe 6. AHwelikefheep are gone aftray, and the Lord 
 hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 
 
 Thirdly, How the Elect can be faid to be under the 
 Wrath of God, that are delivered from it by Cfirift, 
 1 Thef 1. 10. Even Jefus, who delivered us from the 
 wrath to come - 7 when he bore it for them, he bore it 
 from them. 
 
 Fourthly, I would query, How this Wrath fhould be 
 appealed, if the Elecl: are yet under it ? I know, no way 
 to appeafe the Wrath of God, but by bearing of it \ 
 Jefus Chriit had no other way, he hath born it al- 
 ready, he will bear it no more, he i: difcharged, he 
 is juftified, iTim.$.ult. The Elect can't bear it, it 
 would fink them down to Hell -, the wicked that 2re 
 damned for their own fin fhall not bear it, they (hall 
 only bear that which was due for their own fin, not 
 that which was due to the ElecT; 5 what then (hall be- 
 come of this Wrath? 
 
 Fifthly, If the Elect are under the WrSth of God till 
 they do believe, and upon believing it's removed, whe- 
 ther there be more vertue in an act of Faith than there 
 was in all the fufferings of Chrift ? or whether the effi- 
 cacy of Chrift's fufferings depends on the will or aft 
 of the Creature? 
 
 Sixthly, How the Elect of God could ever have be- 
 lieved and repented, if they had been dill under the 
 Wrath of God ? They muft be delivered from the curfe 
 of the Law, before the bleffing of Abraham could come 
 upon them, Gal. 3.13,14. They raoft become dead 
 to the Law by the Body of Chrift, before they could 
 bs married unto Chrift;, Rom. 7. 4, 
 
 Q 4 Sevmthly t 
 
ioo Crutij wivfoit&tz'b. 
 
 Seventhly, Whether the Wrath of God, flrittly and 
 properly confidered, be not a will in Godtopunifh? 
 And if fo, whether it be ftill the Will of God to pu- 
 nifli the Elect, now iff hath laid that which was due 
 to them on the Lord Jefus? Or 'whether the will of 
 God be mutable, and fo changed when they do believe ? 
 if it be objected, that the Scripture tells us, That he 
 thai bclieveth not, fuall not fee life, but the wrath of Cod 
 abi&th on him, John 3. ult. I anfwer, it mult be un- 
 derilood of final Unbelief. Should a perfon argue thus, 
 but fome Eleft do not believe at prefent, therefore 
 fome Eledl are under the wrath of God ; I might as 
 well argue from the fame, but fome Eleft do not be- 
 lieve at prefent, therefore fome Elect fhall- not fee 
 liie. Your own Principles would not bear this, and 
 fuch kind of arguing has a tendency in it to block up 
 the way of Salvation for ever : Had you muftered up 
 thofe Scriptures that feem to favour your Opinion 
 in this point, I doubt not but I fhould have returned 
 a' rational Anfwer to what might have been object- 
 ed from each of them, as I have done in the like 
 cafe- 
 
 Ninthly, You fay, if the promife of Juftification be 
 made, only tipon the condition of Faith and Repen- 
 tance, then we can have no right to it, till we perform 
 ^hat condition. 
 
 Reply. I grant it, were the promife fo made, but that's 
 the thing denied by me, and not proved by you. 
 
 Temhly, You fa/, it's tOD poflible for us, through our 
 own default, to neglect that condition, and fo to fru- 
 strate the means of our own Salvation. 
 
 Reply. Setting afide the word condition, (for I own no 
 fuch thing, and I ihall find another place to fpeaktoit ) 
 I deny that it is poflible, for the fubjecls of this Cove- 
 nant to live and dye unbelievers, andfo tofrultrate the 
 means of their Salvation. For, 
 
 Firft, 
 
Flrfi, They are chofen unto Holimfs, Eph. 1.4. pn? „ 
 defiinated to be conformable to the Image of hit Son, Rorn. 8 
 29. £/*#f</ tofalvation, through fanttiflcatlon of the Spirit' 
 and belief of the Truths 2 Thef. 2. iq. * 
 
 Secondly, It was the end of Chrifl: in Dying, That he 
 might fanclifie and cleanfe them, Eph. 5. 25, 26. That he 
 might purifie them to himfelf, Tic. 2. 14. 
 
 Thirdly, God hath promifed, To write his Law in their 
 hearts, that theyjhall all know him from the leafi to the ereat- 
 *A Jer. gi. 33. 6 
 
 Fourthly, Chrifl ftands engaged by Covenant with the 
 Father to bring them to believe, John 10. Other (heep 
 have I that are not of this fold, them alfo I muft bring, and 
 theyjhall hear my voice, and there fiall be one (hepherd%nd one 
 fheepfold. 
 
 Fifthly, Chrift hath attired us, That all that the Father 
 hath given him jhall come unto him, John (J. 37. That he 
 will give eternal life to all that the father hath oiven unto him • 
 Now unlefs the Decree of God be altered, the end of 
 Chrifl: m dying fruftrafed, the promifeof God of none 
 ettect,the Covenant between the Father and the Son bro- 
 ken, and the Afliirance that Chrifl: hath given fail us it 
 is not poflible that the Subjects of this Covenant fho'uld 
 live and dye Unbelievers. Take notice I fpeak of grown 
 perfons .* as for fuch of them as dye in their infancy, 
 though they are incapable of actual' Faith, I doubt not 
 but they have the habit infufed by an immediate work 
 of the Spirit, before they go hence. 
 
 But you fay, the Apoftlc does fuppofe, that we may 
 neglect the Condition, and fofruftrate the means of Sal- 
 vation, Heb. 2. 3. 
 
 Reply. You miftake the Apoftle here, he doth not fup- 
 pofe that, any of the fubjefts of this Covenant might ne- 
 glect the means, fo as to fru (Irate the end ; he only de- 
 flares, that thofe that do neglect the means {hail mifs of 
 the end, and that they (hall notefcape puniihment, be 
 
 they 
 
,oa €wty win&icateD, 
 
 thev who they will, and I dare boldly fay, that thole 
 S do totally and finally neglect the means, andfo 
 fS (hart of the end, are not the Subjects of this Cove- 
 2 ^or ^kav'e -this Head I fhall mind youof two 
 S, . f fr#, l told you that Chrift hath not only re- 
 deemed" fSm all fin, but he hath eternally redeemed 
 that the Soulthall never come under guilt more j there 
 i not a Word of reply to this. Secondly, You have in 
 vour "n£« all along infilled upon the time of our par- 
 don and have faid little to the Argument it felf, whe- 
 ther pardoned fins can break this Covenant. 
 
 Yon fir my Second Argument that I offere* to 
 proVe St tbc Covenant of Grace can't be broken by 
 SS'bjSs thereof, was this, that i thofe : that have an 
 intereft in this Covenant may break it, who then (hall 
 remain interefted in it ? Here again you alter my 
 woX faid, if the fins of thofe that have an intereft in 
 ^vhrUkit who then fhall remain interefkdimt? 
 FofinW hWgs we offend all, and 1 did judge you 
 did not diftinguifh between venial and mortal fins. Sm as 
 fin deferves Death, now having altered my Argument, 
 vou anfwe your felf and not me: Your Anfwer to it is 
 ?Si thaXre is no Confequence from the Power to the 
 
 Aft /?«Jv I did not argue from the Power to the Aft, 
 from a poffibility to a certainty, but from a certainty it s 
 certain that all do fin, and that the wages of fin is death ; 
 if then the fins of the Subjeftsof this Covenant may 
 hreak it. who can remain interefted in it 1 
 
 Wv, You fay, the Holy Angels before their 
 confirSn were in a mutable ftate, and had a poffi- 
 bility offalling, yet they dMnotfeD. 
 
 Replv. That the Angels had a poffibility offalling, as 
 they were confidered in themfelves, I grant, but as they 
 were confidered Eletf Angels, I deny that it was ^poffible 
 for them to fall ; for it was not poffible for God to alter, 
 
• change his Decree concerning their Handing •, fo 
 hatever poffibility may be fuppofed to be ia the iub- 
 cts of this Covenant to loofe their Intereft therein, 
 )nlidered in themfelves, yet as they are confidered the 
 left of God, the redeemed of the Lord, and fecured 
 f the promifes of this Covenant, it is not poflible thac 
 ley (houid break it, and fo lopie their intereft therein. 
 
 My third Argument, you fay, to prove that the Sub- 
 &s of this Covenant can't break it, is drawn from Jer. 
 2. 40. and this you fuppofe I do moftly infill upon , be- 
 aufe I have often mentioned the Text. 
 
 Refly. I have not mentioned it oftner than I had occafi- 
 n and yet I fuppofe there is weight enough in the other 
 wo, if this were left out, only I am not willing to fpare 
 ither, becaufe a threefold-cord is not foon broken. 
 
 Firft, You fay, this Text has been anfwered already. 
 
 Reply. Your Anfwerhas been already replied to, and 
 iroved invalid. 
 
 Secondly, You fay the uttermoft that can be gathered 
 rom this Text is, that God will not fail to perform his 
 )art of that Covenant ^ he will afford us Grace, where- 
 >y we co- working (hall be enabled to live in his fear, and 
 lot depart from him, which nothing hinders but that 
 ;his Covenant may be broken by us. 
 
 Reply. Firfty This Scripture is abundantly clearer, 
 if taken as it lieth, without any expofition, than yoa 
 lave made it by that you have faid. 
 
 Secondly, Here is nothing more than I had before, 
 you had as good have referred me to your former An* 
 Twer. 
 
 Thirdly, If God will not fail to perform his part of 
 the Covenant, he will put his fear in our Hearts, that 
 we fhall not depart from him, for this is his part of the 
 Covenant, and this will hinder the breach of this Cove- 
 nant,! can't fee that one my of Arguments that I brought, 
 to prove that the Covenant of Grace can't be broken by 
 
 the 
 
Y 
 
 ,04 crittij gattt&icateD. 
 
 the Subjects thereof, is in the leaft fhaken by your An- 
 fwers. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 OU fay, I make fome Exceptions againft the rea- 
 fons that you brought to prove the powbility 
 oTthe breach of this Covenant. ; -.,„_ 
 
 Firfi, You fay I argue thus, That it is not poffible to 
 receive the Grace of God in vain, becaufe God hatft 
 promifed toput his fear into our hearts, that »'M"" 
 depart from him. To this you fay, that tho Go* hath 
 promifed To work* us both to will and to do of his own good 
 pleafure, yet we mufi work, out our own falvation, Phil. 
 
 2 ' Xep/y 3 'l grant it, as Salvation may be confidered, as 
 an end following means preparing, but not as it may. 
 be confidered as an end depending on means procuring:: 
 And here for our encouragement to our duty, we have, 
 thislaiddownasf a motive, It's God that worketb w us, 
 both to will and to do of his own good pHure; and wiU 
 and do we mall, we have the promifeofboth, PJal. 
 110.3, £^36.27. The grace of God, when received,. 
 (hall be in us a well of Water, fpringing up to everlaftwg life; 
 fo that it mail not be received in vain ; the Apoftle tells 1 
 us, 1 Cor. 15. 10. that this Grace which was bellowed 
 upon him was not in vain. . ,..„„,. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that Gods working in us doth not 
 exclude our endeavours. 
 
 Reply. I grant it, it is fo far from excluding our en- 
 deavours,that it puts us forward ; if God did not work in 
 us a will, there would be noendeavours at all. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that God will not keep us by his 
 Grace in his fear, unlefs we labour to work together 
 with this Grace. . • . 
 
 Reply. There is no fuch Condition in the Texr, nor 
 r J any 
 
muty ©tnurcatea. 105 
 
 ny thing that looks like ir, nor in the Word any where 
 Ife - 7 and we (hould have a care of adding to the Word, 
 eft God reprove us. 
 
 Secondly, Whilft the Lord keeps us in his fear, we are 
 ept in action. 
 
 Thirdly , Our Labour and Endeavour is, that which 
 he fear of God doth engage us in, it is a means to keep 
 rom evil, and to put us forward in our duty. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, if we mult co- work with Grace, 
 len we are not neceflitated unto good, and ia may pof. 
 bly receive the Grace of God in vain. 
 
 Reply. If by co- working with Grace, you mean our 
 ^ving in the exercife of Grace, I grant it is a ChriHians 
 uty, but this implies not a pofiibility of receiving the 
 race of God in vain ; for when a Soul is principled with 
 he Grace of God, he will fo influence and affifl him by 
 is Spirit, that he (hall live in the exercife thereof ; he 
 ath promifed to put his Spirit within him, and caufe 
 in> to walk in his ftatutes, and to obferve his judg- 
 ments, and do them, Pfal. 48. 14. This ■ God is our God % 
 uen our vvon God, he will he our Guide to death : Faith 
 fiuft have fome promife to bottom upon, or ic 
 ould not make this conclufion. The fear of the 
 ,ord, influenced by the Spirit of the Lord, doth 
 eceflkate the Soul to that which is good, we can do 
 othing againft the Truth, but for the Truth, we can* 
 ot but fpeak the things that we have feen and 
 card \ faith the Apoftle, And he that 'is born of God 
 oth mt commit fin, neither can he, becaufe he is born of 
 rod, for his feed rema'tneth in him, 1 John 3. 9. You 
 ',rant, page 27. that a regenerate man can't allow him- 
 slf in any known evil, whilft he remains regenerate, 
 nd is there not the fame reafori to conclude, that he 
 an't allow hirhfelf in the omiflion of any known 
 uty. 
 
 Fifthly^ You fay, it's pbffible for thofe Who have 
 
 efiaptd 
 
i 6 Ciistty wiiowawo. 
 
 ckmd the Tollutiom of th e World,through the Knowledge of I 
 ZTordand SavJ Jef«s Chrifi » * "gtbKS 
 ar,d overcome, 2 Pet. a. 20. ^^TtototiS* 
 to efcape the Pollutions of the World, ieeing tney 
 
 continue Ai.lL in their filthinefs. nn ,Wftand 
 
 *>,»/-■ Bv the Pollutions of the World 1 underttana 
 
 and in this Senfe a Hypocrite ^,^^3 
 from them, ^ 2- 3- they app^ed "dl^ r gh 
 
 TT ft tnatTn KSS '\S^^TIL 
 the Saints. An Apellate is nothing elfe but an Hy- 
 
 nallv called by the Preaching of the Word may orlaKe 
 ih2 own Mercy * but fuch as are internally called and 
 2X3*63 poffibly abufe the Grace of Go and 
 fn come (host ot Happinefs. To this you nniwer, 
 thataU that are externally caller 1 by the ^reachmj M 
 the Word, have inward Grace offered them, fufficient 
 
 t0 S e The aueftion is not, what Grace is offered 
 them but what Grace is given them , are there Hearts 
 chafed? are they made of unwilling to be .willing? or 
 h there anv promifc of fuch a thing made to any, but 
 hSASthe People ofChrift? You fay your fel , 
 that nnlefi the Heart and Will be reformed, we can I 
 
 d °sSrYouty?itisnotonly a vain thing, but, 
 cruel kind of Infultation, to exhort Men to repent, and 
 to amtnd, unlefs they have means allowed them faffici- 
 *nt to amend.. «„ . 
 
timtb wivfoimtb. 1 07 
 
 Reply: The Queflion ftill is, Whether all that are ex- 
 ternally called by the Word, have the firfl Degree of 
 Grace, by which their underftandings are enlightned, 
 and their Wills reformed ? Thefe bleffings you confefs'd 
 are always fuppofed as neceflary to enable us to do what 
 God requires of us j and unlefs you can prove this, 
 your Charge is high, to fay, it's a cruel kind of Infulta- 
 tion over Men to require them to repent ; for I can af- 
 fure you, that God requires all Men every where to re* 
 pent, and to believe, where the Gofpel comes ; you fay 
 your felf, that it's impolTible for Men to repent with- 
 out the Grace of God, now it is not Grace offered, but 
 Grace infufed that doth capacitate Men truly to re- 
 pent 9 and this you can never prove, that all that are 
 externally called by the Word, have fuch a meafure of 
 Grace beftowed on them. The contrary lieth plain be- 
 fore us in the Word ; there were four forts of ground, 
 Mark 4. on which the Seed fell, and but one of them 
 that had its Nature changed, the other three remained 
 the fame,, High-way, Stony, and Thorny-ground, as 
 it was before ever the Seed fell upon it, and more in- 
 flances I (hall give you in another place. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, if Men may fruftrate God's Mercy 
 in calling of them by his Word, then they muft needs 
 withal refift his Grace that accompanies his Word. 
 
 Reply. If this were granted you, it would not advan- 
 tage you ; if Men may refill that Grace that accompa- 
 nies the Word, what is this to prove, that Men may 
 receive the Grace of God in vain ? it is one thing for a 
 Perfon to refufe what Grace is offered, and another 
 thing to receive the Grace of God in vain. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, it is not only podible for ihofe 
 that "are externally called to hinder their Converfion, 
 but thofe that are Converted may through their own 
 default turn to their old Sins again, and forfake the 
 way of Life. 
 
 ' Reply. 
 
io3 €tafy wntbicatei). 
 
 Reply. All that I fhall fay to this at prefent, is barely 
 to deny that fuch as are truly Converted, that are 
 brought to accept of Jefus Chrift on Gofpel-terms, and 
 to reft on him alone for Salvation, can poflibly fall a- 
 way, that is, totally and finally, though they may foul- 
 ly back-Aide; and this I (hall make good, when I come 
 particularly to handle the Perfeverance of the Saints. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, the Text alledged by me does not 
 prove the contrary, 'John 6. 37. All that the Father gi- 
 veth me fi all come unto me. 
 
 Reply. 1 brought not this Scripture to prove, that 
 thofe that are Converted can't poflibly forfake the way 
 of Life-, nor yet that Rom. 8. that which 1 brought 
 them for together, with John 10. 16. which you have 
 omitted^ was to prove, that not oneof the Subjects of 
 the New Covenant ihould go without an Effectual Call, 
 and for this they were all pertinent, but they muftnow 
 {land as you have placed them. 
 
 You fay, that thofe John 6. 37. that are faid to be 
 .given unto Jefus Chrift:, are meant thofe whofe Hearts 
 are difpofed and prepared by God's preventing Grace 
 to come to Jefus Chrift, and not a felecl number chofen 
 of God to Life Eternal, becaufeit is exprefly affirmed 
 of one of this number, that he is loft, John 17. 12* 
 Thofe whom thou haft given me I have kept) and none of them 
 is to/I, but the Son of Perdition. 
 
 Reply. This Expofition does net fuit the Text, nor 
 harmonize with other Scriptures. 
 
 /f*>/?, You fay, that thofe that are faid to be given 
 to Chrift, are fuch whofe Hearts are pre pared' and dif- 
 pofed by preventing Grace to come to Jefus Chrift:. 
 
 Reply. Firfii The Text fpeaks not of any fuch Dif- 
 poliiion, but of a Gift ; All that the Father giveth me* 
 Now this Gift of the Father to the Son, is antecedent 
 to fuch a Difpofition : Thy People, before they were 
 a willing People, Fpdm>ti o. 3. and iffo* then were 
 
 they 
 
Cttrtl) winbitatin* 109 
 
 they Cbrift's People before thisDifpofition was wrought 
 in thetn,fohn 17.2. That I may give Eternal Life to as many 
 as thou haft given unto me : They were given unto Chriifc 
 before Eternal Life was given unto them by Chrift. 
 
 Secondly, 1 would Qliery, Whether Judas ( which I 
 think is here intended by the Son of Perdition ) that you 
 fay was one of this number, had his Heart thus prepared 
 and difpofed to come to Jefus Chrift? and whether he 
 did come to him ? The Text tells us, That all that the 
 Father giveth unto Chrift ftiallcome unto him : Had he the 
 firft Degree of Grace, whereby his Underftanding was 
 enlightened, his Will renewed, his Heart and Will 
 changed ? I can't find fuch Characters of him in the 
 Word, John 6. 70. Have not J chofen you twelve, and 
 one of you is a Devil; this he fpake or Judas at the very 
 fame time, when he tells you, That aU that the Father gi- 
 4>eth mejhallcome unto me : He had not then fuch a Difpo- 
 fition, and yet you fay that he was one of that num- 
 ber, verfe 64. There are fome of you that believe not, 
 ( and was not Judas one of thefe ) he knew from the be- 
 ginning who they were that believed not, and who 
 fhould betray him ; in the heighth of his Profeffion, he 
 was a covetous Perfon, a notorious Hypoaite, and 3 
 Thief, and was this one of that number of whom Chrift 
 fpake, That they jhouldcome unto him, and that he would 
 fn no wife caft out, that they Jhould not perijh, but have ever- 
 lifting Life f it does not look as if he were. 
 
 Secondly^ You fay, they are not a felett number 
 chofen of God to Life Eternal. 
 
 Reply. This agrees not with the-Text, nor doth it 
 harmonize with other Scriptures. 
 
 Firft, They are fuch as (hall come to Jefus Chrift : 
 All that the Father giveth me jhall come unto me. Coming 
 and believing is the fame thing, verje 3$. ?nd fuch as 
 do believe in Chrift are of the number of Gods Elect, 
 I Thejf, 1. 4 4 Knowing Brethren your EUtlim of Gedj for 
 
 H Mr 
 
no coitf) minute atek 
 
 our Gofpel came not unto yon in Words only, but in Power , 
 and in the Holy Gboft : If the Gofpel works fo power- 
 fully as to engage the Soul to come to Jefus Chrift, he 
 may from thence argue his Election of God ; they were 
 the Fathers in a peculiar Senfe that were given to the 
 Son, John 17. 6. Thine they were, and thou gavefi them 
 unto me : Thine not only by Creation, for fo were the 
 World alfo, that were diftinft from them, therefore it 
 muft be by Election, verfe 10. And aH mine are thine, 
 Thofe that are the Sons by fcederal Relation, they are 
 the Fathers by Election. 
 
 Secondly ) They are fuch as (hall be faved, verfe 40. 
 And this is the Will of him that fnt me, that every one that 
 fctth the Son, andbelieveth on him, fljould notpertjli, but have 
 Everlafting Life. If coming and believing be the fame 
 thing, ( as I chink none will deny ) then All that the Fa- 
 ther hath given him, (hall be faved, and yet are they not 
 a fekct People. You grant, Page^i. that none but 
 the Elect j or faithful perfevering Chriftians, ( which I 
 think is the fame thing ) (hall be faved ; if thofe then 
 that are given to the Son ftiall he faved, they are Elect ; 
 Salvation is the end that they are chofen to, 2 Thejf. 
 2. 13. 
 
 Jhirdly, You fay, that one of this number was final- 
 ly loft, John 17. 12. 
 
 Reply, I doubt this will reflect upon Chrift, either up- 
 on his Power, or upon his Faithfulnefs. 
 
 Firft, There is no fuch Word in the Text, nor yet 
 in the whole Chapter. 
 
 Secondly, The contrary will appear from the fame 
 Text, together with the following Verfcs -, the Text 
 tells you, That all that the Father giveth him, Jhall come 
 unto him, and he that comes unto him he will in no wife cafi 
 out : Thus far they are all fafe, verfe 38. 1 came down from • 
 Heaven, not to do my oven Will, but the Will of him that fent 
 tne, atd this is the Will of him that fent me, that of all 
 
 that 
 
that he had given me 1 fhould loofe nothings but fhould raifc 
 it ftp at the laft day, Chrift hath undertaken to keep 
 thofe that are given him of the Father, and it was the 
 Fathers Will that they fliould be kept } if then there be 
 any one of thefe loft, it muft be, either becaufe he 
 would have kept them, but could not, or becaufe he 
 could have kept them,but would notrTakeitin the firft 
 Senfe, and it taxeth his Power; inthefecond Senfe, it 
 taxeth his Faithfulnefs , and this will not only reflect 
 upon the Son, but upon the Father alfo, making his 
 Will mutable: It was the Will of the Father they 
 fhould be all kept, and that none of them fhould be loll : 
 And as for Judas that was faid to be loft* John 17* n< 
 it is mod certain that he was not given unto Chrift, in 
 the Senfe that thofe were that are here faid to be giveii 
 to him, to be kept by him * for if he had, he fhould 
 have been kept as well as others: Ic was the Will of the 
 Father, that of all that he had given him he fhould loofe no° 
 thing. He was indeed given to Chrift as an Apoftle as well 
 as Peter and the reft, and in this Senfe I take the Word* 
 John 17* 12. and that for this Reafon, becaufe it is re- 
 ftri&ed to the Apoftles in the fulfilling of it, JohniS. 
 8, 9. Ifyefeek^me, let thefe go thtir way^ that k\ might be 
 fulfilled, as he faid^ of them that thou baft given me I have 
 loft none. 
 
 The next Scripture you come to confidef, is Rom, 8* 
 29, 30. You fay, the proper Senfe of that Text is, 
 thofe whom God hath predetermined to Sufferings af- 
 ter the manner of Chrift, he hath called to fnfFer, and 
 thofe he hath called to fuffcr, them he doth upon the 
 Trial of their Patience and Conftancy juftifie, and 
 thofe that continue in a juftifkd State he will reward 
 with Eternal Glory. 
 
 Reply. I muft take this Exposition upon your bear 
 Word* without any Proof or Argument, without any 
 thing in the Text or Context that leads to it. Virft^ 
 
 H i They 
 
n2 mutl) mtntfcatefc 
 
 They are predestinated to fufferings after the manner 
 of Chrift, but why to fufferings only ? what is therein 
 the Text that leads to that ? the Text tells you, it is 
 to be conformable to the Image of the Son, which con lifts in 
 a likenefs unto Chrift : When God made Man after his 
 own Image, he made him in his own likenefs, which 
 confifted in Knowledge, Righteoufnefs, and Holinefs. 
 The Text does not limit this Conformity to Sufferings. 
 Secondly , Chrift hath given us a Pattern in his Adtive 
 as well as in his Paffive obedience, and he that faith, He 
 abidetb in him, ought fo to walk^ even as Chrift alfo walk' 
 ed. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that them he calleth unto Suffer- 
 ings. 
 
 Reply. Here is a Limitation again that is not in the 
 Text. Thofe that God calleth according to his pur- 
 pofe, he calleth unto Holinefs, called to be Saints, cal- 
 led to Adive as well as PafTive Obedience. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that thofe whom be calleth to 
 Sufferings, them upon the Trial of their Patience and 
 Conftancy he juftifieth. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I would know how long they muft be 
 
 npon Trial ; not to their lives end, that can't be, their 
 
 Patience may not hold out fo long ; you feem to hint, 
 
 that they may fall from a juftified State as well as from 
 
 ^a fan&ified State. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that thofe that continue in a ju- 
 ftified State, them he Rewards with Eternal Glory. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I would know, Whether this Reward 
 be of Grace or no ? for it feems to hang upon fo many 
 Conditions, that it's a Queftion, whether it be of 
 Grace, or a Debt. 
 
 Secondly, I do not find in Scripture, that there is 
 fo much Trial of Mens Patience and Conftancy, ante- 
 cedent to their Juftification. The Text faith, Whom 
 he calleth, them he juftifieth j but according to your In- 
 terpretation, 
 
€tuty wtivfoicatzb. 1 1 ? 
 
 terpretation, its rational to think, that fome may be 
 called that are never juftified. 
 
 Thirdly, If you caft your Eye upon the Text once 
 more, you may fee the Apoftle fpeaks not of Acts of 
 Grace in time, but of the eternal Decrees of God, in 
 which refpedt we are to confider every link oi this 
 golden Chain •, it's Vocation decreed, and Jollification, 
 and Glorification decreed, and each link refpects the 
 fame individual Perfons, and all the links of this Chain 
 were fet together in theCounfel of God from Eternity j 
 it is not faid he will Call, and he will Juitifie, and Glo- 
 rifie, but he Called, and Juftified, and Glorified ; fo 
 that it will by no means admit of fuch an Interpretati- 
 on as you have here given of it ; there is no time for 
 the Trial of Mens Patience and Conflancy, nor is 
 there any poflibility that any fhould fall from a Juilified 
 State, there are no fuch Provifo's in the Decrees cf 
 God. 
 
 Secondly, You have yet fomething more to offer from 
 this Text: You fay, that the Connexion here fet be- 
 tween Vocation, Juftincation, and Glorification in re- 
 fpedt of the Elect, is firm, and indiflblable, for the Elect 
 in time are called, are juftified, and (hall not fall away, 
 but (hall furely be glorified. 
 
 Reply. This is fomething, the other was'juft nothing 5 
 here is a grant that the Elect fhall perfevercyund [hall be 
 faved at laft,and there are no other that are intended in 
 the Text bat the Elect only \ but in my Judgment this 
 fecond Expofition does not harmonize with your firft ; 
 there is 1 hint that a juilified Perion may not continue 
 in a jaflified State, and how a poftibility d falling, and 
 a certainty of Handing may both be gathered from the 
 fame Text, with refpect to the fame fubjectSj I do not 
 know. 
 
 Secondly, Though I like your AfTertion well, that 
 the Elect fhall perfevere, yet I do not like the ground 
 
 H 3 of 
 
n4 €%ut9 ain&fcatein 
 
 of it, which you fay is this, becaufe they were confide- 
 red in the previfion of God, as perfevering in Holinefs 
 unto the end -, and it"*s a Contradiction to fay, that they 
 that perfcvere (hall fall away. 
 
 Reply. God did not Eledt upon aforefight of what we 
 would be, but to what we (hould be, Eph. 1.4. He 
 hath chofen us in him before the Foundation of the World, that 
 mjhoiild be Holy, and without blame before him in Love : He 
 hath chofen unto Holinefs, and to Perfeverance, both 
 proved by the fame Text that is before us. Whom 
 he did foreknow, or foreachjiowledge to be his, ( fo you read 
 it your felf ) he did predeftinate to be conformable to the 
 Image of his Son ; which is, to Holinefs, and Perfeverance 
 therein. Chrift hath fet us a Pattern of both, a Pattern 
 of Piety, and Perfeverance therein, and they. are abfo- 
 lutely decreed to be conformable to Chrift in both. 
 
 Again, You lay, That all that are called, and really 
 Converted, are not Ele&ed, nor are they fo fecured by 
 Grace that they (hall not fall away ; for they that have 
 a good Cpnfcience may make Shipwrack of Faith, and 
 no Hypocrite may be faid to have a good Confcience, 
 j Tim. 2. 19. 
 
 Reply. Ftrft, I deny, that any but the Elecl of God 
 are in time called, that is, brought truly to believe in 
 Jefus Chrift,* (for that is the Call you intend.) Firft, 
 There is no Scripture to prove this. Secondly, The con- 
 trary is to be proved by Scripture, Rom. 11.7. What 
 then ? Jfrael hath not obtained that which he fought L after, but 
 ihe Eldlion hath obtained, and the reft were blinded, " Con- 
 version is fo peculiarly the priviledgeof theEleft, that 
 from the one the other may be argued, 1 Thejf. 1.4. 
 Knowing, Brethren, beloved, your EleUion of God, for our 
 (Jofptl came not unto you in Word only, but in Tower, &c. 
 If the Gofpel powerfully Work toConverfion, it's an 
 infallible mark of Election -, on the fame ground did Re- 
 fer (tile the Church he wrote to in his firft Epiftle* E- 
 
Critt^ taitWcatek 115 
 
 led 1 they were fuch as had obtained like precious Faith, 
 and from thence he concludes them God's Elect. We 
 are bid to make our Calling and our Election fure, 2 Pet. 
 1. 10. but ifaPerfon may b©f effectually called that is 
 not elected, then is there no room to make oar Election 
 fure by our Galling. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that any of thofe that are Effectual- 
 ly called, (hall fall ftiort of Salvation, John 6. It's the 
 Will of God, that every one that feet h the Son, and believetb 
 on him, fhouldhave Everlafting Life, John 3. 16. God fo 
 loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whofoever believed on him jhould not ferifl), but have Ever* 
 lafling Life. 
 
 Thirdly, A good Confcience is not always to be un- 
 derstood of a renewed Confcience, Aftsii. Paul de- 
 clares, loathe had lived in all good Confcience before God 
 to that day $ he had been morally Juft, and Honeft, as 
 well before his Converfion as after 5 he walked very 
 exact as to the Letter of the Law -, touching the Law 
 ( he himfelf faith ) that he was blamtlefs. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, if it were not poffible for a righte- 
 ous Man to fall away and perilb, the Prophet would 
 not have fuppofed it, as he doth £*,e&. 18. 20". and 
 33. 12. 
 
 Reply. I know not what ground you havt to think, 
 that the Prophet did fuppofeany fuch thing, nor whac 
 advantage you will make of fuch inilances ; either the 
 righteous here are fuch as are really righteous, or they 
 are not ; if they are, they fhall not turn from it, they 
 are fecured by the Promifes of this Covenant, Pfaf. 
 92. 12. The Righteous (hall flouri(h like the Palm-tree, they 
 Jliallgrow as the Cedar in Lebanon ; they that be planted in* 
 the Hon fe of the Lord, they fhall be fat and flourishing, thy 
 fhall ft ill bring forth fruit in Old Age, to fliew that the Lord 
 is upright, and that there is no twrighteoufnefs in him. The> 
 Rigtueoufnefs of God ftands engaged to keep the righ- 
 
 H 4 teous 
 
*i<5 ©nttty ©inaicateu/ 
 
 teous in a flour ifning and a perfevering State, Pfalm 37. 
 30,31, and 37. I think it's a good rule not to make 
 that the Senfe of one Text which is in it felf dark, 
 that contradi&s others thct are clear ^ but if the righ- 
 teous here are not really fuch, then it makes nothing 
 for you whether they ftand or fall. 
 
 Thirdly 9 You fay, that there are many Cautions gU 
 ven to the faithful in Scripture, to take heed left they 
 fhould fall away, and many Threats are denounced a- 
 gainll them in Cafe they do. 
 
 Reply. All this I readily grant, and therefore (hall not 
 recite the Scriptures that you offer to prove it: I be- 
 lieve thefe Cautions and Threats, to which I may. add 
 Promifes too, that are made to thofe that perfevere, 
 are all good means to prevent falling away, and given 
 to that end. 
 
 Fourthly ^ You Query, Whether thefe Scriptures 
 where theie Cautions and Threats are, do not prove 
 that the righteous may fall away ? 
 
 Reply. Firft, I deny that total and final backfliding, 
 where the Soul is truly gracious, is afierted by any of 
 thefe Scriptures, either exprefly, or implicitly. 
 
 Secondly^ 1 would Query, Whether there be not 
 fome of the Elecl of God among thofe faithful ones 
 that are tlrus warned to take heed, and threatned in 
 Cafe they fall away? you grant, Page 21. that the 
 Elect are in time called, and juftified, and [hall not fall 
 away from God, but (hall furely be faved ; are not thefe 
 caution'd as well as others, and threatned in Cafe they 
 fall away as well as others ? Does the Scripture make 
 any Diftinclion in this Cafe ? 
 
 Fifthly^ You Query, To what end Cautions and 
 Warnings are given to the Righteous, if there be no 
 filling away, or Threatnings in Gafe they do, when 
 there is no fuch thing ? 
 
 Reply. Ftrjl, U is to this end, that the Righteous 
 
 /hould 
 
crutl) witttiicateth 1 1 7 
 
 fliould be more watchful, and careful, and labour to 
 keep clofe to God in a backfliding-C|ime, 2 Tim. 2. 19. 
 the Lord Works by means. 
 
 Secondly? I would Query, To what end all thefe Cau- 
 tions and Threats are given to the Elect, as well as o- 
 thers, of whom you fay they (hall certainly perfevere ? 
 And now I fhall endeavour to prove, that a fanctified 
 Soul, one that is born of God, one that is a true Be^ 
 liever, is in fuch a fecure State that he (half not fall 
 away. 
 
 Firft, He is fecured by Acts of Grace without 
 
 him. 
 
 Secondly, By Principles of Grace infufed into him. 
 Thirdly , By Acts of Grace exerted by him. 
 Fourthly , By Gracious Promifes given to him. 
 Fifthly, By the Prayer of Cbrift for him. 
 Firft, A Believer is fecured by Ads of Grace with- 
 out him: And here are four Acts of Grace that I fhall 
 mention ; 
 
 Firft, Every Believer is an Elect Perfon : We may go 
 by the Streams to the Fountain, we may argue from 
 the Effect to the Caufe ; Faith is that we are elected to, 
 l Pet, 1 , 2. Ele ft according to the foreknowledge of God the 
 Father, unto the Obedience of the Blood offprinkling : What 
 is that but Faith ? whereby in Obedience to the Will 
 of God we apply the Blood of Chrift. The Apoftle had 
 no other ground to ftile them Elect in the firft Epiftle, 
 than he had to ftile them Believers in the fecond ; they 
 were fuch as had obtained like precious Faith, which 
 is called, Tit, 1. 1. The Faith of Gods Eletl ; it being 
 peculiar unto them, The Elect obtained this Faith, as 
 well as other Bleflings of the New Covenant, Rom. 
 1 1. 7. And the reft were blinded : It was upon their Be- 
 lieving that the Apoftle concluded the Thejjalomans 
 the Eletl of God, 1 Epift. 1. 4. That there is Security 
 by this, Act of Grace is granted by your felf, Page i\. 
 
 f- 
 
n8 cwty wtttbtcatea, 
 
 from Rom. 8. 30. that the Elect (hall not fall away, but 
 
 (hall certainly obtain Salvation. 
 
 Secondly, Every Believer is a Child of God, Gal. 
 
 3. 25. Te are all the Children of God by Faith in Jefus 
 
 Chrift, John 1 . 1 2. To as many as believed on him, . to them 
 
 he gave Power to become the Sons of God. 
 Secondly, Thofe that are once the Children of God, 
 
 are for ever his Children : The Servant abideth not in the 
 
 Houfe for ever, but the Son abideth ever, John 8.35. 
 
 Wherefore thou art no more a Servant, but a Son. 
 
 Gal. 4. 5. 1 John 3. 2. Beloved, now are we the Sons of 
 
 God ', but it does not appear what we fliall be, but when he 
 fhall appear, we fhall be like him t for we fliall fee him as he 
 is. Thofe that are at prefent the Children of God, 
 (hall be greatly advanced when Chrift (hall come -, 
 they are at prefent Heirs of God, and joy nt Heirs with 
 Chrift, and then they (hall be put into the full enjoy* 
 ment of him, John 14. 2, 3. 
 
 Thirdly, Every Believer is one with Jefus Chrift, 
 and once united to Chrift and for ever. Tirft, Eve- 
 ry Believer is one with Jefus Chrift ; this appears in 
 that Faith is the Fruit of the Vine, the Believer is the 
 Branch : Chrift is the Vine, the Branch can't bear this 
 Fruit of it felf, unlefs it be in the Vine ; Without me 
 you can do nothing, faith Chrift, or fevered from me, 
 fo the Margent reads it, John 15.5. Though Union 
 with Chrift, antecedent unto Faith, be denied by fome, 
 I know x none that do deny Believers to be one with 
 Chrift. Secondly, Once in Chrift and for ever ; A 
 Bone of him fljall not be broken -, not only of his natural 
 Body, but of his Myftical Body alfo, John 6. 38. / 
 came down from Heaven, rtot to do my own Will, but the 
 Will of him that fent me, and this is the Will of him that 
 fent me, that of all that he hath given tne 1 jhould loofe 
 nothing. 
 
 Fourthly, 
 
€vutfy wivtomttb. 119 
 
 Fourthly , Every Believer is juftified; -^13.39. By 
 him all that believe are juflified from all things^ which they 
 could not be juflified from by the Law ofMofes : Juftificatioa 
 confifts ot two parts, there is a discharge trom Guilt, 
 and a Title to Life and Glory ; both thefe are the pri- 
 viledges of Believers. 
 
 Fir/}, A Difcharge from Guilt, and that from all, 
 paft, prefent, and to come, Heb. 10. 14. By one offer- 
 in? he hath for ever ferfetled them that are fantlified: 
 That a Believer is fanctified, none can deny } take fan- 
 ttification for a reparation, or take it properly, that 
 perfection here is to be under (tood of the pardon of 
 iin, is granted by your felf, and the word for ever fhews 
 that it is all fin, paft, prefent;, and to come, fo that 
 here is nothing left to damn. God damns none but 
 for fin, nor will he damn any whofe fins are all par- 
 doned. 
 
 Secondly , Juftification confifts in a Title to Life and 
 Glory, Rom, 5. 18. and this is a Believers priviiedge 
 too, John 5. 16 » Whofoever bclieveth [hall not peri[h 7 but 
 have cverlafling life. 
 
 Secondly, A Believer is fecured by principles of 
 Grace infufed into him, 1 John 3.9. He that is born 
 of God doth not commit fin, neither can he, becaufe he is 
 born of God, his feed remaineth in him : The feed of Grace 
 is of an immortal nature, it never dies away, John 
 4. 14. Whofoever jhall drink of the Water that I (hall give 
 him, it Jhall be in him a well of water fpringing up to everlaft- 
 ing life, and he fiall never thirfi ^ that is, he fhall never 
 dye for thirft, for there is a well of water in him, and 
 it's a fpringing well, and (hail remain fo, till the Soul is 
 made perfectly happy. 
 
 Thirdly, Every Believer is fecured by acts of Grace 
 exerted by him j there is not one Believer but is built 
 upon a rock, he bottoms on Chrilr, or he is not a Be- 
 liever j and being founded there, he is fecure : Vpon 
 
 this 
 
120 €tttrt$ sumto'cateD, 
 
 this rock, wifl I build my Churchy and the Gates of Hcli\ 
 fntll not prevail againfl it, Mat. \6. The Houfe that was 
 built upon a rock^ flood ; when the wind blew, and the flood, 
 arofe, and the rain fell, the houfe fell not, fork was found- 
 ed upon a rock >' Chrift hath prornifcd that the Gates of 
 Hell fhall not prevail againfl: it, and if all the pow- 
 ers of Hell can't remove him from the rock, what 
 can ? a Believer hath taken hold of him who is that 
 anchor within the vail, both fure and fiedfaft, Heb. 6. 19. 
 A Believer lies at Anchor as it were, and there he is fe- 
 cure ; whatever ftorm may come, he (hall never make 
 fhipwr^ck of Faith and a good Confcience. But' you 
 will fay, may not the Cable break, Faith be loft, and 
 the Soul (hipwracktatlaft ? I anfwer, no, there is a 
 double Cable, as the Soul apprehends Chrift by Faith, 
 fo Chrift apprehends or comprehends the Soul by his 
 fpirit, PhU. 3. 12.. Chrift will not let go the Sou), 
 2nd fo long the Soul cannot let go Jefus Chrift, He 
 is kept by the power of God through faith to Salvatiow, 
 i Pet. 1. 5. God does not keep the Soul that keeps 
 it felf in the faith, but he keeps the Soul of a Belie- 
 ver through faith ; fo that he (hall certainly Re- 
 ceive the end of his faith, even the fahation of his Soul, 
 verfep. 
 
 Fourthly^ A Believer is fecured by gracious promi- 
 fes given to him : To us are given exceeding great and 
 precious promifes, 2 Pet. i . 4. Now the promifes that 
 arc given to a Believer I fhall rank under three Heads : 
 Fir ft, Promifes of Security againfl: Sin and Satan. 
 Secondly, Ofperfcverance in Grace here: And, Thirdly, 
 Of Glory hereafter. 
 
 Firft, He hath the promife of fecurity againft (in, 
 Rom. 6. 14. Sinfljall not have dominion over you, for you are 
 not under the Law but under Grace: Not under the Law as 
 a Covenant of Works,but under Grace, or the Covenant 
 of Grace} (in may rage, but it fliall not reign ; it may 
 
 aiTaulr, 
 
. crafty saitttwatea. tii 
 
 aflault, but it lhall not overcome ^ it may captivate, 
 but it (hall not fubject ; it may wound, but it (hall 
 not kill ^ the power of fin is broke, (that is, the kil- 
 ling powex ) in our deliverance from the Law : The 
 firength of fin is the Law ; but a Believer hath victory 
 over it through Chrift. 
 
 Secondly, He hath the promife of fecurity from Sa- 
 tan, Mat. 16. 18. Vpon this Kocl^will 1 build my Church t 
 and the gates of Hell jhall not prevail againfi it. 
 
 Secondly , A Believer has promifes of perfeverance 
 here, Jer. 1 7. 7, 8. Bleffed is the man whotrufieth in thee,afd 
 whofe hope the Lord is : He jhall be like a tree planted by the ri- 
 vers of water , that fendeth forth his roots by the fir earns, 
 he jhall not* know when heat comet h, neither be careful i?i 
 the year of drought, his leaf flmll be green, and he fball 
 not ceafe to yield his fruit : Pfal. 125. I* They that trufi 
 in the Lordfhallbe as Mount Sion, that never can be remc* 
 ved: As the mountains are round about Jerufalem, fo is the 
 Lord round about them that fear him, from henceforth evtn 
 for ever. He that comet h unto me fijall never hunger, and he 
 that believeth in me jhall never thirfi, Joh 6". 35. He (hall 
 never dye for hunger, nor for thirlt : My (hetp hear my 
 voice, and they follow me, and I give to them eternal life, 
 and they fh all never per ifh, neither jhall any man plucky them 
 out of my hands *, my Father that gave them me is greater 
 than all, and none jhall plucky them out of my fathers hands, 
 John 10. 27. Thefe promifes, and many more that I 
 could offer, are all abfolute, and every Believer has an 
 intereft in them. 
 
 Thirdly, A Believer has promifes of Glory hereafter, 
 John 3. id. That whofoever believeth fl)ould not perifli, but 
 have everlafiing life : Mark 16.16. He :hat believeth ahd is 
 baptizjed Jhall be faved ; John 6. 40. And this is my Fathers 
 will, that whofo feeth the Son, and believeth on him, jhould 
 have everlafiing life. 
 
 Fourthly, Believers have fecurity by the Prayer of 
 
 Chnit 
 
i22 cwtfc qtfn&tcate&. . 
 
 Chrift: for them, John 17. He. prayed for them that 
 did believe, and them that fhould believe. Fir ft 7 That 
 God would keep them in the World, from the evil of 
 the World. Secondly? That they might be with him 
 where he is, to behold his Glory. Chrift never prayed 
 but God heard him, John 1 1. 42. And I know that thou 
 hearefl me always. I hope by all this I have put the bu- 
 linefs of the perleverance of every true Believer beyond 
 difpute, and have hereby ftrengthened rny Arguments 
 to prove that the Covenant of Grace cannot be bro- 
 ken by the Subjects thereof. 
 
 Fifthly? You fay, you brought Johns* 36. lThef. 
 1 . 8, 9. Heb. 2. 2, 3. Heb. 10. 28, 29. to prove trvat 
 the Covenant of Grace might be broken, and that it 
 threatens a curfe for the breach of it. 
 
 Reply. The firft three of thefe Texts fpeaks of final 
 Unbelievers, thefe I deny to be the Subjects of the Co- 
 venant of Grace; They nee none of ChrifPs jhcep? for if 
 they had? they fljould have heard Chrifts voice? and have 
 followed him? John 10.27,28. And if they were none, of 
 Chrifts? they were none of Abrahams feed? and fo not heirs 
 according to the promife. 
 
 Sixthly? You fay, I ask you how thefe can be lookt on 
 as the Subjects of the Covenant of Grace, that (hall be 
 condemned for difobeying the Gofpel ? And you may 
 askraeag?in, how they (hall be condemned for difo- 
 beying the Gofpel that are no ways under it ? 
 
 Reply. I do not know, neither do I believe that fuch 
 as never heard of the Gofpel (hall be condemned for the 
 breach of it •? but it's one thing to be under the com- 
 mands of the Gofpel, and another thing to be interefted 
 in the Covenant of Grace.'. Such as are none of Chrift's 
 may be under Gofpel-Laws, but there are none but 
 Chrift's that have an intereft in that Covenant, Gal. 
 3. 29. You fay your felf, Book the Second, page 17- 
 that the Jews were Aliens as well as others, till they 
 
 belkv- 
 
€ftut$ suinbicatea 12 j 
 
 believed, and yet they were certainly under Gofpel- 
 Laws before they did believe, -^2.38. The Pagans 
 alfo were under Gofpel-Commands, when the Go- 
 fpel was preached to them, though they never did 
 embrace it ; and will you fay that fuch as never em- 
 brace the Gofpel had an intereft in the Covenant of 
 Grace? 
 
 Seventhly^ You query, How they may have Salva- 
 tion offered to them by the Gofpel-Covenant, that 
 have no intereft in the Gofpel-Covenant? 
 
 Reply. Here again I muft tell you,it's one thing to have 
 Salvation offered, and another thing to have an in- 
 tereft in the Covenant. What I have already faid con- 
 cerning the Precepts, I may here fay concerning the 
 Promifes, the Jews that did not embrace the Word, 
 had the offer as well as thofe that did, yft** 2. 39* 
 And yet it's acknowledged by your felf, that they were 
 aliens as well as others, and not tobelookconasinte- 
 refted in the Covenant of Grace, till ihey did believe, 
 and fo were the Pagans to whom the Gofpel was preach- 
 ed, and yet they had the offer of the promife as well as 
 others, and in the offer of the promife there is the of- 
 fer of Salvation. 
 
 Again, You tell me, page 60. That the promife was 
 offered to the 4 Jewj, but they had no actual right to it, 
 till they believed and were converted ; and what .now 
 muftaperfon be lookt on as having an intereft in the 
 Covenant, that has no a&aal right to the promife ? 
 
 Eightly^ You fay, my Reply to Heb. 10. 2. 8. 29. is, 
 that fuch as were faid to be fan&ified by the blood of the 
 Covenant, were fuch as were fo in appearance only, and 
 not really fuch j this Anfwer.you fay doth not agree 
 with the Text j where are Hypocrites or bareProfef- 
 fors faid to be fandtified by the blood of Chrift ? 
 
 Reply. Ibavetoid youajready, and you took no no- 
 tice of it, why would you know it again ? I told you 
 
 the 
 
124 Crutij vtittltf eaten. 
 
 the Churches were frequently ftyled Saints, though 
 there were Hypocrites among them, and I do not know 
 upon what ground they were fo ftyled, nor yet upon 
 what ground any may be fo ftyled, but upon their pro- 
 tellion i> we cannot judge the Hearts of any } the Apoitles 
 ftyled the Churches Saints, 1 Cor. i. 2. To them that are 
 fanttified in Chnfi Jefus y called to be Saints ^ this was in 
 •he judgment di Charity, not in the judgment of Infal- 
 libility. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, this Text will agree well enough 
 with that in Phil. 1.6. and that it's true, That God 
 that hath begun a good work-in hs will not ceafeto perfect 
 it ^ provided we perfevere to make a good ufe of his 
 Grace} and it's as true, if we neglecl our duty, and 
 abufe his Grace, we may fall from our fanftified 
 Stare. 
 
 Reply. Thefe Provifo's are not in the Text, they 
 ere put in by yourfelf, nor can you give me one Text 
 to prove them ; and as for the perfeverance of the Saints, 
 I have fufficicntly proved it already, and need fay no 
 
 more. 
 
 Ninthly, You fay, ifformalProfeflbrsmay tranfgrefs 
 the Commands of the Gofpel, then they muft needs be 
 under the preceptive part of the Covenant of Grace, for 
 the Commands of the Gofpel area part thereof as well 
 as the Promifes. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, If fuch as are under Gofpel-Precepts are 
 fubjects of the Covenant of Grace, then fas I faid be- 
 fore ) Jews and Pagans to whom the Gofpel was preach- 
 ed ( though they never came to make a profefiion 
 thereof) were the fubjects of the Covenant, and this 
 your own principles will not allow. 
 
 Secondly, if Gofpel-Precepts be a part of the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, why did you leave them out in the de- 
 scription you gave of the Covenant, page so. Iwillbe 
 merciful to rheir unriyhtwijnef< y and their fins and in'tauities 
 
€mtfy mitxbicatm 125 
 
 will I remember no more : This ( you fay ) is the fubftanct 
 of the Covenant of Grace ; here are no Precepts, there- 
 fore it feems they are no part of the fubftance of the 
 Covenant. ' 
 
 Thirdly, I would query, How it appears that Gofpel 
 Precepts are a part of the Covenant as well as the Pro- 
 mifes ? You do not find any of them mentioned, where 
 the Covenant is raoft clearly treated of, asG>#. 17. 7. 
 3^.31.33,34. nor any where elfe, nor have you offer- 
 ed any Scripture to prove it. 
 
 Fourthly, I deny that any have an Interefl in the Co- 
 venant of Grace, that have no intereft in the Promifes. 
 
 Fifthly, I will give you my thoughts of the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, and then leave you to judge of it : It's 
 a mutual compact between the Father and the Son, 
 for the Redemption and Salvation of a certain num- 
 ber of Mankind, wherein Chrift hath engaged to per- 
 form fuch Conditions as the Father propofed* and the 
 Father again engaged himfelf by many promifeson his 
 part, fome of which were peculiar to the Son, others 
 made to the Son for thofe for whom the Son undertook^ 
 the latter of which were all free, with refpecl; to the 
 ftibje&s, upon which account it's called the Covenant 
 of Grace, and I doubt not to prove every part of this 
 defcription, if neceffity required it. 
 
 Temhly, You fay* that while God waited for Mens 
 Converfion, and allowed them fufficient Grace, they 
 were in a Capacity to repent, and if they had truly 
 repented, they fnould have obtained mercy, and con- 
 fequently then they had an intereft in the Covenant 
 of Grace. 
 
 Reply. I do not know what you mean by this allow- 
 ance of Grace to capacitate'men to repent : H you mean 
 the firfl degree of Grace, or that which is called the ha- 
 bit, or principle of Grace, which is infufed in the work 
 of Regeneration, which alone can make men capable 
 
 I oi 
 
i26 crutij Qsuftfcatefe 
 
 of Repentance, I grant, that fuch have an intereft in 
 the Covenant of Grace : True Repentance is a fruit of 
 intereft, not the caufe ; but what is this to thofe v that 
 llveanddyeimpenitently, whatever Gofpel- means they . 
 live under ? 
 
 Eleventhly, You fay, that if it be granted tome, that 
 none but fuch as are born of God, are the futye&s of 
 the Covenant of Grace, then I will prove, that fuch as 
 are born of God can't poflibly fall away, and yet the 
 Text that I alledge wiii hardly do it. 
 
 Reply. Firfl, I defire no fuch grant of you, nor will I 
 accept it ; I fay that all the ele<S of God are the fubjedts 
 thereof, and their new-birth is a fruit of their intereft, 
 they are boni by promife, Gal 4. 28. We Brethren , as 
 tfaac was, are the Children of the Promife. 
 
 Secondly, If I prove, that thofe that are born of God 
 can't fall away, though it be with hardfhip, yet if it be 
 done, it's well enough. You confefs, that the Text I 
 bring, 1 john$. 9. proves that a regenerate man, whilft 
 he remains fo, will not commit wilful deliberate fins, 
 or allow himfelf in a courfe of fin, becaufe fuch finning is 
 irreconcilable with a regenerate ftate. 
 
 Reply. 1 thank you for allowing my Expofition thus 
 far, and I hope you will allow it farther, yet, I fup- 
 pofe you will grant me this alfo, that fins not allow- 
 ed will not cau£e him to degenerate again ^ for if 
 they fhould, then none would remain in a regenerate 
 Hate, becaufe there is no man living that finneth not, 
 though not with the* full confent of the will, Rom. 7. // 
 J do that which I allow not, then I confent to the Law, that 
 it is good: So that nsno more I that do it, but fin that 
 dwelleth in me. 
 
 But you fay, this Text doth argue an impoffibili- 
 ty for a regenerate man to commit deliberate fins. 
 
 Reply, tirft, I hope it's impoffible for him to com- 
 mit deliberate fins while he remains regenerate, (his 
 
 you 
 
tfttitfy witibtiatz& 127 
 
 you mult grant me, or elfe you are inconfiilcnt with 
 your felf ; for you confefs that fuch finning is irreconci- 
 lable with a regenerate ftate, and now give me leave 
 to ask you, how a regenerate man may become degene- 
 rate again ? Virfb Sins of Commiffion will not 
 
 deftroy his regenerate ftate, for he can't allow himfelf 
 in fuch fins, and fins not allowed of cannot do it. 
 Secondly, The World neither by its frowns nor by its 
 flatteries can do it -, For he that is born of God overcometh 
 the World, i John 5.4. Thirdly ', The Devil can't do 
 it,. For he that is bornofGod keepeth hhnfelf, and that 
 wickedone toucheth him not, 1 John 5.18. It remains then, 
 that nothing but fins of omiffion can caufe a regenerate 
 man to become degenerate j and here again, they mulE 
 be deliberate, wilful neglects of known Gofpel-duties 5 
 for if the bear omiffion of duty through Weaknefs and 
 Infirmity, for want of Lighe and Knowledge, or from 
 a fndden guft of Temptation, fhould caufe a regenerate 
 man to become degenerate, none would remain in a re- 
 generate ftate, for there are Omiftjons in the belt 
 as well as Commiffions. For, Fir ft, His feed re- 
 maineth in him, the Principles of Grace that are in- 
 fufed in the Work of Regeration are of an immortal 
 nature 5 this feed remaining in him* he cannot fin either 
 by omiffion or commiffion, that is, with fullconfent and 
 allowance. Secondly, Where there; is Life, there will 
 be motion, fome breathing, tho' weak breathing ; John 
 4. 1 4. But whofo drinketh of the water that I pall give him± 
 it ftiall be in him a well of Water, [fringing up toeverUfting 
 life. Thirdly, Such have the Spirit" of God fent forth 
 into their Hearts, Gal. 4. 5. Becatlfeye are Sons, Ood 
 hath fent forth the fpirit of his Son into your hearts, crying 
 Abba, Father ; the Spirit puts the Soul upon duty,, 
 and helps in duty \ We how not what to pray for as we 
 ought, but the fpirit helpeth our infirmities, Rom. 8. the 
 Spirit 4»f 0pd canfeth the Soul to walk in his ftatutes, 
 
 \ 2, am 
 
i28 cwtij muTiJicatek 
 
 and to obferve his judgments, and do them. Fourthly, 
 When God hath lent forth the Spirit into the heart, it 
 fhall remain there, John 14. i 5. And I will pray the Father, 
 and he flj all give you another Comforter, that he may abide 
 with you for ever ; even the fpirtt of truth , whom the World 
 cannot receive, btcaufe it knoweth him not ; butyeknorv him, 
 for he fiall be in you, and abide with you : By all this it ap- 
 pears, that a perfononce regenerate is for ever regene- 
 rate. The other Scripture, John 10. 28. that I brought 
 to prove that a regenerate foul can't fall away again, 
 ^ou fay, doth evidently fuppofe our compliance with 
 his Grace. 
 
 Reply. Hath Chriffc undertaken to make us compliant, 
 or hath he not ? if not, then are we under an impoffibi- 
 lity, for we can neither will nor do of our felves ; 
 Cnrift hath faid, Without me ye can do nothing, John 15. 
 5. If he hath, then are we ftill in a fate ftate -, and 
 that he hath is evident, Pfal. no. 3. Thy people fiall be 
 wiUingin the day of thy powsr. 
 
 Secondly, Chrift hath here promifed to give them 
 eternal life, that they (hall never perifh \ this is enough 
 to prove their perfevering (late : If they (hall come 
 fafe to the end cf their way, then (hall they hold out 
 in their way to \hi end; lt*s he that endures to the end 
 fhall be faved *, but thefe (hall be faved, therefore they 
 fhal] endure to the end. 
 
 Thirdly, Chrift hath promifed, that no man (hall 
 ever pluck them out of bis hands; he hath aflured u?, 
 that his Father is greater than all, and that none (hall 
 ever be able to pluck them out of his Father's hand; nei- 
 ther Men, nor Devils, (hall ever be able to pluck them 
 thence 5 the power of God is engaged to keep them, 
 and that power muffc needs be fufficient, for it's om- 
 nipotent, Rom. 14. 4. Who art thou that judge (I another 
 mansjervant, to his own mafter he (iandeth orfalleth, yea, 
 .be fhall be upheld, for Cod is able to make him ft and: The 
 
 Apoftle 
 
€vutty minttcatzh 129 
 
 Apoflle could not argue barely from the power of Goc', 
 that he fhould be upheld, ( though his power is omnipo- 
 tent ) unlefs ic were engaged to uphold. 
 
 Secondly flow fay,that God doth enable us to perfevere 
 withfuch a power as is able to perfwade, but doth not 
 neceflicate us to be good. 
 
 Reply. Firftj If this power be able to perfwade, it's 
 well enough, then we fliall be good, if we are not, this 
 power is not able to perfwade us. 
 
 Secondly^ Though God does not necefiitate us to be 
 good whether we will or no, yet the will beingchanged, 
 and the Soul principled unto good, the A&ions will be 
 good, Mat. 1 2. 3 5. «<4 good man out of the good treafttre 
 of his heart bringeth forth good things : And fuch are the 
 fubje&s of this promife. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, the great Queftion is, Whether 
 we may not through our own default feparate our felvcs 
 from Jefus Chrilt ? 
 
 Reply. Though you call, this the great Qaeftion, yet 
 it feems to me there is no room for fuch a queftion in 
 the Text ^ is not the power of the Son, and of the Fa- 
 ther, that ftands engaged to keep us, fufficient to pre- 
 vent fuch a Departure from Chrift ? 
 
 Secondly, If it be the will of the Father that of all thofe 
 that he hath given' him he fhould loofe nothing, then. 
 we can't feparate our felves from Chrift; But it is the 
 will of the Fat her 7 that of aU that he hath given him he 
 fhould loofe nothing - therefore we can't feparate our 
 felves from Chrift. Iffheepbe loir, it's the fame thing 
 to the owner of them, whether it be by taking away, 
 or ftraying away, will the Shepherd belefs blamelefs if 
 the (beep ftray away and be loft, then he would be 
 if they were ftolen away ? I wonder what kind of Shep- 
 herd you would make of Jefus Chrift, that has a charge 
 from the Father to keep his fheep, fo that none of them 
 be loft, and yet that he Ihould take no more care, buc 
 
 I 3 fuffcf 
 
t ?o Ctutlj tajinuicateu* 
 
 faffcr them to ftray away and perifh, to get out of his 
 
 hands and be gone, when he muft needs fee the going of 
 them. Was Chrifl; fo tender as to come down From 
 Heaven to Earth to feek them out, when they had 
 loft themfelves ? Was he fo ready to do the will of his 
 Father, That he came down from Heaven not to do his 
 own will, but the will of him that fent him, and will he 
 now regard them no imre, nor the will of the Fa- 
 ther any more, but fuffer them to wander, to ftray 
 away, and be lofl: again ? How will the Lord take this 
 at the hands of Chrifl; ? Will he not require his flock 
 £t the hands of his fhepherd? Sxz what the Lord faith 
 to the Shepherds, Ezck- 34. 4. he brings a charge 
 againfi: them, Becaufe they had not brought again that 
 which was driven away, nor fouvht out that which was 
 lofl, verfe 10. He tells them plainly, he will require 
 the flock ac their hands: He who was fo faithful to 
 his Engagement as* to bring them into his fold, will 
 not be leis faithful to keep them there when brought 
 in. And this may befaid alio for the fheep, that when 
 once they know their Shepherds voice, They will fol- 
 low him • aflranger they wiH not follow, for they know not 
 the voice of a ft ranger y John 10. 1 gave you 1 John 2. 19. 
 alfo to prove that fuch as do fall finally and totally are 
 none of Chrift's \ They are gone out from us, but they were 
 not all of us', if they had been of us, they would no doubt 
 have continued with us ; their total and final Apoftacy 
 made it manifeft that they were not all of us : But who 
 were they, 11 they were not of us? 
 
 I Anfwer, the Sons of Hagar, not of Sarah \ the Sons 
 of the Bond-woman, not ot the Free. There are but 
 thefe two that are Mothers of Children, and the Apo- 
 ftle tells us, Gal. 4. 24. That thefe things are an allegory, 
 and hold forth the two Covenants *, that is, the Covenant 
 of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Final Apoftates 
 then are no; the Subject* of the Covenant of Grace 9 
 
 that; 
 
that Covenant fecures the Subje&s thereof, that they 
 fhall not depart from God, Jer. 32. 40. but this you 
 pafs'd without a reply ;fo that my Argument Hands good, 
 that the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken by the fub- 
 je&s thereof, and that it's a good note to diftinguifli it 
 from that Covenant into which the Natural Seed were 
 taken, confidered as fuch, which was a Covenant that 
 might be broken, Gen. 17. 14. and which was bro- 
 ken by the Subjects thereof, Jer. 31.32. 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 
 TH E Second Difference yon fay I make between 
 thefe two Covenants is this, that Covenant in- 
 to which the Jews entred with their feed was conditio- 
 nal, tjie Covenant of Grace is abfolute ; and whereas 
 you proved that the Covenant of Grace is conditional, 
 I mike feveral exceptions againft it. You fay my firit 
 Exception is this, if it be a free Covenant", then it is 
 not conditional •, if it be conditional, then it it not 
 free; if it be of Grace, then it is not of Works, other- 
 wife Grace is no more Grace \ if it be of Works, then 
 it is not of Grace, otherwife Work is no more Work , 
 that uniefs the nature of thefe two are changed, they 
 can't ftand together in the buflnefs of Salvation ; it's the 
 nature of Grace to give freely, and the nature of Works 
 to receive as a Debt } that is, when Works are .per* 
 formed(3S Conditions. To this you fay, that Works ab- 
 folutely perfect, or done with a conceit of merit, are in* 
 confident with Grace. 
 
 Reply. The Apoftle makes no fuch diltih&ion of 
 Works, but (hews the inconfiftency of Works and 
 Grace in point of Juftifkation, and that is the poinc 
 that is contended about in this Epiftle, granted by your 
 felf ; now. the Apoftle doth here difdairn works under 
 any coniideration whatfoever, as having no hand io it, 
 
 I 4 or 
 
1 1 2 €vufy ©ttt&icatek 
 
 or as being a condition thereof, the performance of 
 which entitling thereunto } fo that there is no bring* 
 ing in of Works, but by excluding of Grace. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, the condition or Gofpel-Obedi- 
 ence doth not infringe the Free-grace of God, for it was 
 sn ad of Free-grace to make Faith and Imperfect Obe- 
 dience the condition of Judication and Salvation, 
 and to accept and faveon fuch conditions. 
 
 Reply. Firft y That which you here call conditions, 
 as Faith, and Iniperfecl Obedience, ( by which 1 fup- 
 pofe you mean fincere Obedience ) are themfelves fome 
 of the Bleffings of this Covenant, the fruit of Intereft, 
 and not the conditions. Faith is that which the righte- 
 oufnefs of Ghrift (which is that righteoufnefs by which 
 we are justified) entitles us to, and not that that enti- 
 tles us to that righteoufnefs, 2 Pet. 1. 2. To you that have 
 obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteoufnefs 
 of God, and our Saviour Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Secondly*) I deny that Faith and Imperfect Obedience 
 are the conditions of Juftificatioh and Salvation, or that 
 either of thefe are be/lowed on th« fubjecls of this Co- 
 venant or Condition ? this I fhall clear when I come to 
 fpeak more particularly to it. 
 
 Thirdly, I deny that to be a free gift that is beftow'd 
 on conditions. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that good works arifing from Faith 
 in Chrifr, and done without a conceit of Merit, confifts 
 yery well with Free- grace. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I grant it in point of Sanctification, but 
 I deny it in point of Justification, and that's the point 
 that's in debate ; if it be of Works, then it's no 
 more of Grace, therefore Works and Grace are nos 
 confident. 
 
 Secondly, I would ask, Whence Faith in Chrifr, does 
 rife ? whether that be not the Free-gift of God ? 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that it will hardly confift with the 
 
 Wifc 
 
cmtft tflittttricatea* 135 
 
 Wifdom and Dominion of God over Men, to relin- 
 quifli his Right to their Service, and to part with his 
 chiefeft Bieffings, without requiring any Condition of 
 them. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I grant, that it's inconfiftent both with 
 his Wifdom, and Dominion over Men, to relinquifh 
 his Right to their Service j and I fliould as much con- 
 tend for his Sovereignty, if oppofed, as now I do for 
 the freenefs of his Grace and Mercy. 
 
 Secondly, I would Query, Why it may not copfift 
 with his Wifdom, and Dominion over Men, to part 
 with his chiefeft Bleffings without a Condition, as well 
 as his lefTer ? Sure 1 am, it will ftand with his Grace and 
 Mercy very well, and the greater the Blefling is that is 
 freely bellowed, the more free Grace fnines out in the 
 bellowing of it, and the advancing of one Attribute 
 does not interfere with another. You grant, that fome 
 of the Bleflings are freely bellowed, as the firft degree 
 of Grace, &c. and if fo, then a free Gift is not incon- 
 fiftent with his Wifdom and Dominion ; and why may 
 not the beftowing of Jollification, and Glorification, be 
 as confident as the bellowing of Grace ? 
 
 Thirdly, He hath given Jefus Chrift freely, .without 
 any Condition, i John 4,. 10. Herein is Love, not that 
 we loved him, but that he loved us, and [em his Son to be the 
 ?■< opitiation for our Sins: He parted with Jefus Chrift 
 freely, this confifted with his Wifdom and Dominion, 
 and I do not know a greater Blefling that the God of 
 Heaven had to beftow, nor any thing that he can with- 
 hold, where he hath bellowed this: He that [pared not 
 his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how fh all he not 
 with him freely give us all things ? Rom. 8. 32. God docs 
 not fet his Grace to Sale ^ what he gives, he gives freely. 
 You fay, my next Exception is this, that a Covenant 
 doth not always imply a mutual Obligation, there may 
 be a Covenant made without it, as the Covenant made 
 
 with 
 
, ? 4 Crtitlj mtnDtcateu, 
 
 with all Flelh, Gen. 9. that he would drown the World 
 no more, that required no Condition. 
 This you fay is not a Covenant, but an abfolute 
 
 ™ep/y. F'V/?, The Lord calls it a Covenant, and he 
 knew what Name to give it as well as you; and I 
 think it very proper for us to call that a Covenant 
 that God hath fo named. 
 
 Secondly, If this may be called an abfolute Promife, 
 theft the Covenant of Grace may be called an abfolute 
 Promife too, and then I think you will not deny it to 
 be a free Covenant. I have more ground in Scripture 
 to call that an abfolute Promife with refpeft to the fub- 
 Kts thereof, than you have to call this fo; for the 
 Scripture does often call that a Promife, Mtx. 39- 
 Th' Promife is to you; that is, the Covenant of Grace ; 
 Gal 3 1-7 And this I fay, that the Covenant reach not 
 confirmed before of God inChrift, the U* which was four 
 hundred and" thirty Tears after could not difanul that it 
 (Imldmake the Promife of none effetl : Here the Covenant 
 and the Promile is the fame thing, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be 
 Chrills then are ye Abrahams Seed, and Heirs according 
 to the Promife j.that is, according to the Covenant ; but 
 where can you give me one Inftance in Scripture, that 
 the Covenant made with all Flefh is called a Promife. 
 
 Secondly, 1 gave you another Inftance of the Cove- 
 nant that was between Jacob 2ndLaban, in behalf of 
 LabanH Daughters, that were the fubjecls thereof, and 
 defired you to Ihew me what Condition was required 
 of them, but you could pafs it without a Reply. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that there is one ftrange thing 
 which iafferc, and that is, that the Covenant of Grace 
 wa made between the Father and the Son, for, and 10 
 behalf of the Eleft, for which I bring If*. 49- *«><» 
 1, too. Yon fay indeed, that here is mention made of 
 Gods purpofe to call in the Gentiles as well as the Jem 
 
 I 
 
into his Church, and that God would fend Jefus Chriffc 
 to do this, but here is no mention that the Covenants 
 of Grace was made between the Father and the Son. 
 
 Reply. Though there be no mention made in exprefs 
 terms, yet here is enough exprefs'd to give us ground 
 to conclude, that the Covenant of Grace was made be- 
 tween the Father and the Son ; here is not only a pur- 
 pofe, but here is a mutual compaft, verfe ^, 5,5. in 
 which tjie Lord propofeth the loft Sheep of the Houfe 
 of Ifrael. In the ifft place, here is fomething that 
 Chrift mu ft do for. them as well as for the Gentiles* 
 therefore his Work was not barely to bring the G entiles 
 into the Church * Thou art my Servant* ( that is Chrift ) 
 Ifrael* in whom I will be glorified ; then 1 [aid* (that is, the 
 Son) 1 have fpent my Strength for nought , I have laboured 
 in vain, ,yet furely my Judgment is with the Lord, and my 
 Workjwith my God: Chrift accepts of the firft Propofal, 
 To be God^s Servant, to raife up the Tribes of Jacob * here; 
 is not a Word of the Gentiles yet, and now the Father 
 anfwers again, verfe 5. And now faith the Lord that for*, 
 med me from the Womb to be his Servant, to bring Jacob a- 
 gain to him* though Jfrael be not gathered^ yet fj all it be alo- 
 t rious in the Eyes of the Lord, and my Godfoall be my (Irength ; 
 yet he fpeaks of Jfrael, and the gathering here is not 
 into a Church-ftate, but fome greater Work ; and the 
 Father goes on farther, verfe 6. it is indeed a light thing 
 that thou fhouldeft be my Servant* to raife up the Tribes of 
 Jacob, and to reft ore the prefer ved of Ifrael * J will alf ogive 
 thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou may* ft be my Salva- 
 tion unto the ends of the Earth. Here is firft a Compact 
 between the Father and the Son, which you fay is the 
 Nature of a Covenant ; in this Compact Chrift under- 
 takes to be a Redeemer, To raife up the Tribes of Jacob* 
 and to reftore the pre ferved of Jfrael : This could not be 
 done but by a Price paid, and though Jfrael, that were 
 firft propofed, were too few for lb great an underta- 
 
 king. 
 
i?6 Ctirt^ oxnDicateD. 
 
 king, yet Chrift flicks not at that, he confents to the 
 firft Propofal. 
 
 Secondly, Here is Salvation promifed upon Chrifts 
 undertaking, and that to the ends of the Earth. You 
 grant your felf, that none fhall be faved, but the Eleft 
 or faithful perfevering Chriftians, therefore this Sal- 
 vation promifed mufl be reftri&ed to a peculiar Peo- 
 ple ; if there had been no Covenant ftruck up between 
 the Father and the Son, what fhould the meaning of 
 that be, PfalmSp, 28. My Covenant [hall ft -and J r aft with 
 him for evermore i how could the Covenant of Grace 
 be called ChrifTs Covenant, as it is Zech.9. u. if he 
 had not been a party Covenanting? As for thee-, by the 
 Blood of thy Covenant have 1 fent forth thy Prifoners' ont 
 of the Pit y wherein there was no Water. 
 
 Thirdly, Here is a Promife made to Chrift with re- 
 flect to himfelf ; a Promife that the Lord would ftand 
 by him, verfe %. In an acceptable time have I heard thee, 
 And in the day of Salvation have Iholpen thee : This Chrift 
 bottomed upon, J fa. 50. 7. The Lord God will help me ; 
 and this Promife W3S made good when Chrift was of- 
 fered up, 2 Cor. 6. 2. And whereas you fay, that here 
 is a purpoie mentioned, that God will fend Chrift to 
 gather the Gentiles into his Church, as well as the * 
 Jews, it's quite another thing ; it's a mutual Compact 
 between the Father and the Son, wheiein the Son un- 
 dertakes to be a Redeemer both of Jew and Gentile, 
 and the Father promifed Salvation upon that underta- 
 king : I gave you likewife for the proof of this, that 
 the Covenant was made between the Father and the Son, 
 Ttt. 1.2. In hopes of Eternal Life, which God that cannot 
 lye promifed before the World was. Eternal Life is a com- 
 prehensive of all £ood, Grace here, and Glory hereaf- 
 ter : I queried, To whom was this Promife made, if 
 pot to Chrift? and for whom, if not for theEledt? and, 
 2. Tim. 1.9.. Who hath faved, and called us, not according 
 
 to 
 
€vutfy cutntJicateD. 157 
 
 to our Works , but according to his own Purpofe and Grace % 
 which was given to us in Chrift before the World was : BuE 
 neither of thefe have you made Reply to. 
 
 You Query, Whether this Covenant was made with 
 Chrift ? / will be merciful to their Vuri^hteoufnefs, and 
 their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more. 
 
 Reply. Firft, We are not to underftand here, by ma- 
 king the. Covenant, that firfl tranfadt that was between 
 the Father and the Son ; for the time to which the Apo* 
 ftle here refers was the time when Chrift was offered 
 up, as appears Htb. to. 14, 15. The Apoftle quotes 
 this very Text out of Jer. 3 1 . 34. to prove, That by one 
 Oblation Chrift had for ever perfected them that are fanbljf 
 fied, and brings in the Holy Ghoft to witnefs the 
 Truth of this. 
 
 Secondly, The Word that is tranflated make, ver. 8. 
 fignifies to Confummate; Behold the Day is come, faith 
 the Lord, that I will Confummate a new Covenant with the 
 Houfe of Ifrael -, this Confummation was by the Blood 
 of Chrift. 
 
 Thirdly, That here is a Promife of the pardon of Sin, 
 hinders not but that this fame Covenant was rrtede with 
 Chrift, though he had nd Sin to pardon ; for the Pro- 
 mife refpects the fubjects of the Covenant, and no*: 
 Chrift as a party Covenanting. 
 
 You Query, Whether Chrift had Sins to be pardon- 
 ed, or a hard Heart to be cured ? 
 
 Reply. He hsd not, but we for whom this Covenant 
 
 was made with Chrift had both. Again, you asK, 
 
 Whether God was merciful to Chrift concerning the 
 debt he paid ? I Anfwer, No ; he had to do with- Ju- 
 flice, he paid the utmoft farthing -, but according to 
 your Doctrine, many of thofe for whom the debt was 
 paid, muft lie in Hell for the fame debt, Jnftice not 
 difcharging them on Chrifts fatisfadion, .And now 
 give me leave to abk, If Chrift were not a party Cove- 
 
 Dantiag^ 
 
138 flftutQ WLiuMi&ti& 
 
 nanting, why he muft die to confirm the Covenant ? 
 The Apoftle tells us, Heb.%. it muft be the Death of 
 the Teltator that muft confirm the Teftament. Ei- 
 ther the Covenant of Grace was confirmed by the Death 
 of Chrift, or it was not , if it was, then was he a par- 
 ty Covenanting 7 if it were not, then is the Covenant 
 of Grace of no force j for a Teftament is not of force 
 • till Men be dead. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, the chief thing that I infift upon, 
 to prove that the Covenant of Grace is not Conditi- 
 onal, is this, that God freely calleth us, and enlight- 
 eneth our Minds, and changeth our Wills, and afford - 
 eth us fufficient Grace to enable us to do what he re- 
 quires, without any Condition pre-required of us •, for 
 we cannot perform any Duty till thefe Bleflings are gi- 
 ven out to us, therefore Faith and Obedience that are 
 not antecedent to thefe Bleflings, are not the Conditi- 
 ons thereof. To this you Anfwer, that the Mercies 
 that God promifeth on his part in the New Covenant, 
 are partly abfolute, and partly conditional-, they are 
 of two forts \ the Mercies that are abfolutely promifed , 
 are the calling of us to Holinefs, the giving us the firft 
 degree of Grace, whereby our understandings are in- 
 lightened, our Wills reformed, thefe bleffings are free- 
 ly given us of God, not beftowed on us for any Work 
 of Righteoufnefs wrought by us, according to that of 
 the Apoftle, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Who hath faved m and called 
 us, not according to our Works, but according to his oxen 
 Turpfe and Grace, which was given to us in Chrifl Jefus 
 before the World was. He hath delivered us out of the 
 Power of Satan, and called us out of our vitious cour- 
 fes unto fanctity ; not becaufe we had deferved his fa- 
 vour, but of his free Mercy and Goodnefs defignsd us in 
 Chriit -, for we cannot Will nor do till God calleth us 
 by his Word and Holy Spirit out of an Eftate of Sin ? 
 and reformed! our Hearts and Wills £ and thefe Blef* 
 
 flogs 
 
flfcutl) tiutfcieateti 139 
 
 lings are always fuppofed as neceffary to enable us to do 
 what God requires, in order to obtain higher Mercies. 
 
 Reply. Firft, Free* Will is now out of doors, and I 
 hope that univerfal Redemption arid falling from 
 Grace will e*re long be out of door with yoii alio. 
 
 Secondly, I have now gained half the point, that the 
 Covenant of Grace is free and abfolute, with refpecl: 
 to the change of the Heart, and 1 doubt not but I 
 (hall gain the other part before I have done. 
 
 Thirdly^ Thefe Bleflings of the Covenant, that be 
 here granted to be abfolute, are either promifed to all, 
 or but to a feledi number. If you fay, they are promi- 
 fed to all, then I would Query, Whether they are be- 
 llowed on all or no? If you fay they are not, you will 
 then charge God with breach of Promife, for the Pro- 
 mife you confefs is abfolute : If you fay they are, then 
 I would Query, How thefe may be faid to be called by 
 h'sWord and Spirit out of a State of Sin, that never 
 had the Word vouchfafed to them ? If you fay, they are 
 promifed but to a felett number, then are there but a 
 felecl: number that are the fubjccts of this Covenant, 
 no more but fuch who in time (hall have their Hearts 
 changed. 
 
 Secondly, Thefe to whom thefe Bleflings are promi- 
 fed, are interefted in the Promife, antecedent to the en- 
 joyment of them j they are fuch, whofe Names were 
 written in the Lambs Book^of Life, from the Foundation of 
 the World, Rev. i 7. 8. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that the Mercies that are conditi- 
 onally promifed are efpecially thefe, pardon of Sin, 
 encreafe of Grace, and eternal Glory ; for we muft re- 
 pent and for fake Sin in order to obtain Mercy, Prov. 
 28. 13. 
 
 Reply, I have fpokento that Scripture in Proverbs al- 
 ready, and do grant that this muft be done in order ta 
 the fenfible enjoyment of Mercy, but not in order ta 
 
 obtiaa 
 
146 cratfc duttttitcatea. 
 
 obtain the Mercy it felf, which is the pardon of Sin ; 
 
 and as to the Bleffiogs, which you fay are conditionally 
 
 promifed, I (hall fpeak to them by and by. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, we mult improve Grace, or elfd 
 
 God will not give us a greater meafure, but will rather 
 
 withdraw that which he hath given, Mat. 13. 12. Luke 
 
 3. 18. 
 Reply. Firft, I grant, it's the Duty of gracious ones 
 
 to improve that meafure of Grace they have received , 
 and that it's the way to enjoy more. Acls of Grace are 
 a means to encreafe habits. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that it's a Condition entitling them 
 to more, or that God will ever withdraw the Princi- 
 ples of Grace where he hath once given them : The 
 Scriptures that you brought to prove it, do not at all 
 reach the Cafe :, that in Matthew fpeaks of a People to 
 whom Chrift fpake in Parables, to whom the Know- 
 ledge of the Myftery of the Kingdom of God was ne- 
 ver giver., verfe 1 1 . To yon it % is given to know the My fie- 
 ry of the Kingdom of God, but to them it is not given ; their 
 Eyes were never fpiritually enlightened to know the 
 myftery of the Kingdom of God, which you grant to 
 be a Mercy abfolutely promifed, and neceflary to ena- 
 ble us to do the Will of God, vzrfe 13. They feeing, fee 
 not, and hearing, hear not ; they were meer gracelefs ones, 
 fuch as the Apoftle fpeaks of, 1 Cor. 1. The natural 
 Aian receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God y nor can he 
 know them, for they are fpiritually difcerned : The other 
 Scripture, Lake 5. 18. 1 know not what -you brought 
 that for, unlefs it was to help me to Interpret this \ 
 From him that hath not, Jhall be taken away, even that: 
 which hs feemcth to have. Men may feera to be Religi- 
 ous that are not, they may feem to be Gracious*, 
 that never were really fo -, but where Men are truly 
 Gracious, God doth never, will never withdraw it ; fot 
 the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance -, 
 
 faherg 
 
Where the Root of the Matter is once planted, there ic 
 will relpain } He that is born of God, his Seed abideth in 
 Hm? i John 3. 9. 
 
 Thirdly ^ You fay, if we will enter into Heaven, we 
 muft obey the will of our Heavenly Father, Mat. 7. 21. 
 Reply. That Obedience to the Will of God is a Chri- 
 flians Duty, r grant ; that it is the way that leads to 
 Life *, that Heaven may be lookt on as a Christians Earn- 
 ing, I deny, or that bis Duty being performed may be 
 lookt on as a Condition entitling him thereunto. 
 
 Fourthly^ You fay, that thefe are the prime Bieffings 
 of the Covenant of Grace, that follow Faith and fin- 
 cere Obedience, and are promifed only on Conditions; 
 and if I would have fpoken to the purpofe, I fnould 
 have proved that there was no Condition required to 
 obtain thefe fpecial Bieffings. 
 
 Reyly. This Work was not cut out for rne in the 'aft $ 
 you made no Diftindtion then between Bieffings abfo* 
 lute, and Bieffings conditional, as now you ruve y I 
 fhall therefore endeavour to prove, that thofe you call 
 the chief and prime Bieffings of the Covenant of Grace, 
 are as free and abfolute.as the leaft. 
 
 Firft, The fubjefts of this Covenant have a Title to 
 , all thefe Bieffings, by vertue of their Relation unto 
 Chriffc, antecedent to any Condition performed by 
 them} this I fhall demonftrate by a few Arguments. 
 
 Fir]}, If the fubje&s of this Covenant are Chriit'Sjan-' 
 tecedent to the performance of any Condition, then 
 they have a Title to all thefe Bieffings antecedent there- 
 unto \ but the fubjects of this Covenant are Chrilt's, an- 
 tecedent to the performance of any Condition, there- 
 fore they have a Tide to thefe prime Bieffings, antece- 
 dent thereunto. The Minor is proved by PfaU 1 10.3; 
 Thy People before they were a willing People : John 17. 2. 
 They were given unto Chrift, before Eternal Life was given 
 t$ them by Chrifti The Major is proved by Gal, 3. 20., 
 
 K // 
 
H2 ^nt$ minUcattn, 
 
 Jf you be Chrift s, then are ye Abraham* j Seed, and Heirs at~ 
 wording to the Fromife. That Justification, San&ifica- 
 tion, and Glorification, are New Covenant Bleffings, 
 none will deny -, that fuch as are Chrift's have a Title to 
 all New-Covenant Bleffings, none can deny. 
 
 'Secondly, If fuch as are related to Chrift, are bkflld 
 with all fpiritual Bleffings in Chrift Jefus, then have 
 they a Title to all thefe Bleffings ; but they that are 
 related to Chrift, are bleft with all fpiritual Bleffings in 
 Chrift, therefore they have a Title to all thefe, Eph. 
 1.3. Blejftd be the God and Father of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, nho hath blefjed us with all fpiritual Bleffings in 
 heavenly f laces in Chrift. Univerfals do comprehend 
 fpecials, Generals do include particulars. 
 
 Thirdly, If fuch as are related unto Chrift, have a Ti- 
 tle to things prefent, and things to come too, then have 
 they a Title unto all thefe Bleffings \ but fuch as are 
 related unto Chrift, have a Title to things prefent, and 
 things to come too, therefore they have a right to all 
 thefe Bleffings ; 1 Cor, 3, 23. Things prefent, and things 
 to come, all are yours, and you are Chrift^s, and Chrift is 
 God?s. ■ It's Relation unto Jefus Chrift that is the 
 ground of our Title unto all thefe Bleffings, and not 
 any Condition performed by us ; we are compleat in 
 him, it is in Chrift Jefus that we have obtained an In- 
 heritance, being fredeftinated thereunto according to the yur- 
 f of e of him who wot k§th all things after the Counfelof his 
 own Will, Eph. 1. n. 
 
 Secondly, I fhall prove, that all thefe bleffings are 
 freely beltowed.on the fubjects of this Covenant, with- 
 out any Condition performed by them ; and here, 
 firfij I fhall prove, that we are freely juftified, Rom. 
 3. 24. Being juftified freely by his Grace, through the Re- 
 demption that is in Chrift "Jefus. There are two parts 
 in Juftification, there is the Pardon of Sin, and a Title 
 to Life and Glory; and both thefe are free, fbfti 
 
 The 
 
entity winttcatzk 145 
 
 The pardon of Sin is free, I fa. 43.2s. /, event am he 
 that blottetb out thy Tranfgreffions^ for my own fakf? and 
 will not remember thy Sins, If you find any Condition 
 here, either required of, or performed by the fubjsdts* 
 antecedent to the blotting out their Sins, pray (hew is 
 me : There are a great many things laid to their charge 
 in the preceeding verfes, but not one word by way of 
 Commendation, and yet their Sins are blotted out for 
 the Lords fake, Rom. 5. id. And, not as it was. by one 
 that finned % fo alfo is the free Gift^ for the offence was by 
 we to Condemnation^ but the free Gift is of many offences 
 unto Juftification. For a Gift to be free, and yet condi- 
 tional, are terms inconfiftent, Eph. 1.7. In whom we 
 have Redemption through his Bloody even the forgiven*; fs of 
 Sin. One great branch of this Covenant is, / will be 
 merciful to their unrghteoufnef 7 and their Sins and Iniqui~ 
 ties will I remember no more. The accomplifhment of 
 which promife was when Chrift was offered up, and 
 the evidence of the Spirit in this matter is produced to 
 prove, that Sin is for ever pardoned from the time of 
 Chrift's oblation, Heb. 10. 14, 15. and that is the rea- 
 fon that Sacrifices haveceas'd everfince, becaufe fin was 
 then remitted •, fo that the time when Sin was pardon- 
 ed, was before many of the fubjects of this Covenant^ 
 had a being, before they had actually done either good* 
 or evil ; and this is fufficient to demonftrate that Sin is 
 freely pardoned.- No Condition could be performed be- 
 fore we had a being. You fay your feif, Page 31. thac 
 faving and calling 2 Tim. 1.9. are ablohue, without 
 any work of Righteoufnefs performed by us ; now what 
 do you underftand by the word Saved ? it can't be meaac 
 of Sanctification, for th:*t is comprehended in Vocati- 
 on - nor can it be underftqod of Glorification, foe 
 Glorification, though it be not for Works, yet is it ao« 
 cording to Works, 2 Cor. 5. 10. but faving here i$ 
 not according to Works, therefore it muft ueceflarily 
 
be meant of Juflification, and fo the Word Saved is 
 
 taken frequently in Scripture, Eph.2. 5. When we were 
 dead in Trefpajfes and Sins hath quickned us together with 
 Chrift. ( By Grace ye are Saved. ) And this Salvation is 
 free, Mat. 1. 22. He fiatlfave his People from their Sins. 
 
 Secondly, There is in Juftiflcation a Title to Life and 
 .Glory, and that alfo is free, Rom. 5. 18. By the %ighte' 
 oufnef of one the free Gift came upon all Men to the Jutti- - 
 f canon of Life. The Righteoufnefs of Chrift is freely 
 given to us of God, and that is it that covers our guilt, 
 and entitles us to Life and Happinefs. 
 
 Secondly, The increafe of Grace is freely promifed, 
 and freely given, Pfalm 92. 12. The Righteous JhaU fiou- 
 rijh like the Palm-tree, they fliall grow like the C cedar in Le- 
 banon : Where is the Condition of this Proraife ? lfa m 
 40.29. He giveth flrength to the faint, and to him that has 
 no might he encreafeth flrength, Phil. 1. He that hath 
 begun a good work^ in you will not ceafe to perfect it, or fi - 
 nijh it, as the Margent has it. 
 
 Thirdly, Glorification is free, Rom. 5. ult. That as 
 Sin hath reigned unto Death, fo might Grace reign through 
 Righteoufnefs to Eternal Life, through Jefus Chrift our 
 Lord. Eternal Life is not called wages, as Death is, Rom. 
 6. ult. The H r ages of Sin is Death, but the Gift of Godis Ex- 
 ternal Life through J ejus Chrift our Lord. Luke 12. 32. 
 It's your Fathers good Pleafure to give you the Kingdom. 
 It's the Righteoufnefs of Chrift that is freely imputed 
 unto us that entitles unto Glory, and not any Condi- 
 tion performed by us, Rom. 5. 17. They that receive a- 
 bun dance of Grace, and of the Gift of Righteoufnefs, [hall 
 reign in Life by one Jefus Chrifi. Rom. 8. He that fpu- 
 Yed not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how 
 fhillhe not with him freely give us all things? But things 
 given us on Condition are not free j we are afTufed by 
 the Word, that all the parts of our Salvation from firft 
 to laft are of the Free Grace of God, Tit. 2. 1 1. The 
 
 Grace 
 
(Trace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared unto all 
 Men: in. the word it hath appeared, there is not one 
 New-Covenant Blefling but flows from the free Grace 
 of God, and if it be of Grace, it's no more of Works. 
 I have now proved, that thefe prime Bleffings of the 
 Covenant, (as you call them) Juftirkation, an increafe 
 of Sandification, and Glorification, are all as freely 
 promifed,' and as freely beftowed upon the fubjecls 
 thereof, as the other Bleffings of the Covenant are \ 
 whence ! conclude, that I have gained the other part 
 of the Point, and that there are no New-Covenant 
 Bleffings that hang on Conditions, the performance of 
 which entitles us thereunto, but are all free, ?nd the 
 Covenant it felf a free Covenant. Ycu fay, the next 
 Exception that I make, is againft your applying 2 Tim. 
 2. 19. to the Covenant of Grace, which I think be- 
 longs to the Decree of Election. You fay, you think, 
 that there is good ground to apply it to the Covenant 
 of Grace, and that the Learned Dr. Hammond telis 
 yon, that it fignifies a Bill of Compact, and that there 
 is reafon for it, becaufe there is a Seal fet to it. 
 
 Reply. If 1 mould grant you this, it would make more 
 againft you than for you *, what then can be inferred 
 from hence, but that all the Subjects of this Covenant 
 are in a fure State? They have all the Bleffings there- 
 of under Hand and Seal, and that Promife in particu- 
 lar, That Godwill never turn away from them to do them 
 cood, and that they (hall not depart from him : And that 
 'jHymenevs and Phtletm that had apoftatised and made 
 Shipwrack of Faith, were never in this Biff of Com- 
 pact, if they had they had not fallen. 
 
 Secondly, [ (hail fet againft the Learned Dr. the* 
 Learned Calvin, and Wiljon, who do both expound it 
 of the Decree of Election } and whereas you fay, that 
 there is a Seal to it, which is fuitable to a Bill of Corn- 
 pad ; I A'nfwer, that a Seal is fometimes fet to con- 
 
 K 3 ceii, 
 
1 46 muty wtfttrfcatefe 
 
 ceal, and that feems to be the ufe of it here ; The Lord 
 knoweth who are his ^ they are only known to God, the 
 Ele&arenot known to others, they are kept clofe as 
 under a Seal, though it's poffible a gracious Soul may 
 know himfelf to be one of that number ;snd to prevent fe- 
 curity there is a charge given, Let him that nameth the 
 Name of Chrift depart from Iniquity : And whatever obli- 
 gation Men lay on themfelves by naming the Name of 
 Chrift:, yet is it the Lord that obligeth them. 
 
 Here again you fay, I had but little Reafon to deny, 
 that there is any Condition implied in thofe Terms of 
 the Covenant, J^ r. 31.33. 
 
 Reply. Sir, I am for plain dealing, I would not have 
 you fhifc your Terms y your Words were, that this 
 Text in Jeremiah^ which I fo much iniift upon, ex- 
 preily declares the Conditions of thir, Covenant, and 
 now it's implied as if there were no difference between 
 exprefiing and implying. 
 
 Firft, You fay, that being granted as I affirm, that 
 the Words are Promiffory, and do hold forth the Pri- 
 viledgesof the People of God, yet there are fome du- 
 ties required of them to give them right to the Blef- 
 iings. 
 
 Reply. F/V/?, You can't deny the Words to be Pro- 
 miffory \ and if you grant them fo, then they do not 
 exprefly declare the Conditions of this Covenant, as you 
 affirmed they did. 
 
 Secondly, Are the Duties ( that you fay are required 
 of us to give us right to the Bleffings ) required in this 
 Text that you grant is Promiflbry, or are they not ? if 
 they are, produce them ; if not, confefs it, and turn me 
 fome where elfe that 1 rriay find them. 
 
 Secondly^ If the performance of Duty does entitle us 
 to the Bleffings, then we entitle our felves, and fo are 
 more beholding to our felves for our Title than we are 
 to the Promife. 
 
 Thirdly, 
 
<®vut§ wftttfcsteb 147 
 
 Thirdly, I would Qnery, What rcafon can be ren- 
 dered why feme of the bleffings in this fame promife 
 be conditional, and others abfojute, when they are all 
 promifed in one breath as ic were, and no Condition is 
 to be found in the Text? the writing the Law of God 
 in oar hearts, that we fhali all know him from the 
 leafi: to the greateft, ijiele bleffings are abfolutely pro- 
 mifed, and rauft be bellowed antecedent to any thing 
 that we can do } and why is not relation to God, and the 
 Pardon of (in, as abfolutely promifed al the other? 
 You -grant,- that forne of the Bleffings of this Gove- 
 nam are abfolutely promifed, the change of the heart 
 and will, the firft degree of Grace, and are not thefe 
 the People of God that have fo much of the Image 
 of God enftamped upon them ? Certainly that was 
 Cafar's Coin that had Cccfar^s Image inflampM upon 
 it: Who were they but the People of God, that had 
 the promife of the change of their Wills ? PJaL i 10. 3. 
 They were God?s people before they were a willing people : 
 And when the heart and will is changed, they are then 
 manifefted to be his people. That our Title to thefe 
 bleffings does not flow from any Condition perform- 
 ed by us, but from our relation to Chrift, I have already 
 cleared, and therefore mall fay no more to that. 
 
 Thirdly , You fay, we mufl con fen t to take the Lord 
 to be our God, before we fhall have any relation to 
 
 him. 
 
 Reply. This is your great Miftake: For, Firfl, The 
 Lord did own iome to be his People that had not 
 choien him to be their God, ASisi% % 10. God bids Paul 
 to tarry at Corinth, the reafon was, for he had much 
 people there, PfaL 1 io. 3. Thy people pmll be willing In ' 
 the day of thy power : They were his people before they 
 were a willing people. Secondly, You are now incon* 
 fiftent with your felf, (page 51..) you fay, that fore- 
 knowledge RomS. 29. 'is God's foreacknowkdging them 
 
 K 4 ^ 
 
i43 crafty wftitricateo. 
 
 c o be his, and if fo, it is to be his people. 
 
 Fourthly, Yoa fay, God will not own us to be his 
 people, if we. walk contrary to his will. 
 
 Reply. This is your Miftake again, P/*/.8q. Jf bis 
 Children breaks, my Laws, and walk, not in my flatutes, 
 I wiH vifit their Iniquity with the rod, and their fins with 
 firipes ; but my loving kindnefs will 1 not take from him^ 
 nor fujfer my faithfulnefs to fail j my Covenant will I not 
 breaks, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my month. He 
 owns them in the relation of Children flilJ, and will 
 deal with them as Children, and not as Baftards, he will 
 correct them, .but not difinherit them. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, you told me in your laft, that unlefs 
 we be obedient to God as his Children, he will not be 
 onr God to crowu us with happinefs. 
 
 My Anfwertoityoufay was this, that though Obe- 
 dience be antecedent to the Crown of Happinefs, yet 
 it is not the Condition thereof, becaufe Glory may 
 be confrdered as ah end following means preparing, 
 fitting and difpofing, but not as an end depending 
 on means procuring. Now to this you fay, that if I 
 ftean thus, that Glory do s not depend on Obedience 
 as a meritorious ca life, it's impertinent, for a Condition 
 is never intende.d for a meritorious caufe, but as caufa 
 fine qua novi.. 
 
 Rtply. Firfti That is a poor caufe that effects nothing, 
 and luch is a Can J a fine qua no a. 
 
 Secondly, I<leny that Obedience is antecedent to justi- 
 fication, and fo not fo much as Canfafine qua non ; I have 
 already proved that J unification is antecedent unto 
 Edith, as it's fir icily and properly confidered j God 
 impmeth right eoufnefs without IVorks, Rom. 4. He jufiu 
 fieth the juitroMfi Rom. 5. 
 
 Thirdly, Obedience preceeds not our Title to Glory, 
 that we have by vertaeof our Relation to Chrift, and 
 our Relation preceeds our Obedience : The branch can 't 
 
 betr 
 
cwt& tttituricateb 149 
 
 hear fruit ofhimfelfunlefs it be in the vine : Without ^e,faith 
 Chrift, ye can do nothing, John 1 5* 5. ox fever d from 
 me, as the Margent ha$ it. * 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, If Obedience does fit and prepare 
 for happinefs, then it does in fome fence procure it, for 
 we can't obtain happinefs unlefs we pe prepared and 
 qualified for it. 
 
 Reply. You fhould have declared in what fence,and if 
 you mean that it gives a Right to it which we had rot 
 before, 1 deny it -, it's our Relation to Chrift that gives 
 us our Right and Title, and not any condition perform- 
 ed by us -, nor may we afcribetoour felves our prepa- 
 ration to Glory ; IPs God that worketh in us to will 
 and todoof his own good pleafure : The vejfels of mercy are 
 afore prepa red unto glory by Cod himfelf, Rom . 9. 
 
 Secondly i It's Chrilt alone that is the procuring caufe 
 of Salvation or Glorification, Rom. 5. As fin hath reigned 
 unto death, fo might grace reign through right eoufnefs unto 
 eternal lijebyjefus Chrift; our Lord, 
 
 Seventhly , You fay, till webelieve in Chrilt, and yield 
 our felves to be governed by him, we have no ground 
 to believe that our fins are pardoned. 
 
 Reply.Thh I fully grant you ,but it's one thing to have 
 our fins pardoned, and another thing to know that they 
 are pardoned ', there is ground to believe that the fins 
 of the Elect are pardoned, becaufe the word declares 
 it, Rom.S. 33. but there is not ground for me to be^ 
 lieve that I am one of God's Eiedt, and have a (hare in 
 that pardon, till I do believe. You Query, What is this 
 but a Condition ? 
 
 Reply. It's wide from a Condition. Now I underfta^d 
 what you mean by it, you tell me page 34.. that the 
 performance of Duty gives a right to the Biefling?. 
 
 Eighthly, You faid, you argued from feveral. Scrip- 
 tures, that Obedience # and Holinefs are fo neceffary to 
 Happinefs, that we fnall not enjoy it without them* 
 
 and 
 
150 cwty <MiitDteate&. 
 
 and that all the Anfwer I make to it is this, that I grant 
 it; yet is not this obedience the condition of our Inte- 
 rest in the Covenant of Grace, .but the fruit thereof. 
 You fay, you do not iwderftand this lafl claufe. 
 
 Reply. I do not think it fo obfcure, but that you 
 understand it well enough. If it be the condition of 
 our intereft, then it mud be performed antecedent 
 thereunto: If Faith and Obedience be the fruit of inte- 
 reft, then are they confequential thereunto. 
 
 Ninthly, You fay, that your Conclufton which I told 
 you was haftiiy drawn, is as far as you can yet fee regu- 
 larly drawn from the premifes j that if pardon of Sin 
 and Salvation were made over to us by the Gofpel-Go- 
 venant, without any condition required of us to obtain 
 them, it would deitroy the Chriftian Religion, and 
 open a gap to all Licentiouinefs. You fay, my reply to 
 this is, I know no Duty deltroyed by it * there is' 
 enough for us to do,though it be not done as conditions •, 
 and though we are not to work for life, yet is there 
 enough work to be done from life. 
 
 Firft, You fay, that if I mean by this, that we mull 
 do good only upon the Score of Gratitude, this fup- 
 pofeth that we are already perfect, and that we have re- 
 ceived all our Bleflings already. 
 
 Reply. My Meaning is this, We malt do good not on- 
 ly upon the fcore of gratitude, but in obedience to the 
 will of God alio, as being (till under his fovereign pow- 
 er, andasaiheanstoenjoy future bleflings, which we 
 have at prefent a right and title unto ; Being heirs of God, 
 and Joint-beirs with Chrift. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, if I mean that we mud not ferve 
 Qodin-hopes of the reward, thisdeltroys many Chri- 
 ftian Virtues, for the promifes of Mercy are to encou- 
 rage to Virtue. «'«*!■ 
 
 Reply, if by a reward you mqan a reward ot Debt, 
 we do not ferve God in hopes ofareward, for weex- 
 
 pect 
 
Crtrtfj ©imrfoatefc i 5 i 
 
 peel nothing as a Debt 7 . but if you mean a reward of 
 Grace, that we have in our eye. 
 
 Thirdly, You Query, To what purpofe the promifes 
 ferve, it we mull not make happinefs a motive to Obe- 
 dience ? And what becomes of our Faith and truft in the 
 promifes, if we mult not propound to our felves the 
 bleffingsofthe promifes? 
 
 Reply. I know nobody that denies this, but it is one 
 thing to make the blefiings of the Promifes a motive to 
 Obedience, and another thing to make them the end of 
 our Obedience. 
 
 fourthly, You Query, What need is there of fear and 
 hope, if we muft not avoid evil for fear of wrath, and do 
 good in hopes of Mercy? And what would become of 
 Patience and all Paflive Graces, without the confidera- 
 tion of the reward ? 
 
 Reply. Firft, The fear of the Lord, ifit be Evangelical, 
 arifeth from, a fence of his Goodnefs as well as his 
 Greatnefs : There is forgivenefs with thee, that thou may eft 
 be feared. If fear hath no other object but the Wrath 
 of God, that's a Slavifh, not a Child-like Fear, it's a 
 fear that perfect Love cafteth out. 
 
 Secondly. That hope that expects happinefs as its own 
 earning, is a falfe hope ; true hope expects aii of Grace, 
 and Patience waits on God for a reward of Grace like- 
 wife. 
 
 Thirdly, Thefe Graces muft all be exerted purely in 
 obedience to the will of God ; they will all live and 
 thrive where nothing is done as a condition entitling 
 us to future mercy. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that this Doctrine condemns thrift 
 himfelf and all the Saints, who ferved Qod day and 
 night for that eternal happinefs that they hoped to en- 
 joy with him. 
 
 Reply. I (hall not determine concerning Chrifr, who 
 was the meritorious caufe of all happinefs 7 whether 
 
 he 
 
i?2 Crutft tjstttHtcatcD* 
 
 fie did eye the reward as a motive, or as an end depend- 
 ing upon his obedience, as the procuring caufe }but the 
 Saints haa their eye on their eternal happinefs, as a 
 motive encouraging unto duty, and not as an end de- 
 pending thereon, or as a condition entitling there- 
 unto. 
 
 Sixthly , You Query, Did not Abraham obey God, 
 becaufe he looked for a City that had foundations ? 
 
 Reply. He had the promife of that City, antecedent to 
 that obedience, and that gave him his Title thereunto, 
 though the City he had a right to was a motive to his 
 obedience. 
 
 Secondly, Abraham could obey where God command- 
 ed, though God made him no promife of a reward, as 
 he did when he offered up his Son Ifaac^ Gen. 22. 
 
 You Query, Whether Mofes had not refpecltothe 
 recompenfe of reward? I aniwer, Yes, as a Motive: 
 Whether Pad did not prefs after the mark ol the prize 
 of the high Calling of God in Jefus Chrift? 
 
 Reply. He did, and that in point ,of duty ^ and not 
 only fo, but to the end that he might come nearer the 
 mark, he had encouragement from the Promife fo to do \ 
 hut had he not a Title to what he preft after ? was not 
 Paul'm Chriil before this ? were not things prefent and 
 things to come too his ? Did he do it as a condition that 
 gave him a right to that which he had no title to be- 
 fore? Methinks you may difcover thefe two things in 
 this lalt inftance of Paul. 
 
 Fir//, That Pad did not perform duty, or prefs to- 
 wards the mark,as a condition giving a right to what he 
 aimed at, for that he had before ; he tells the Corinthians 
 hirafelf, that things to come were theirs, and they were 
 Cnrifl's, and were not things to come his ? was not he 
 Chrid's? he does not exclude himfelf, Eph. 1.3. but 
 puts in himfelf with the believing Epheflans, as being blef- . 
 ft J with allfpmtital blejjtnrs in heavenly places in Chrffi ; rm 
 
 Title 
 
Title was good, fo that he did not prefs forward to 
 that end, that he might get a right to future bkffings. 
 
 Secondly, Though his Title was good and firm, yet 
 Paul d id not flack his pace, he Hill preft forward, he was 
 one that was aflufed of Glory, 2 Cor. 5. 1, 2. And yet 
 that did not abate the Exercife of his Grace, therefore 
 this Doctrine does not deftroy the Chriftian Religion^ 
 nor open agaptoLicentioufnefs > Do you not fee thac 
 you have been beating the Air all this while ? 
 
 Seventhly, You conclude, that it is not unbwful to 
 to work tor life, and to do good duties as Conditions to 
 obtain happinefs. 
 
 Reply. Firfl, Your contending fo much about the 
 word Condition, not being fatisfied with what I grant- 
 ed, that Salvation might be conlickred as an end follow- 
 ing means preparing, but not as an end depending on 
 means procuring, made me to fufpecl; that yon did place 
 more in the word Condition than the Gofpel did allow % 
 fo thac our conteft is not only about words, but about 
 things, and that of the greateft concernment, and now 
 it plainly appears \ for Eternal Life rmtffc be eyed by 
 us not only as a motive, bui: as the end of duty ; it's thac 
 which we muft work for. You fay, page 34, that there 
 are fome duties required of us as conditions, to give us 
 right to the bkffings that God hath promifed, and here 
 that it's not unlawful to work forlife,and to do good du- 
 ties toobtain happinefs,which is to the bed; of my under- 
 Handing to feek J unification and Salvation by works, a 
 thing condemned in the word : I can't think that he that 
 works for life, does not expect life for working,nor do I 
 now wonder that you (hould deny the freenefs of the Co- 
 venant of Grace, feeing you are fo much for Works. 
 
 Secondly, There is in this more than Can fa fine qua non y 
 thar^ without which it can't be, this is that by which it is, 
 not that without which fome bleflings cannot be enjoy- 
 ed, but that which gives a Right and Tide there- 
 unto. ' Thirdly^ 
 
M4 €tait& winbtcatefc 
 
 Thirdly, If we muft work for Life, and do good du- 
 ties to obtain Happinefs, then will the reward be rec- 
 koned not of Grace, but of Debt, Rom. 4. 4. Now to 
 him that worketh is the reward reckoned, not of Grace, but of 
 Debt. 
 
 Fourthly, If good Works do give us a right and title 
 unto life, then is there room left for boafting, a thing 
 that the Scripture never left room for, Eph. 2. 8. Not 
 of Works, left any man jhould boaft : The Reader may by 
 this fee how dangerous a thing it is to deny the free- 
 nefs and abfolutenefs of the Covenant of Grace, that it 
 neceflarily runs fuch upon feeking Justification by works, 
 a task that Adam fell Ihort of, tho' he was in a capaci- 
 ty to have performed it : A Task that no man in the 
 World can perform. The Apoftle tells the Galathians, 
 that whoever of them were juftified by the Law, they 
 were fallen from Grace, and yet they did not infifton 
 perfect obedience to the Law. I fuppofe, that by what 
 I have here laid down, it appears, that the Covenant 
 of Grace is a Free Covenant, the very Name declares it 
 fuch, and tfcat all the bleflings thereof are bellowed 
 Gratis, that our Title to all is by vertue of union with 
 Chrift, and not by any Condition performed by us -, and 
 if a Grant that there are fome duties to be performed, by 
 the fubjetts thereof will not fatisfie,but thefe duties raufl: 
 be lookt on as Conditions, the performance, of which 
 does entitle to thefe Bleflings, fuch are never like to be 
 fatisfied by me. 
 
 SECT. VIII. 
 
 YOU fay, a third Difference that I make between the 
 Covenant of Grace, and that Covenant which the 
 Jews entered into, was this: The Covenant of C^race 
 contained Spiritual JBle flings, but that Covenant con- 
 tained Temporal Bleflings only. To this you fay, you 
 
 prbved 
 
proved that the Covenant made with the Jews con- 
 tained Spiritual Promifes as well as Temporal, Dent. 
 30. 6. God promt fed, that he would circumcife the hearts 
 of. his people, and of their feed \ and to comfort them in 
 their Captivity, God promiied them, that he would 
 not only bring them back into their own Land, But 
 he would take the flony heart om of their flefi, that he 
 would give them an heart offiejh, and cavfe them to walh^ in 
 his flat Htet* 
 
 My Reply. to this you fay was, that there is no fpi- 
 ritual Blefling or Promife put into the Book of the-Co- 
 venant, Exod, 21, 22, 23. Chapters, nor yet Bern. 2%. 
 where the Bleffings of this Covenant are put down, 
 and that the Promife made in Eztkiel appertained to the 
 Spiritual Seed only. 
 
 Bur, Sir, This was not all the Anfwer that I gave to 
 it, I told you, if this Promife had been a Branch of that 
 Covenant Dent, 29. into which all the natural feed 
 were taken, then all mould have had the benefit of it, 
 God is a Faithful God, a Covenant keeping God. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, though the places mentioned con- 
 tain nofuch Promife, yet it follows not, niat there was 
 nofuch promife contained in the Covenant : There are 
 feverai moral duties not expreft in thefe Chapters, doth 
 it therefore follow that they were not prefcribed to 
 the Jews ? 
 
 Reply. Firft, Though Moral Duties are not here par- 
 ticularly ex prefr, yet they are all comprehended, Dent. 
 28.1. // thou wiU indeed obey my voice, and do all that 1 com- 
 mand thee, then all thefe blejfing jhall come unto you 5 among 
 which there is not one fpiricual bleiTing. 
 
 Secondly, it's rational to think, that the Book of 
 the Covenant that was then cofinned with the blood 
 ofthefacrifices, Exod. 24^8. contained all the Promifes 
 that were then given forth, that were the promifes of 
 that Covenant ; and it's as rational to thiokjthat all the: 
 
 bki- 
 
is<5 cratlj ©ttt&icatea. 
 
 bleffingsof that Covenant were put down, Deut. 28. 
 when according to the Tenor of that Chapter the 
 Covenant was fo fo'.etnnly to be renewed, Chap. 29. 
 and yet there's not one fpiritual Promife or Blef- 
 . fag. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, jthat there is a fpiritual bleffing 
 clearly expreft, Deut. $0.6. and this Promife belongs 
 to that Covenant that was made with the natural Jews 
 and their feed. 
 
 Reply. Here again I mull enquire, what the reafon 
 is, that many of thofe with whom this Covenant was 
 made, went without the Benefit thereof ? Your for- 
 mer Anfwer has been this, becaufe they did not per- 
 form the conditions that God required of them: But, 
 Sir, this Promife is either to be underltood of the firft 
 degree of Grace, or it is not } if it be, then is there no 
 condition required in order to the enjoymentof it,grant- 
 td by your felf /?^c 31, 32. If it be not, then is this 
 promife made but to a part of them, and fo not a branch 
 of that Covenant into which the whole were taken j 
 then it refpejfts thofe only that obey the voice of the 
 Lord with all their heart, in all things that he com- 
 mands them, verfe 2. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that this Covenant 'is delivered 
 in one continued Speech, both in 29, and 30 Chapters? 
 and here ii no mention of two Covenants, the one 
 containing temporal, the other fpiritual Bleflings ; 
 bat one and the fame Gofpel-Covenant containing 
 both Spiritual and Temporal Bleflings, as appears 
 Rom. 10. 
 
 Reply. Firjl, The Covenant made Chapter 39. was 
 to be made with Ifrad, according to the Words of 
 the iSth. Chapter ,?s appears in the lft. verfe^Thefe are the 
 words of the Covenant that the Lord commanded me to makf 
 with the Children of Jfrael. * 
 
 Secondly 
 
$econdly,Thh Govenant made in Deut. 29.1s diftinguifli- 
 ed from that Covenant into which Heart circumciikm 
 was put,as appears by comparing Deut.2p.25. with Jer\ 
 B* . 32. arid whereas you compare the 1 yh. verfe of the 
 $oth Chap, with Rom. 10. there can be no more ga- 
 thered from it than this, that they had the, Gofpel 
 preached unto them, and that the proraife of Life 
 was made to them that believe as well as unto Us. 
 
 You fay, that this Covenant was obfcured very 
 much with Mofaical Ceremonies, and that thefc Ce- 
 remonies are ufuaily called the Covenant that God 
 made with them in the day that he took them by the hand, 
 to lead them up out of Egypt, and that it was this Co- 
 venant that was repeated Eleb.S. from 3, to 8. 
 
 Reply, Firfi, I did in my laft diftinguifh between 
 the firft Covenant mentioned in the Hebrews, and the 
 Ceremonies that were annex! to it : I (hewed that noc 
 only the Ceremonies were abolifhed, but the Covenant 
 it felf 2W0, as being not fufficient to anfwer all the ends 
 of God, and to relieve the neceffities of his people. To 
 this you made no reply. Either thefe Ceremonies were 
 a part of the EiTence, or they were only annexe, if 
 they were only annext, it was to the firft; Covenant, noc 
 ♦thefecond, Heb.9.1. *, 
 
 Secondly, You fay your felf, (/>^p. ; that the very 
 words of the Covenant Dent. 29. are nfed by the Pro- 
 phet, Jer. 7. 22, 23. to exprefs th* fubltance of the 
 Covenant of Grace as 'diftincl: from the Geremonial- 
 Law : 7 /pake not to your Fathers, nor commanded them 
 in the day that I took, them by the hand, to brim them out 
 of the Land of Egypt , concerning Burnt- offerings and Sa* 
 crifices ; But this thing commanded I them, faying, obey my 
 voice, and I will be your God, and you fhall be my people. 
 When was it that the Lord fpake this t6 them ? 
 was it not when they came out of Egypt? and what 
 was it that he fpake. to them? Why, Obey my voice, and 
 
 L / 
 
i $7 Gftfflj wintiiatzb. 
 
 I wiH be your God ; and what was this? Why, the ve- 
 ry words of the Covenant, Dent. 29. fo you call it ; 
 and that it exprefTech the very fubftance of the Cove- 
 nant tha. God made with, them, as diftindt from the 
 Ceremonial Law • fo then by your own words it ap- 
 pears, that the Covenant that God made with them 
 Dent. 29. was the Covenant made when they came up 
 out oi Egypt, and that it was diftincl from the Cere- 
 ntonial-Lawj and this is*that Covenant alfo that is di- 
 ilinft from the Covenant of Grace, Jer. 3 i, 32. 
 
 You fay, that Promife that the Lord made Ezjek. n. 
 19, 20. 7 hat he would give them a jjfiv heart; my Reply 
 to it is, that it was made to a peculiar people among 
 chem,ai;d not to the whole } to the fpiritual feed, not to 
 the natural, confidercd as fudr.This you think I have no 
 ground^ for, and that for this reafon, becaufe it was 
 made to all the Jews that yielded to the King of Babel , 
 'as the Prophet advifed them Jer. 24. 5, Ezek- 11. 16, 
 17. and that it will be hard to prove that all to whom the 
 pi omife was made were the fpiritual feed. 
 
 Xepty. That this promife was made to a peculiar 
 peopie,is to be proved by the two Chapters laft quoted, 
 Ezjk. 11. 21. Asfoon as God had made the promife of a 
 new heart, verfs 20. he conies with a fmart threat im-« 
 mediately to Tome of the Jews that were in the fame 
 Captivity, verfe 21. But as for them whofe hearts walk^af* 
 ter their detectable things , and their abominations, Iwittre- 
 compence their way upon their own head, faith the Lord : 
 Who can believe that the promife of a New-heart was 
 made to thefe? The other Chapter, Jer. 24. is more 
 clear 5 there is a dividon made, fome of them are com- 
 pared to a Basket of good figs, the other to a Basket of 
 evil figs *, they were thole of them that were compa- 
 red to the good figs that had the Promife made to 
 them ; there was a fearful Curfe donounc'd againft the 
 reft at the fame time, verfes 8,-9, 10. and they are not 
 
 only 
 
only tfireatned in general, but Zedekiah by name, and 
 his IPriaces, and the relidue of his People : This I gave 
 you in my laft, but you made no reply. 
 
 You fay, it's certain that forae of them were wick- 
 ed to whom this promife was made, and fruftratei 
 God's defign of mercy towards them, fer. 29. 21,23. 
 
 Reply. That thofe you mention were wicked is grant- 
 ed, but how does it appear that the promife was made 
 to thetn ? If you read over the Chapter, you may f$e 
 plainly, that thefe were fomeof the evil figs that were 
 to be devoured by the Curfe. 
 
 Secondly , Though the Defign of Man may be frultra- 
 ted, yet the Defign of God can't - his purpofe can'c 
 be changed, his good will is unalterable ; there is no- 
 thing that can fall out in time which he does not forefee, 
 and which he is ndt able to prevent, how then can his 
 Defign to (hew mercy be fruftrated ? 
 
 Thirdly, If thofe wicked ones had been of the num- 
 ber of thofe to whom the Promife was made, they 
 fhould have enjoyed the benefit of it. You grant, that 
 the firft degree of Grace, by whiciuhe Understanding is 
 enlightned, and the Will renewed, is abfolute, and 
 calling out of an Eftate of Sin by the Word and Spirit 
 is abfolutely promifed ^ now had thefejiad their hearth 
 and wills changed, they would not have have remained 
 wicked^ had the promife been made to them, they^would 
 have been turned from Sinners unto Saints, they would 
 at leaft have been habitually holy 5 and had the Lord 
 gone thus far with them, he would have gone farther^ 
 he would have put his Spirit within them, and have cau- 
 fed them to walk in his Statutes, and obferve his Judg- 
 ments, and do them 5 from which I conclude, either his 
 promife was not made to all, or his Defign of (hewing 
 mercy was fruftrated by none. I think the Appftle clears 
 the point, Rom. 9. 6. It cannot be that the word of God has 
 ; taken none ffitt^ but all are not Ifrael that are of Ifrael 5 He 
 
 h z detest 
 
160 <&vufy smtrfcatetu 
 
 does not hang icon conditions, but declares them to be 
 a peculiar people to whom the promifes were made. 
 
 Again, You fay, you gave this reafon why fome 
 among the Jews did not enjoy the benefit thereof,becaufe 
 they did not perform the Conditions; to which you fay 
 I replyed, that you did not (hew me thefe Conditions, . 
 nor did Iknow what Conditions could be performed 
 antecedent to a New Heart. You fay, as there are 
 fpecial benefits promifed, fo there are conditionsre- 
 quired anfwerable thereto ; the Condition to qualifie 
 for the firfl: act of Pardon is Faith and Obedience, 
 the Condition of Salvation is Holinefs and Perfeve- 
 rance. 
 
 Reply. This Anfwer is befi les the Queftion - 7 the Que- 
 ftion was not,what Condition is required to J unification 
 or Glorification ? but what is required antecedent to a 
 New Heart, or Heart-Circumcilion, the promife which 
 you fay was a part of that Covenant into which the na- 
 tural feed entered, or what Condition can be performed 
 antecedent to a New Heart ? 
 
 You fay, If by a New- Heart be meant the New- 
 Creature, then are we required to labour together 
 with Grace in the work of Sanctification, that we may 
 be New- Creatures. 
 
 Reply. I can't think that you underftand what you 
 fay, or elfe you think me fo great a fool that any thing 
 will pafs with me : Can there be a work of Grace 
 wrought in the Soul, a Work of Sanctification begun, 
 a id the New-Creature not formed in the Soul ? where- 
 in doth the New-Creature confifl:, but in the Change of 
 the Heart ? when the Soul is new formed, the New- 
 Creature is fet up in it ; a New- Heart and the New- 
 Creature is the fame thing, not a Second Work of 
 Grace depending upon any Condition to be performed 
 by us. 
 
 Secondly y You fay, if by a New- Heart be meant the 
 
 firfl; 
 
Crut^ <wiut>tcatek 161 
 
 firft degree of Grace, whereby our Wills and Affecti- 
 ons are reformed, and freed to good, then there is 
 no antecedent condition required in order to obtain ir, 
 for we cannot will nor do good till God preventeth us 
 with bis Grace. 
 
 Reply, firjty You have left it undetermined whether 
 this Heart-Gir-umrifion, Dwt. 30. 6. be meant of the 
 firJt degree of Grace or not.* 
 
 Secondly^ From what you have fpoken, I conclude you 
 do not now look on it as intending the firft degree, but 
 a fanner carrying on the work of Sanctincation in the 
 Soul : The reafon you give why many of the Jews went 
 Without the benefit ofir, w^ r , becaufe they did not per- 
 f m the Conditions thereof ; andiffo, then it can't he 
 underftood of the firft degree of Grace, that by which 
 the Underftanding is enlightned, and the Will renew- 
 ed, for that you fay is abfolute, and depends not on 
 any condition to be performed by us. 
 
 Thirdly, If it be an increafe of Grace that is here pro- 
 mifed, then is the promifs made to fuch^only as did 
 believe, and not to ali, and fo is not a branch of that 
 Covenant in which the whole body of the natural feed 
 ftood. 
 
 Fourthly, You grant, that the firft degree of Grace, 
 by which the Heart and Will are changed, is abfolute- 
 ly promifed in the Covenant of Grace, but many of the 
 natural feed went without this •, God did nor give them 
 Eyes to fee, nor Hearts to confider •, it was the Bk~ 
 clion only, among the Jews, that obtained, and the vtft 
 were blinded, Rom. 11.7. therefore they were not the 
 fubje&s of the Covenant of Grace ; fo that I have fairly 
 gained this third mark of Diftin&ion, that the Cove- 
 nant of Grace contained Spiritual Bleffings, that which 
 the Jews entered into with their feed had only Tempo- 
 ral Blefiings; you are not able to prove one Spiritual 
 Bleffing there. 
 
 L 3 SECT 
 
i6i <$x\\ty sainm'cate& 
 
 SECT. IX. 
 
 YOU fay, the fourth Difference that I made between 
 the Covenant of Grace, and that which the Jews 
 eatred into wirn their feed, was in refpedt of the Subjects 
 thereof; the Subjects of theone arethe Natural feed, 
 the iubjects of the other are the Spiritual, fuch as are 
 truly regenerate and holy. This defcription of Abrahams 
 fad, you fay, I deny to be mine, and you grant it was 
 riot} it was your own, and that it's agreeable with the 
 Scripture, for the regenerate only are true members of 
 Chrifl, and that do imitate Abraham in Faith and Obe- 
 dience, and they only that are Chrifts, and Walk in 
 the fteps of Abraham's faith, are properly Abraham's Chil- 
 dren, Rom. 4; 12. GaL$.ig. 
 
 Reply. If fuch only are Abraham's Seed, and related 
 to Chrifl, that are truly regenerate and holy, then fuch 
 only are the Subjects of the New Covenant ; He faith 
 not of feeds, as of many, Gal. 3. 16". and you may obferve 
 that the Text you quoted, Rom. 4. 12. excludes a part 
 of the natural feed} He is the Father of circumcifion, to 
 them that are rot only of the Circumcifion, but alfo walkjn 
 thefiep of the faith of Abraham, which he had being yet un- 
 circumcifed. Why have you endeavoured all along to 
 prove that the natural feed, conftdtred as fuch, had an 
 mterell in the Covenant of Grace, when they were 
 not properly Abrahams feed? they were properly his 
 feed according to the flelh, but it fbould feem they were 
 cot fo according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Grace - r 
 and why dq you endeavour to bring in the Children of 
 Believers, confidered as fuch, that are neither his na- 
 tural feed, nor yet his fpirkual, that are not really 
 .rzic and holy ? for the Covenant of Grace takes 
 do more but Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7. Gal. 
 
 . 
 
 Secom 
 
Secondly, I deny that the regenerate are the only per- 
 fons that are related to Chriit ; I have proved already 
 that the Elect were given unto Chrift before they were 
 regenerated, Johniy. i. Theywere given unto Chrift 
 before Eternal Life was given to them by Chrift ; he 
 prayed for none but thofe that were given to him by 
 the Father, and yet he prayed for them that mould be- 
 lieve as well as them that did believe ; they were Chi id's 
 people before they were a willing people, Pfal. no. i. 
 And fure I am, That thofe that are thrifts, are Abraham's 
 feed, arid heirs according to the promt fe. Union with Chrifc 
 may come under a Threefold Acceptation, Fcederal, 
 Actua', and Reciprocal. In the laft Acceptation I grant 
 that they are the regenerate only that are related unto 
 Chrift, but in the two former Acceptations ail the 
 Elect ftand one with him. 
 
 Secondly, You fay,that the Scriptures that you brought 
 to prove that the promifes. of Pardon and Solvation are 
 made to the wicked, on condition of Repentance and 
 Newnefs of Life, I anfwer thus, that the Promifes are 
 offered to all where the Gofpel is preached, but they 
 are made to none but the fpiritual feed. 
 
 Reply. Firft, That which is offered on Condition be- 
 comes not mine till the Condition be ; performed. You 
 fay your felf, that Juftification is promifed on Conditi- 
 on of Faith and Obedience, but we have no right to 
 it till we perform the Gondkion ; fo then the making 
 a promife on Condition, does not prove their Inrercfi: ia 
 the Promife. Ycu likewife confefs the Jews had the 
 offer of the promife before they believed, but had no 
 a&ual right to it till they believed, A$s 2. 
 
 Secondly^ When I denied that the Promife was made 
 to more than the fpiritual Seed, though it was a Nega- 
 tive, I proved it, Gal. 3 . 1 tf. 
 
 Firft, You fay, if the Promifes be offered to them, 
 they muft fome way belong to them. 
 
 L 4 'Reply. 
 
1 6 4 cruty ©itrticatek 
 
 Reply. You fhould have proved. what yon firft laid 
 do*?n,if you would have done any. thing; that is,thatthe 
 promifes are made to wicked Men, but this you can't j 
 ?nd I knovv not how the Promife belongs to them o- 
 therwife than in the tender thereof : And can yoq fay of' 
 wicked Men, that they have an intereli in the Promife, 
 that never received it, meerly becauie tney have the of- 
 fer of it ? 
 
 Secondly, You fay, if the BlefBngs be offered to ma- 
 *ny, and not really intended to be given ~o them, what 
 is that but plain deluding them, urd v the pretence of 
 kindnefs? And fuch dealing is incor.filUut with the Na- 
 ture and Perfections of God. 
 
 Reply. Fir/}, That to delude Men under the pretence 
 of kindnefs is inconfiftent with the Nature of God, I 
 giant, but that here is any fuch Delulion is denied. 
 
 Secondly, God offers nothing in the Promife, but if 
 thofe to whom its offered will receive it, they fhall have 
 it*, if they will not, the fault is their own, ?nd the 
 evil of rejecting it will one day be charged upon them - 7 
 yet many that have the offer go without the Blefiing. 
 
 . Thirdly, You fay, that what follows I made no Reply 
 to, becaufe there was no Scripture proof to it, which is 
 an ca fie way of anfwering the moft folid Reafon. 
 
 Reply. I have reviewed what I then paft over without 
 a Reply, and I find nothing of Argument in it; there 
 are forae impertinent Similes of a Wife in Covenant 
 with her Husband, and of a Servant with his Matter, 
 though both unfaithful, but what are thefe Similes to 
 thofe that were never in Covenant ? You do but beg the 
 Question : to. fay, that all that make a Profejfion of the 
 true Faith are in the Covenant, though they do not 
 walk anfwernble thereunto. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay , that Text, Rom. 9. which I brought 
 to prove, that all the Seed of Abraham had not an Inte- 
 rest ifl the Covenant of Grace, (hews they were fuch of 
 
them as reje&ed Chrift, and hardned their Hearts a- 
 gainft him. My Reply to this, you fay, is, that the Rea- 
 ibn why they rejected Chrift, was becaule they had 
 no Intereft in the Promife ? 
 
 Reply, I think the Anfwer pertinent enough, and that 
 there is ground for it in the Text, verfe 6. it cannot 
 be, That the Word of God Jhottjd have taken none effttl, but 
 all are not Ijrael that are of Jfrael : That was the Rea- 
 fon why they went without the Benefit of the Promife, 
 becaufe they had no intereft in it •, they are the Chil- 
 dren of thr Promife that are accounted for the Seed, 
 riot the Children of the Flelh. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that when thofe Jews had rejected 
 Chrift, and continued obftinate in their Iniquity, they 
 had then no in Intereft in the Promife, nor were they 
 the Children of God. 
 
 Reply. Intereft in the Promife can't be loft ^ if they 
 had no Intereft when they reje&ed Chrift, they had 
 none before ; nor Relation to God by vertue of Intereft 
 in the Promife can't be loft : The Servant abideth not in 
 the Honfefor ever, but the Son abideth ever. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that whilft the Gofpel was preach- 
 ed to them, and Grace offered, they had a poffibility to 
 have believed in Chrift, and if they had believed, ihey 
 Would have been received as Children. 
 
 Reply. Firfl, Here is a grant, that fome of the natu- 
 ral Seed that were under Gofpel means, were not the 
 Children of God ; and grant this, and it will necefia- 
 rily follow, that they had no intereft in the Promife, for 
 they are the Children of the Promife that are accounted 
 for the Seed. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that barely the offer of Grace in the 
 tender of the Promife puts Men into a capacity of be- 
 lieving ; nothing Ihort of the Principle or habit of Faith, 
 which is infufed in a Work of Regeneration, renders 
 a Perfon capable of believing j there xnuft be a Princi- 
 ple 
 
1 65 Cttttft <min&tcate&, 
 
 pie of Life, or there can't bean Act of Life, men are 
 fpirifually Dead while in a natural State, Eph. 2. 1. 
 the Under (rending dark, wholly deilitute of fpiritual 
 Jighr, the Will non-compliant with ibe Will of God, 
 and without a Principle of Grace, bv which the Under- 
 ftanding is enlightened, and the Will reformed ^ it's 
 impofllble for Men to do what God requires, granted 
 by your felf, ( Page 31,32.) 
 
 Fourthly j You fay, they had Grace and Means allow- 
 ed them, fufficient to enable them to believe, otherwife 
 they had not been bound to believe. 
 
 Reply. Firfl, I affirm, that all are bound to believe 
 where the Gofpel comes, 1 John 3. 23. Were not Men 
 bound to believe where the Gofpel comes, they could 
 not be charged for unbelief. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that all where the Gofpel comes 
 have Grace allowed them, fufficient to enable them to 
 believe. We resd of four forts of Ground on which the 
 Seed was call, Mark^^. and there was but one of the 
 foqr that had it's Nature changed, the other three re- 
 mained the fame, High-way, Stony,and Thorny Ground, 
 as they were before -, the good ground was antecedent- 
 ly good to the receiving of the Seed, it was immediate- 
 ly prepared by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 2. The natural Man 
 receiveth not the things of the Spirit, nor can he know thentj 
 for they are fpiritually difcerned : He wants a fpiritual Eye, 
 Which is always fuppofed necefTary to behold a fpiritu- 
 al Object : The carnal Mind is Enmity againfi God, and 
 is not fubjtcl to the Law of God, neither indeed can be, Rom . 
 8. 7. To you its given to know the My fiery of the King- 
 dom of God, hut to them it is not given, Mar. 13. yet 
 thefe were ihejews, and fuch as had the Gofpel preach, 
 ed to tbern ; fo that now it will be expected that you 
 Should .prove Jivhat you fo boldly sflert, that thefe Jews 
 had Grace enough allowed them to repent and believe -, 
 and how that can be, done, while the contrary lies fo 
 plain before you, I cannot tell. f tftk. 
 
entity wiifttcatea, .166 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that it was their own fault that 
 £ hey did noE believe. 
 
 Reply. I grant it: As a fault may be confidered an 
 evil, it was theirSin that they did not believe, but this 
 proves not that they had a Power to believe. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, that Chrift would often have gather- 
 ed them, but they would not* 
 
 Reply. T grant it, in refpedl of the means that was af- 
 forded them, it was the revealed Will of thrift, that 
 they fhouid believe, but was it his abfolute Will ? if 
 it had, who could have hindered that ? 
 
 Secondly, In that they would not believe, it appear- 
 ed they could not -, if s a fign their Wills were never 
 changed,and if fo,its granted by your feif that they could 
 not oelieve, ( Page 32. ) 
 
 Secondly, It was a fign they were none of Chrift's Peo- 
 ple, for if fhey had, they fhouid have been a willing Peo- 
 ple ; Thy People fiall be willing in the day of thy Power. 
 
 Seventhly, Chrift fpake and did many thinss ( you 
 fay ) that they might be faved, but theywmld not\ome nn- 
 tohim that they might have Life, John 5. 34, 40. 
 
 Reply. Did he change their Hearts, or did he not* 
 If not, then they could not come to him 5 l( he did, they 
 would not have remain'd unwilling ; the change of the, 
 Heart is always followed with the affiftance.of the Spi- 
 rit, caufing to walk in God's Statutes, and to .obferve 
 his Judgments. 
 
 Eighthly, You fay, that he told them that he was the 
 Mejfiah, and that he did many Miracles among them 
 by the Power of God, which did fufficiently teflifie 
 tnat he was fent by him, yet all this wrought no belief 
 in them, all which did teflifie that they were not thofe 
 Sheep that heard the good Shepherds Voice, John 10. 
 25, 26. 
 
 Reply. All this I readily grant you, and I think, I 
 TO c argue it more ftrp/jgty than you have argued it 
 
 ' lor 
 
,68 Crsty wtntricafefc 
 
 for me,and the Text laft quoted makes againft yoo; Te 
 believe nor, becaufe ye are not my Sheep ', as I faid onto you, 
 My Sheep hear my Voice\ and they follow me : He did not 
 fay, ye are not my Sheep, becaufe ye believe not ; But 
 ye believe not, becaufe ye are not my Sheep-, unbelief is cer- 
 tainly the Confequence, if not the Eftect of Non- Rela- 
 tion untoJefusChrifti Te believe not, becaufe ye are not 
 my Sheep : It was a certain fign, that they were none of 
 Chrift'sShjep, their abiding in unbelief; bad they been 
 fome of ChrifTs Sheep, they flioaid have heard Chnft's 
 Voice, John 10. r6. 
 
 Reply. This grant is as much as I defire, they were 
 Abrahams Seed, and yet not the Children of the Pro- 
 mife, fo that the Promifc then is diftinct from that Co* 
 venant into which the Natural Seed was taken -, and 
 wbatis the Promife here but the Covenant of Grace? 
 And this is, as I faid at firft, the ground why they did 
 not believe, becaufe they had no intereft in the Pro- 
 mife , and that they had not an Intereft in the Promife 
 you have at laft confeft. . 
 
 Again, you fay, I do farther urge, that God is laid to 
 have loved '-Jacob, and to have hated Efau, and Quefti- 
 on how a Perfon can be hated of God, and yet a fub- 
 jeft of his Love, and in the Covenant of his Grace ? To 
 
 Fitftt That when .the Prophet fpeaks of Gods Iovirg 
 Jacob, and tiating Efau, he intends it of their Pofteriry , 
 M*l i.i,3i4> and fo Obadiah. 
 
 Reply. Whatever the Prophet intends, the Apoftle 
 fpeaks of the fame two individual Perfons, as appears 
 by the Coherence ; and the fame two individual Fcr- 
 fons are mentioned by the Prophet : Was not Efau Ja- 
 cobs Brother f Tet I loved Jacob \and hated Efau, That of 
 Obadiah is impernitent, it only mentions a Judgment 
 threatned apainft the Edomites. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that a Man profeffing the true 
 
 Faith 
 
Crutlj GJinUicat£&. 169 
 
 Fakb, may be within the Covenant of Grace, though 
 God does not accept his Perfon, nor approve his Work, 
 
 Reply. If God does not accept his Perfon, he hath no 
 Intereft in Chrift, for all that have an Intereft in him are 
 accepted in that beloved, Eph.i.6. and if no Intereft: 
 in Chrift, then no Intereft in the Covenant of Grace* 
 Gal. 3. ltf, 29. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, there is a twofold Love in God, 
 a Love of Pity, and a Love of Complacency : God lc* 
 ved us alVwith a Love of Picy • Even when we were dead 
 in Trefpajfes and Sins, Eph.2.4, 5. He Loves thofe 
 only with a Love of Complacency who love him, 
 John 14. 21. 
 
 Reply. That there is a twofold Love in God I grant ; 
 
 a Love to- his own, and a Love to Strangers ; the Lord 
 
 love.th the Stranger, in that he giveth him Food and 
 
 Raiment ; that the Love of God is fo to be diftinguifhed 
 
 as you have ftated it, I deny } neither are the Scriptures 
 
 you bring, to be taken in the fenfe you give of them ^ 
 
 that in the Ephefians is not to be applied to all/ but to a 
 
 peculiar People, nor to be expounded barely of a Love 
 
 of Pity, but of the good Will of God to his People. 
 
 Firft, It's applied to a peculiar People, that are diftinft 
 
 from the World, as appears by the preceeding verfes % 
 
 Ton bath he quickned, who were dead in Trefpajfes and Sins, 
 
 who in timepaft walked according to the Courfe of this World, 
 
 among whom we all had our Conver fat ions in time pajt, and 
 
 were by Nature the Children of Wrath even as others : (As 
 
 they flood related to the'firft Adam they were fenten- 
 
 ccd unto Wrath together with him 3 ) Bnt Cod who is 
 
 rich in Mercy, for the great Love* wherewith he loved 
 
 its, When we were dead in Trefpajfes and Shis, hath quak? 
 
 tied us together with Chrift: By Grace are yefaved: This 
 
 us, to whom this Love is applied, are diftincl from 
 
 others. 
 
 Secondly, It appears by the Effecl, that they are a 
 
 p€CU- 
 
169 €ft«tl) wivtoitatzb* 
 
 peculiar People, and that k's not only a Love of Pityj 
 but the good Will of God, or the Ftee Grace of God, 
 which was given to them in Chrifl Jefus before the World 
 was. Tiiofe that were thus loved of God were quickened 
 together with Ghrift,wk» they were dead in Ti gaffes and 
 Sins. This quickening here is to betaken iq Point of Jaili- 
 ficati >n, for it's the fame with faving in the next Verfe.; 
 By Grace ye are faved: In this fenfe is the Word taken, 
 Col. 2. 13, 14. And bath quickened you together with hm$ 
 having forgiven yon all Sins, blotting out the hand- writings 
 &c. A Soul is then faid to be quickened when his Sin is 
 pardoned, and the bond that bound over to Wrath can- 
 celled. If Juftification was not extended to all, then 
 this Love was not extended unto al] ; for love, and 
 quickening, or faving here in the Text, fre of equal ex- 
 tent, with refpect to the fubj'ecls thereof -,Whom he loved, 
 them he [aved. 
 
 Secondly, That Text in John (peaks not of the bellow- 
 ing of Love, but of the Manifeftation thereof: God's 
 Love to* us doth not depend on our Love to him, our 
 Love to God is but a Fruit of his Love to us ; We love 
 him- becaufc he firfi loved us, 1 John 4. 19. but the. Ma- 
 nifestation of his love to us, though it be not an Effect, 
 yet is it a confequent of our Love to him : He that lo- 
 veth me ( faith Chriit ) fuallbe loved of my Father, and I 
 will love him, and will maxiftfl my felf unto him : The lat- 
 ter Ctaufe is Explanatory of the former ; And my. Fa- 
 ther will love him, and we will come unto him^ and make our 
 abode with him. And the Love of Complacency chat you 
 fpeakof, is not a \ovq that hath its beginning in time, 
 but is comprehended in the good Will of God, which 
 was to his People from Eternity, Fxov. 8. 3 1. And my 
 ddhhes were with the Sons of Men : When? why before 
 the Afomtains were bionoht forth, or ever the Earth 
 or the World was made. 
 
 Fourthly, You fa v, that as for that Text, Gal, 3* 16, 
 
 Thae 
 
Cro$ saittDicateD 170 
 
 That the Promifes r hat were made to him and his Seed+ 
 not to Seeds, in the Plural, which might make a difference 
 between Jew and G -entile , but io the Singular, which is 
 Chrift, conlidercd as Head of a Family, as appears ia 
 verje 14, and 1 Cor, 12. 13. fo that all that are Members 
 of that Body whereof Chrift is the Head, have feme 
 Intereft in the Promifes ; for all that profds Chrift are 
 externally in Chrift, John 15. cT. 
 
 Reply. Fi) ft, I grant, the Promifes were m:de to 
 Chriit, as Head of a Body, and in him to all the Mem- 
 bers of that Body, that Myftical Body whereof Chrift 
 is the Myftical Head, this is that I averted at fir ft; but 
 the Queftion is, Who they are that are the Members of 
 that Body? Not all that" make a Prcfeffion of Chrift, as 
 you would gather from 1 Cor. 12. 12. there the ^poftie 
 fpeaks, as he roes eifewhere, in the Judgment of Cha- 
 rity, but here in the Judgment of Infallibility : To A* 
 braham and his Seed were the Promifes made : This is cer- 
 tain, none can deny it. An infallible Mai k or Character 
 you have of the Members of this Body, wvfe 29. if ye 
 be Chrift s, then are ye Abrahams Seed: He doth not lay, 
 If ye profefs the true Faith,but if ye be ChriiVs 5 fo'that 
 fuch as were given to Chrift by the Father, and only 
 fuch, are the Members of this Body, to whom the Promi- 
 fes were made. 
 
 Secondly, You grant, that this Body is made up botli 
 of Jews and Gentiles ; now the Gentiles were not a profef- 
 iing People when the Promifes were firft made to them, 
 Rom. 4. 17. 1 have made thee a Father of many Nations \ 
 fpeaking of thofe things that were not bs if they were : 
 Thefe were all taken into Union with Chrift, when he 
 took our Nature upon him, Eph. 1. 10. the 2. 15, 16/ 
 That he might make in him f elf of Twain one new Man, and 
 that he might reconcile both unto God in one Body by the Crofs i 
 Jew and Gentile were never one body politick, therefore 
 it mull b§ one body myftical -, which could be x>o other 
 
 way 
 
17* Crutfc ©ntDfcatei) 
 
 way but by union with him who is the Myftical Head ; 
 and thus they were, when they were reconciled to God 
 by the Crofs, or by the Blood of the Crofs } now thofc 
 only that are united to Chrift are that Body to whom 
 the Promifes were made j they were made to no more 
 than (hall enjoy the good and benefit of them, Rom. 4. 
 1 6. It is by faith , that it might be by Grace, to the end that 
 the promife might be fur e to all the feed; That in the 14th* 
 verfe, that you brought to prove that Chrift is the 
 Head of a profefling family, is not to the pnrpofe 7 that 
 fpeaksnot of the Gentiles as a Profefling People, but of 
 the Gentiles as redeemed by Chrift j and the bleffing 
 of Abraham that is there faid to come upon them, is to 
 be undcrftood of all the pofitive good of the New-Co- 
 venant, Grace here, and Glory hereafter. 
 
 Secondly^ You fay, that all that profefs Jefus Chrift 
 are externally in him, and fo have fome right to the 
 Promifes. 
 
 Reply. Fir]?, If by an External Intereft in Chrift 
 you mean, that fuch as make aprofeflionof Chrift are in 
 the Jddgment of Charity to be iookt on as having an In- 
 tereft in Chrift, and confequently in the Promifes, I 
 grant it - 7 but if this be not your meaning, when you fay 
 they are externally in Chrift, then I know not what you 
 intend by it. 
 
 Secondly , If they are not really what they profefs 
 themfelves to be, however they may be lookt on by 
 others, they have no Intereft in Chrift, nor in the Pro- 
 mifes ^ they make themfelves Hypocrites by their Pro- 
 feflion, and fuch have no intereft in Chrift by being Hy* 
 pocrites. 
 
 Thirdly , Though thofc that make a profeflion of 
 Faith are in the Judgment of Charity to be lookt on 
 as having an Intereft in the promife, yet this lets not 
 their Children into the Judgment of fharity that make* 
 no Profeflion* 
 
 Again, 
 
®vutl) ©tttfcfcatea. 173 
 
 Again, Yoa fay, you proved in your former thac 
 Abraham's Spiritual Seed can't certainly be known by 
 their Profeffion and Converfion. 
 
 Re fly. Firft, "Then we may not conclude, that every 
 Profeffor is a Member of that Body to which ihe Prorm- 
 fes are made. You grant in your Reply to GaL 3.29. thaE 
 it's the fpiritual feed only that is there defcribed, and I 
 think it can't rationally bedenied,but that the feed in the 
 29th. verfe, and the feed in the i6tb> are the fame, and fo 
 the Proraifcsare made to no more but the Spiritual Seed, 
 
 Secondly, I grant, the fpiritual feed can't certainly be 
 knDwn to any but themfelves : It's poffible that a graci- 
 ous Jbul may know himfelf to be one of that number. 
 
 Thirdly, There are none among the Gentiles that are the 
 feed of Abraham Jaut fuch as.are his fpiritual or his rayfti- 
 cal Seed, for that is it that I intend by his fpiritual {Qzd. 
 
 Fourthly, There are none but the ktd of Abraham 
 that are the fubjects of this Covenant, whence I con- 
 clude that you can no farther look on aperfonto be a 
 fubject of this Covenant, than you can look on him to 
 be one of the fpiritual Seed } nor can you look on him to 
 be one of the fpiritual Seed farther than you can look 
 on him to be a Believer, and fo walking in theftcps of 
 Abrahams Faith. 
 
 Again, You fay, that I acknowledge that fuch as tru- 
 ly repent have an Intereft in the Covenant of Grace < and 
 feeing I grant this, it muft needs follow that they had a 
 conditional right to the promifc before their Converfion. 
 
 Reply. Firft, They had more than a Conditional Right 
 to the Promife, they had an abfolute right, and their 
 Converfion is a fruit of their Irttereii : To us are given 
 great and precious promt fes, that by them we might be male 
 partakers of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1 .4. But what is this 
 to thofe that never repent ? Such as do in time repent 
 are the Subjects of the New-Covenant, that's granted j 
 they that never repent,were never the Subjects thereof. 
 
 M Yoa 
 
174 Crotty ®mi»icate&. 
 
 You fay, ic feems you were miftaken, when you 
 thought 1 had lookt on the regenerate to be the only 
 Subjects of the Covenant of Grace, and that I do now 
 declare that they are the Elect, and only the Elect, 
 that I own to be the Subjects of that Covenant ^ and 
 having defcribed the Elect, I endeavoured to prove it. 
 You fay, it's ftrange to you that I make a difference be- 
 . iween the Elect and the Regenerate, when you thought 
 | that according to my Principles I had held that the rege* 
 f nerate fhould never fall finally from Grace, and conse- 
 quently that they were Elect. 
 Reply. I grant, that the regenerate are Elect, but all 
 • ; . the Elect are not yet regenerate. • 
 
 Secondly, I grant, the Regenerate to be the Subjects 
 of -the Covenant of Grace, but not the only Subjects 
 thereof, fothat my diftinction deferves no Objection. 
 Secondly , I fuppofe by this time you are fatisfied that 
 it is my Principle that the regenerate (hall not fall away. 
 Secondly, You fay, I feem to contradict my fell, when 
 I lay, fhew me a Beiiever,and I will fhew you an Elect 
 Perfon,and yet conclude that the regenerate are not the 
 only fubjects of this Covenant ; for if all true > Believers 
 are the Elect, then all the regenerate are the Elect, be- 
 caufe all the regenerate are Believers. 
 
 Reply. 1 wonder how you came to thinjLl contradict 
 
 my feif, or that this fhould be fuch a ftKlox to you : 
 
 That all true Believers are the Elect, isjpanied j that 
 
 all the Elect do yet believe, is denied ; trfj reafon why I 
 
 laid, (lie w me a true Believer, and 1 will fhew you an Elect 
 
 ; . Perfon,was, becaufe Faith is fo peculiarly the priviledge 
 
 &ot God's Elect, that their Election may be argued from 
 
 wt ; They were thofe only that were ordained to eternal 
 
 Hfe that believed. Acts 1 3. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, there are as great Errors in my 
 Jl^rjption of the Elect, and my endeavours to prove 
 th«g the only Subjeftsofthe Covenant of Gr?ce. 
 
 Reply, 
 
Reply. If they be no greater than the Teeming contra- 
 dictions you charged niewith, it's well enou^ji. 
 
 The firft Error you fay is this, that I tell you Men are 
 not elected uponaforefight of Hol ? nefs, but that they 
 ihould be holy, Epb. 1.4. You fay, that there is a great 
 difference between Election to the Qnd, and Ele&ion 
 to the means : Election to the means is not of Works, 
 but of him that calleth, for God affbrdeth us the means 
 of Grace, that we foouldbe holy, Eph» 1 . 4. 
 
 Reply. Here is not one word of the means of Grace, 
 but of Grace it felf ', That wejfhould be holy^ and without 
 blame before him in love, I told you there were hut 
 .things which lay in the very furface of the Text? 
 Firft, That this choice was of particular perfons, Pad 
 and the Ephefians. Secondly^ That it was made before the 
 foundation of the World. Thirdly, That it was made 
 in Chrift. And, Fourthly, It was, that we fhould be 
 holy. Now (hew me my Error in any one of thefe 
 four if you can ; and from hence I concluded, that we 
 were not chofen upon a forefight that we would be 
 holy, but that we Ihould be holy ; and if need were, I 
 could back it with fever al Scriptures, but till I have a 
 more pertinent anfwer to this, I fnall ftand by the fame* 
 
 Secondly^ ifou fay, that^ietlion to the End hath 
 refpect tofFaith and HoUsfflrss the Conditions, For Co l 
 hath from the beginning chof?fr< us to fahation through f m~ 
 Uification of the Spirit, and belief of the Truth, 2Thef. 2. 13.' 
 but if God elected Men ahfolutely, without any con fide- 
 ration of their Holinefs,he might as well as bellow Solva- 
 tion on them without Holinefs, becaufe tbe.acYua! giving 
 of Salvation is no morereftrained than the willingSfitl 
 
 Reply. Do you now deal fairly with me, in that you 
 
 fecm to intimate, that I have afferted Election to Salva- 
 
 . tion,without any coufideration of Holinefs as the means ? 
 
 You do not fay that it's fo laid down by me ; but if you 
 
 would not have it to be fo taken by the Reader, why 
 
 Ma have 
 
t7<5 ctutlj wuftfrateb 
 
 have you pbrafed it fo dubioufly ? I gave you a defcrip- 
 tion of the Elect, what was thereafon you did not fairly 
 recite it, but keep it dormant as it were ? was it not that 
 you might have the greater Advantage upon me to ex- 
 pofe my Principles to reproach? but feeing you have 
 dealt fo unfairly with me, I fliall briefly recite it my felf. 
 The Defcription that it gave you is asfolloweth, It's a 
 choice that God hath made in Chrift, before the foun- 
 dation of the World, of a peculiar people to Salvati- 
 on as the End,'and to Sanctification as the Means. Here 
 is no Inch thing as Election to the end, without any con- 
 fideration of the means, I put both the means and the 
 end in one decree ', That we fhould be holy, and that we 
 ifhould be happy, and both were proved 2 The/. 2. 13. 
 Eph. 1. 4. but where you will find a Text to prove 
 that Ekction to the end hath refpect to Faith and Ho- 
 lin'efs at conditions forefeen, I know not, nor is there 
 any fuch thing as a conditional Election to be found h 
 the Word. The Decree of God is abfolute, in which 
 there is both the end and the means, the means are as ab-. 
 folutelv decreed 2s the end, and the Subjects (hall in 
 time erpy both. 
 
 My Se "or,d Error you fay is this, that I make God's 
 electing Men to be antecedent to his foreknowledge-, this 
 you fay is directly contrary to Rom. 8. 29. Whom he 
 did foreknow be alfo did predeflinate : Here Predeftination 
 is fubfequent to Foreknowledge, and depends upon it, 
 and if Election follows God's prefcience of Faith, or his 
 f oreacknowledging us for his, 'then Faith in order of 
 nature is before Election, becaufe every object doth pre- 
 cede the act converfant about it. 
 
 Reply. How will you make good your charge againft 
 me here? where I have afTerted Election antecedent to 
 the foreknowledge of God, I faid indeed that God 
 did choofc us, not upon a forefight that we would be ho- 
 ly i now I fuppofe there is a vaft difference between that 
 
 fore- 
 
Crtttlj minMcatzk 177 
 
 forefight Rom. 8. 29. and a bare forefi^ht of wha t 
 would be in time. Leigh in his Annotations, cited 
 by Wilfon, tells you, that the word is not ct That 
 " he knew before, but he acknowledged before, 2 Tim, 
 2. 1 p. The Lord hnoweth who are his : The Lord hath 
 not cafl away his people whom he forek?iew, Rom. 11. 2. 
 By prefcience here we are not to underftard (imply 
 the foreknowledge of God, bat his foreacKnowiedg* 
 ing, which is a knowledge with approbation. The 
 Learned Dx. Hammond reads it, u Whom God hath fore- 
 " approved and acknowledged to be his,according to the 
 cc purport of the Gofpel ; whom he knew as a Shepherd 
 tc doth his flock : The Annotations reads it a Thofe 
 ct whom he marked out as it were from all the Men in the 
 <c world, and fet his affection upon: And you your fdf read 
 it here, " God's foreacknowledging us to be his, which 
 4t is the fame thing with fore-chooling,£ow. 1 1. God hath 
 li not cafl away his people whom he did foreknow : For there is 
 at this time a remnant according to the Election of 
 Grace. Foreknowledge and Election are here put 
 one for another :* Now to fay that I make Election 
 antecedent to this Foreknowledge, is an abufe offered 
 me. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that Predeftination is fabfequent 
 to Foreknowledge, and that it depends upon it. 
 
 Reply. This is yet to prove j though it bepennM in the 
 fecond place, there is no fir ft and fecond in the decrees 
 of God,but all things are at one act laid in the Counfelof 
 the molt High. 
 
 Thirdly, Yoa fay, that Faith was here forefeen. 
 
 Reply. That's yet to prove too -, I may not take it 
 upon your bare Word: The Text fpeaks.of Perfons, 
 not of Qualities or Qualifications, Whom he foreknew, 
 or Fore- acknowledge 'd\ to be his, ( fo you read it ) and if 
 it be the Perfon That is here fsid to be foreknown, then 
 it's not the Quality, and To Faith is not in order of na- 
 * M 3 tare 
 
178 . €vufy sBimrfcateu, 
 
 ture antecedent to Election, for that is not the objeft 
 that the adl is converfant about. 
 
 Fourthly, I deny, that predeftination in this place is to 
 the end : It's not to Salvation, but to be conformable to 
 the Image of his Son. Predeftination in this place is, un- 
 to holinefs : You your felf expound it of fufFering, page 
 3li. he predetermined unto fufferings after the. manner 
 of Chrift : Now there is a vaft difference between fuf- 
 fering and reigning, the one preceeds the other ; If we 
 fuffcr with him, we frail alfo reign with him, 
 - You fay, my third Error is this, that I make fome men 
 to be the fheep of Chrift whilft Unbelievers,and the Text 
 1 quote for it, is, Joh, i o. 1 7. And other fheep I have, that 
 are not of this fold, them alfo Imuft bring,andthey frail hear 
 ray voice, and there fhallbe one fliepherd and one jheep fold. 
 
 Reply. I think you can't charge me with an Error 
 in fpeaking Chrifls words, and not charge Chrift alfo : 
 What have I here fpoken but what Chrift fpake before ? 
 And wherein have I abufed the fence of what Chrift 
 fpake? Fir ft, Chrift tells you he hath other fheep, he 
 £pth not fay he (hall have ;he fpeaks not in the future,but 
 in the prefent Tenfej in the 14^. verfe he fpeaks of fome« 
 Jheep that knew him ; I know my jheep, and am known of . 
 ?nine ; in this verfe he fpeaks of other fheep that he had, 
 thefe are diftin€t from them that knew him. 
 
 Secondly, He faith, that they are not of this fold ; his 
 fheep they were, but not yet folded ; that is, not in that 
 fold where thofe were that did already know Chrift, 
 thefe were fheep that did not know him, therefore they 
 did not yet believe in him. Thirdly, He faith, Them I 
 mujt bring ; that is, into the fame fold where thofe were 
 that did know him ; for he faith, There flail be onefrep- 
 herd and one fieepfold. Fourthly, He faith, They frail hear 
 my voice 5 they were his iheep at prefent, but they had 
 not beard Chrift ''s voice, therefore they had not yet be- 
 ikve& 
 
 Secondly 
 
Secondly j You fay, that the Text fpeaks of the Gen- 
 tiles only, and proves that they fhould in due time be- 
 come his fheep ; that is, Hear his voice, and obey him. 
 
 Reply. Fir ft, This Interpretation is too narrow, for 
 not only the Centiks are intended, but the Jews alfo, 
 . that is, theEledt among them \ for by the fold here we 
 are not to underftand the Jews, as they are coniidered a 
 National Church, but of fuch only as did know the 
 Lord. In the firft fence, the Gentiles were not to be 
 brought into them : In the Second, the Jews were to be 
 brought in as well as the Gentiles ; that is, the Eteil 
 both of Jew and Gentile. 
 
 Secondly, I would Query, What Warrant you have 
 to change the Tenfes here, to put the future Tenfe for 
 theprefent? Chrift faith, That other fieep I have; you 
 fay, that other fheep hefiiall have. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that Chrift tells you, Hisftnep hear 
 his void, and they follow him. 
 
 Reply. It's granted, fooner or later they . fhall hear 
 his voice, for they have a Promife in the Text, They 
 jhall hear my voice : Bat who are they that hear his 
 voice ? Are they not his fheep, his fheep antecedent: 
 thereunto ? As for others, they do not hear his voice, 
 they turn a deaf ear to the call of Chrift, John 10. 26. 
 Te believe not, becaufe ye are not my Jheep, as If aid unto you ; 
 They had no Relation unto Jefus Chrift, and therefore 
 did not believe in Jefus Chrift ; they were not Branches 
 in the Vine, how then could they bring forth the Fruit 
 of the Vine? 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that none are in Chrift but fuch 
 as are New-Creatures, 2 Cor. 5. 17. 
 
 Reply. Intereft in Chrift may come under a threefold 
 Confederation. 
 
 Firft 1 It may be coniidered in refpeft of.D3nation,3S 
 
 being given him by the Father, John 17. Thine they were, 
 
 and thoit gaveft them unto me: This Gift of the Father to 
 
 „ M 4. the 
 
1 8 o Ctrutlj <KittDtcate& 
 
 the Son, was antecedent to the Gift of Eternal Life to 
 them by the Son, verfe2. 
 
 Secondly, Intereft in Chrift may be confidered in re- 
 fpeft of a&ual Union : Chrift in taking our nature upon 
 him took us into union with himfeif, Eph.i.io. the 2. 
 14, 15. He rook not on him the nature of Angels, but he took^ 
 on him the feed of 'Abraham -, Heb. 2. or, He takjith hold of 
 thejeed of Abraham, Margent. 
 
 Thirdly, Inter eft in Chrift may be confidered in refpedt 
 of Reciprocation ; and in this laft fenie I grant, thac 
 none are in Chrift but fuch as are New-Oeatures } but 
 in the two former, the Elect are in Chrift antecedent to 
 the New-Creature. I think this is held as a Maxim, that 
 Union is the ground of Communion ; the New-Creature 
 is communicate d, Tit. 3. 6. The branch cannot bear fruit 
 of it felfa unkfsit be in the vine : Chrift is the Vine, the 
 Believer is the Branch, Faith is the Fruit ; the Branch 4 
 muft be in the Vine antecedent to the bringing forth the 
 fruk of the Vine. 
 
 My Fourth Error, you fay, is this, that I appropriate 
 all the Bleflings of the Covenant of Grace to the Elett : 
 Here you grant that none but the Elecl or faithful per- 
 fevering Chriftians (hall inherit Eternal Glory , but there 
 sre many Bleifings of the Covenant, as Vocation, and 
 many offers of Grace and Mercy that are come upon all 
 Believers. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, I would Query, Whether by the Elect 
 or faithful perfevering Chriftians you intend the fame 
 Perfons as I think you do? if not, then I would Query 
 how it appears that there are faithful perfevering Chri- 
 ftians amongft the Non-Eledt ? 
 
 Secondly, If by Believers here you mean true Believ- 
 ers, then you do not convince me of Error } for if they 
 do believe, they sre Ele&, and fo you bring in no more 
 to Ciare in New-Covenant-Bleflings than I do : If they be 
 pot true Believers, then whatever they do profefs, they 
 
 * are 
 
 1 
 
cwttj wftttricstea; is* 
 
 are but Hypocrites and Unbelievers, and the greater 
 their profeflion is, the, greater is their Hy pocrifte : Now 
 that there is any New-Covenant Bkfling which belongs 
 to thofe that live and dye Unbelievers, I deny. 
 
 Thirdly, There are fome things that belong to the 
 Elect by vertue of the New-Covenant, which are New- 
 covenant Bleflings unto them, that yet are not fo to 
 others,thoughithey have them. Food[and Raiment comes 
 to the Elect by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, and the 
 fame things come to Pagans and Heathens, that have no 
 Interefl in the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 Fourthly, To be under a Gofpel-call, and not to An* 
 fwer it, will be an Aggravation of a Perfons Mifery. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that Vocation and feveral offers of 
 Grace and Mercy belongs to all Believers : If by Voca- 
 tion you intend an Effectual Call, this belongs to the 
 Eleft only, Rom. 8.30. Whom he did predeftinate, them 
 he alfo called : But if by Vocation you intend a common 
 Gall, this is extended to all where the Gofpel comes ; 
 this has been and may be to Jews and Pagans that reject it, 
 and fuch you grant have no Intereft in the Covenant 
 of Grace. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, the whole Church of Ephefus were 
 bleft with all fpiritual Bleflings neceffary to bring them 
 to Heaven, Eph. 1.3. Bat it can hardly be proved that 
 they were all elected, and continued faithful unto the 
 end -, nay, fome of them did fall, and were threatned 
 unlefs they repented, Rev, 2. 
 
 Reply* Firfi, If they were bleffed with all fpiritual 
 bleflings neceflary to bring 'them to Heaver, then they 
 were bleft with perfeverance ; unlefs you will deny that 
 to be a fpiritual Blefling, or that Perfeverance is necef- 
 fary to bring to Heaven, but neither of tbefe can be 
 denied. For Fir ft Perfeverance is a promifed Blefling, 
 and of a fpiritual Nature, John 10. 28. 
 Secondly, It's fo necefTary to Salvation, that withou; 
 
 it 
 
,s« Ctaty mtnbicatea. 
 
 ic a Perfon can't be faved ; He that endureth to the end, the 
 
 f leSl! e i a A, thatitcP.nhardly.be proved that 
 they we?e all elefted, and continued iaithtul unto the 
 
 En p'„/„ rirtl Th» one may be proved as well as the 
 oth ^'he LTaitb!rk, lere leffed >** -tf«r«-« 
 ? / ' Lrh like wife declare, That it was according as 
 
 ltthe?loddbeholy,*«d mthom blame before htm mlovc. 
 
 STptfevellng ft-, but they were chofen to a blame- 
 
 M% Hl t rfu D poTyo P u e a^noT gS'nt, that when 
 thf AnSe wS?o p rticular Chufches,' and declares 
 
 i^l^SdMtt«Uy and finally fall away, 
 
 grant that cney um ? oaf/nw* 
 all that can be /«d o f then, .this, iy 
 
 lij to *foj were not all oj us , jj j 
 
 w luldr,o doubt have^rut^ dm thus ^ 
 
 fourthly. You fay, that al that can be g ^ 
 
 f ow. 1 1 . 6. is the remnant or tne jews w ^^ 
 
obeyed the Gofpel, obtained Judification, the red that 
 reiifted the Gofpelgrew obdinately blind. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I would Query, Whether they did not 
 obtain Sanctification as well as Judication? Whether 
 Faith was the Improvement of Nature ? was not that a 
 New-Covenant Blefling ? 
 
 Secondly ,1 grant that fome of them believed, and obey- 
 ed the Gofpel, and the reft did not ^ but who were they 
 that* believed ancj obeyed ? were they not the Elect on- 
 ly ? And who were they that rejected Chrid ? were not 
 they theNon-elect ? The Election hath obtained, and 
 the reft were blinded. Do what you can, you can't 
 bring in one perfon more than the Elect to (bare ir* 
 New-Covenant. Bleffings. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that though thofe that reject the 
 Gofpel are call off and excluded the mercies of it, 
 yet thofe that embrace the Gofpel are in the Covenant of 
 Grace, and in a good Capacity to obtain the Bleffings 
 thereof. 
 
 Reply. I grant it: Such as do truly embrace the 
 Gofpel, if they believe in Jefus Chrid, they have obtain^ 
 ed fome of them already, and they (hall obtain the red ; 
 He that believeth, fnallbefaved : Yet are thefe the Elect 
 dill, for Faith is fo peculiarly the Privikdge of the 
 Elect, that from the one the other may be argued, 
 1 Thef. 1.4. 
 
 My Fifth Error, yon fay, was this, that Chrid fuk 
 fered only for the Elect, which I endeavoured to prove 
 by thefe Scriptures, Jfa. 53.8. John 10. 15. Eph.-$. 
 25. John 17,9. where it is faid, That Chrt ft was [mit- 
 ten for his people, and laid down his life for his [heep, and 
 gave himf elf for his Churchy and prayed for thofe that were 
 given him of the Father, and notjor the World. You fay, 
 its true that Chrid gave himfelt for his Church and Peo- 
 ple, and he died for all men too ; For Chrift is the Savi- 
 mr QJ Ml men , ( faith the Apoftle ) efpccially of thofe that 
 
 believe 3 
 
184 €vufy win&tcafeb 
 
 believe; i Tim. 4.10. He is a fpecial Saviour of the 
 Faithful, in that he hath not only fatisfied for their 
 fins, but will confer on them the benefits of Redempti- 
 on ; and he is a General Saviour to all Men, in that he 
 hath, paid the price of their Redemption, and reftored 
 them to fuch a Capacity of Salvation, as that they may 
 obtain it, if they be diligent; and they that perifli do 
 not perilh for want of Redemption purchafed for them, 
 but through their own wicked wilfulnefs. 
 
 Reply. I muft in the firft place take a litte notice 
 how you read this Text, that you have fo largely 
 paraphrafed upon ; you fay the Apoftle tells us, That 
 Chrift is the Saviour of all men , but efpeeially of them that 
 believe : 1 mull object againft your reading the Text, 
 as well as againft your Expofition, there is not a Word 
 of Chrift in the Text, nor is Chrift confidered there as 
 Mediator ; the Text runs thus, For this caufe we both 
 labour andfufftr reproach, becaufe we truft in the Living God, 
 who is the Saviour of allmen y but efpeeially of them that be- 
 lieve : Now though Chrift as Mediator is God as well as 
 Man, yet he is not here confidered as Mediator, nor 
 as diltinct from the Father and the Spirit : As he is in bis 
 Mediatory Office, the living God in this place is to 
 be coniidered Father, Son and Spirit. 
 
 Secondly, This Text fpeaks not of Redemption, but 
 of an outward Salvation, which by the providence of 
 God is extended unto all, but especially to them that 
 believe j that it intends an outward Salvation appears, 
 Firft 9 in that it's oppofed to furFering, and is a Ground 
 of Encouragement to the people of God in furFering ; 
 We therefore labour andfuffer, becaufe we tru(l in the living 
 God j but what do they truft in God for? I anfwer, 
 it's for Salvation ; and what is that Salvation ? Why, 
 fuch as is extended to all Men, it's a Common Salvation 
 inrefpeclofthematterofit, though it be extended to 
 Believers in a fpecial manner j it comes to them through 
 
 the 
 
the Covenant of Grace, they are under his fpecial Pro- 
 vidence, and nothing (hall befall them but what fliall be 
 for their advantage : God hath promifedthem, That he 
 will not fuffer them to be tempted above what they are able to 
 bear, \ Cor. io. 13. 
 
 Secondly, It appears that it is an outward Salvation, 
 in that Believers, confideredas fuch, are the fubjedb 
 thereof; He is the Saviour of all men, but efpccially of them 
 that believe : But Believers,confidered as fuch,are not the 
 Subjects of Redemption: Chrift died for firmer s, thejuftfor 
 the mjutt, that he might bring them unto God. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that Chrift will confer on them 
 that believe the Benefits of Redemption. 
 
 Reply. Firjl, I would Query, Whether Chrift" will 
 confer on them that believe ail the benefits of Redemp- 
 tion, which will amount to a full, ample and compleae 
 Difcharge from all fin, paft, prefent aiid to come ? this 
 I fuppofe you will not grant me, for it would interfere 
 with your principle of falling from Grace ; ifaiifm, 
 paft, prefent j and to come, were pardoned to every be- 
 liever, then there could be no fuch thing as a Believer to 
 fall away and be damned. 
 
 Secondly, I would Query, How Chrift may be faid 
 to be a Special Saviour to them that believe, when fome 
 of them that believe may at iaft fall away and be dam* 
 ned as well as others ? for fo you hold ; but how incon- 
 fiftentfuch principles are, let the Reader judge. 
 
 Thirdly, I would Query, Whether Faith it kl( be 
 not one of the Benefits of Redemption ? Whether it be 
 not one Branch of the Bielfing of Abraham that comes on 
 thofe that are redeemed from the Curfeofthe Law, 
 Gal. 3. i3« and how it comes about that Faith comes 
 on fome that are redeemed by Chrift, and not on all. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that he is a General Saviour to all 
 Men, in that he hath paid theprice s£ their Redemp- 
 tion. 
 
1 86 <&vutfy wtntfcateft 
 
 Reply. If Chrift hath paid the price of their Redemp- 
 tion, then Jaftice isfatisfied with the price paid, or it 
 is not : If it be, then Juftice it felf pleads their dif* 
 charge for whom the price was paid ± if it be not, it's 
 for want of Merit in the price paid, and that were blaf- 
 phemy to afTert. 
 
 Secondly y If Chrifl: paid a price for all, then all are 
 difcharged, or they are not ; if they are, then none (hall 
 perifn ; if they are not, then are they denied that which 
 in Jaftice is their right. 
 
 Thirdly, If Chrift hath paid a price for all, then he 
 hath his purchafe, or he hath not : If he hath, then are 
 .all jaftined, I fa. 53. 11. By his Knowledge (hall my righ- 
 teous Servant j aft i fie many, for he ftiall bear their Iniquities. 
 Thofe whofe Sins were born by Chrift were juftified by 
 Chrift, 1 Pet. 2. 24. By whofe ft ripe s ye were healed. If 
 he hath not his purchafe, then the Promife fails to 
 Chrift, Ifa. 53. \o> \Vhen>thou (halt make his Soulanoffer* 
 in? for Sin y he ffiall fee his Seed, he ftjall fee of the travel of 
 his Soul, and ftjall be fatisfied: Who can think that Chrift 
 fees of the travel of his Soul with fatisfaction, when fo 
 many thoufands for whom he travelled in Soul, and for 
 whofe Sins he made his Soul an offering, to go without 
 the Benefit of it ? , 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that all Wen are reftored to fuch 
 a Capacity of Salvation, that they may attain it if 
 they are diligent to do their Duty. 
 
 Reply, h there a Power given to all to do what God 
 requires, or is there not ? If you fay there is, then I 
 would defire you toanfwer thole Scriptures that feem 
 to me to fpeak the contrary, Rom. 8. 7, 8. Heb. \\.6. 
 1 Cor. 2. 24. If you fay, fhac all Men have not a Power 
 to do what Gad requires of theta, then they are not 
 reftored to fuch a capacity as to be faved, let them do 
 what they can. 
 
 Secondly, Are all called by the Word and Spirit ? 
 
 have 
 
€mtty 5Ufnbfcate&. 187 
 
 have they the firfl: Degree of Grace, by which their 
 Underffcandingsare enlightened, and their Wills renew- 
 ed, or have they not ? If you fay they are, then I 
 would defire you to prove it too, and fljew me how 
 thofs may be faid to be called by the Word and Spirit, 
 that neVer had the Word vouchfaf d to thern \ if you 
 fay, they are not fo called and qualified, then they 
 can't poflibly do what God requires of them, ■ grant- 
 ed by your felf, pug. 31, 32. 
 
 Fourthly^ You fay, that none do periih for want of 
 Redemption purchafed for tfiem, but through their 
 own wicked Wiifulnefs. 
 
 Reply. Firfl : , If there be Redemption purchafed for 
 all, then all have the Benefit of it, or they Jiave not : 
 If they have, then have ail their fins pardoned, for Re- 
 demption and Remiffion of Sin is the fame thing, Eph. 
 1.7. In whom we have redemption through his Blood, even 
 the forgivenefs of our fins ; If they have not, then are they 
 denied that which in juftice they ought to have. It^s in- 
 coniiilent with the jufticeof Man to hold a Captive ftiil 
 in bonds when bis Freind hath paid his Raniom. But 
 you will fay, that fome will not confcnt to be dii- 
 charged upon the account of the Ranforn paid by Chrift. 
 I anfwer, the Queftion is not what men will confent to, 
 but what the Father by vertue of the Compact between 
 the Son and himfelf hath conferred unto : Either the Fa- 
 ther did confent that thofe for whom the Son paid this 
 Ranfom, mould be difcharged, or he did not* j if he did, 
 then are all difcharged, if not, then none could be dif- 
 charged, for it was not the price paid, ( though it was 
 of infinite worth ) that could procure the Difcharge 
 of any, but the confent of the Father, to receive the 
 fatisfa&ion in the paymenfof it. A Creditor may re- 
 fufe a Debt, when tendered by another, he may require 
 it of the Debtor, but when he hath eonfented to take ic 
 of a Surety, then he can't refufeir, nor can he hold the 
 
 De btor 
 
1 88 crutij ffiimatcatca. 
 
 Debtor under Obligation, having received full fads- 
 faction by the Surety. 
 
 Secondly ^ Chrift hath purchafed Redemption from 
 all (ins, or he. hath not ^ if he hath, then for their Un- 
 belief, then for their wicked Wilfulnets, fothat there 
 is now nothing left to damn where Chriftdied to fave ; 
 if he hath not, then do they ftili perilh for want of 
 Redemption purchafed for them. 
 
 Thirdly, The Efficacy ot the price paid by Chrift did 
 depend on the Will of the Creature, or it did not : If it 
 did,none could have the Benefit of it. Naturally men are 
 averfe to Jefoa Chrift, and to Salvation by Chrift : Men 
 will not come to Chrift that they may have life. A Will 
 to come to {efus Chrift is one of the Politive Bieffings of 
 the New-Covenant, held forth in a free Promife, Pfal. 
 no. 3. Batmen mult be at liberty from the Curfeof 
 the Law, antecedent to the enjoyment of this Bieffings 
 6W.3.13, 14. If the Efficacy of the price did not de- 
 pend op. the Will "of the Creature, then all for whom 
 the. price was paid mail have the Benefit thereof. 
 
 Fourthly, Either Jefus Chrift redeemed ail from final 
 U oelief,or he did not j if he did,nonefhalJperiih for Un- 
 belt fc if he did not, then fome fhallperim for want of 
 a Redeemer. 
 
 Secondly, Y0.1 fr/, that in this fenfe the Scripture 
 plainly teacheth that Chriftdied for all, John$. 16, 17. 
 1 John 2.2. You fay, Codfo loved the World, that, &c. and 
 that Chriil came to fave the World, and that he is a 
 Propitiation for the fins of the whole World. 
 
 Repfy. llnppofe that one Anfwer may ferve to all 
 thefe Scriptuees, for it's the word World, or the whole 
 World, that you infift upon. 
 
 Ftrft, This word World hath various Acceptations 
 in Scripture, and nothing may be concluded barely 
 froTi an equicai word farther than the Scope of the 
 place? leads cau. There are three Acceptations of the 
 
 word 
 
Word in one wr/ey John 1. 10. He was in the- World $ 
 that is, the Habitable Part of the World *, and the 
 World was made by him • the whole Univerfe, Heaven 
 and Earth, and all things therein •, and the World 
 knew* himnot ; the poor, blind, unregenerate part of the 
 World. In this lad Acceptation the Word is taken, 
 1 John$, 1 p. Beloved, we are of God, and the whole World 
 lieth in Wickednefs : There were fome that were born of 
 God,thereforeit can't be underftood of every individual 
 perfon, but of the unregenerate only. 
 
 Secondly, The word is fometirries to be taken of all 
 Believers in the World, Col. 1. 6". The Go/pel that is come 
 unto you, as it is unto all the World, andbringeth forth fruit 
 in them, as it doth alfo in you. 
 
 Thirdly, It's fometimes to be underftood of the Non~ 
 elect, Johmj. Iprayforthefe, Ipray not for, the World. 
 
 Fourthly, It's taken for the Elect only, 2 Cor. 5. ip a 
 God was in Chrift reconciling the World unto himfdf, not im- 
 puting unto them their Trefpaffes : The Non- imputation of 
 Sin is their Difcharge from fin, and filch are in a blefled 
 ftate, Rom. 4. Bleffedis the manwhofe iniquities are for - 
 given, and whofe fin is covered ; blejfed is the man to whom the 
 Lord does not impute fin. In this laft fence I take the wotd 
 in the three Scriptures that are before us, that in John 
 3. 16, 17. tells US, That'Godfo loved the World, that hs 
 gave his only begotten Son, &c. This is the greateft and 
 moft fpecial Love of God, fuch a love that can withold 
 nothing from thofe to whom or for whom Chrift it 
 given : He that fpared not his own Son, but delivered him 
 up for us all, how (load he not with him freely give us all 
 things? Rom. 8.31. He that hath given his Son will 
 give his Spirit too, he will give Grace and Glory to 
 thofe to whom he hath given his Son, verfe 17. Godfent 
 not his Son to condemn the World, but that the World through 
 him might be faved : This is the fame World for whom 
 his Son was given in the w/Hefore.Jfk were the end of 
 
 H God 
 
190 €tuty tajintrtcateu* 
 
 God in fending Jelus Chrift to fave the World,then that 
 World for which Chrift wasfent fhall be faved 5 there is 
 no frustrating the end of God. You grant page 51. that 
 none (hall be foved but the Elector Faithful Perfevenng 
 Glfriftians, ( which is the fame thing ) and if none but 
 the Elect (hall be faved,then that world that Chrift came 
 to fave are the Elecl only. As for the third Scripture, 
 1 Job. 2.2,. He is the propitiation for the fins of the whole world-, 
 the Word fignifies a peace- making Sacrifice : Now thofe 
 for whom he hath made this peace, fhall in time enjoy it, 
 they dial) enter into peace, and thefe are the Elect only, 
 for they only fhall be faved, Rom. 5. 10. If when we vrere 
 enema we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much 
 more kirn reconciled we foall be faved by his life. Reconci- 
 liation was the hardeft part ot Chuffs Undertakings it's 
 eafie for Chrift to fanftifie and glorifie, in refpeft of 
 what It was to reconcile ;and having performed the molt 
 difficult Task of all his Undertakings, he will not fail to 
 perform thekiTer part 5 thofe that are reconciled by his 
 death, fliall cer ta in ly*be faved by his life. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that Chrift came to feek and to 
 fave that which was loft, Luke 19- 10. 
 
 Reply. Firft, What Chrift came to do, that he did, 
 or he did not ; if he did, then are thofe faved, and if 
 faved, it is from fin 5 if he did not, either it was for 
 want of Will, or for want of Power, neither of which 
 can he charged on Chrift. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that Chrift was made under the 
 Law to redeem thofe that were under the Law, Gal. 
 4.4.. but all were loft by tranfgreOion, and were under 
 the Law, therefore Chrift came to redeem and fave 
 
 &pfy. Firft, If we confult the Coherence, we fhall 
 
 find that this Scripture treats of a peculiar people. In 
 
 the preceeding -verfes you have a Amity of an Heir, 
 
 while in his 2\'onace he differs not from *n hired Servant, 
 
 ** though 
 
though he be Lord of ally but is under Tutors and G over nours* 
 till the time appointed of the Father : This he applies to a 
 Peculiar People, verfe 3. So we, when we were Children $ 
 were in bondage under the Elements of the World, but when 
 the fulnefs of time was come, &c. Now to what end did 
 God fend forth his Son 60 redeem? Was it not that we 
 might receive the Adoption of Sons? He applies it (till 
 to a peculiar people. Adoption is an adl of Grace with- 
 out us, that works no inherent Change inns; it gives 
 us relation to God, but makes us not like unto God, 
 Adoption may come under a threefold Confideration : 
 Firfl, In refpedl ofPredeftination, Eph. 1. 5. Who hath - 
 predeftinated us to the adoption of Children, &c. Secondly $ 
 In refpedl of the Covenant, as it was tranfadled between 
 the Father and the Son, and in this refpedl they were 
 his Children before he took their nature on him, Heb. 2. 
 /, and the Children that the Lord hath given me , and becaufe 
 the Children were partakers offle[h,he alfo him f elf took^part of 
 the fame. Thirdly, In the refpedl of the Confummation 
 of the Covenant* by the offering up of the Lord; Jefus *, 
 and in this fenfe 1 take it here, That we might receive the 
 adoption of Sons, not in refpect of any adl of ours, but in 
 refpedl of the Confirmation of the Covenant of Grace 
 by the Oblation of Chrift ; and fo the Word Received is 
 taken elfewhere, Heb. 9. 1 5. For this caitfe he is the Me- 
 diator of the New-Covenant, that by means of death for the 
 tranfgrcffwns that were under the fir ft Covenant, they that 
 are called might receive the promife of Eternal Inheritance : 
 They that were called, though they had received the 
 promife by Faith, yet they had not received the promife 
 in refpedl of the Confirmation thereof, till Chrift was 
 offered up, A Teftament is not of force till men are 
 dead , when the Teftatorisdead, then the Teftament 
 is of force, Heb. ii. ult. Thefe all died in faith,not having 
 received the promife, God having provided fome better thing 
 for us, that they without usfoould not be made perfect, They 
 
 N % P ap~ 
 
192 <®vuty minuicatek 
 
 applied the Promife before us^ they died in Faith, but 
 they did not receive the Promife in refpect of the Con- 
 firmation of it before us ; upon that account their Per- 
 fection and ours was together and at once, and in this 
 fenfe I take the Word received, Gal. 4. 5. and that for 
 this Reafon \ there could be no Act of Application on 
 our part, antecedent to the fending forth of the Spirit 
 of his Son into our Hearts -, but this Reception of the 
 Adoption of Sons is antecedent to the fending forth of 
 the Spirit of his Son \ Becaufe ye are Sons, God hath fent 
 forth the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts, crying, Abba, 
 father: So that this Text fpeaksof theChildrei only, 
 not of others, offuch as are fo redeemed as never to 
 come under Bondage more : Wherefore thou art no more 
 a Servant, but a Son. 
 
 Secondly, To be redeemed from the Curfe of the Law, 
 and yet to remain under the Curfe, are Terms incontin- 
 ent *, but fomc are under the Curfe of the Law, fince 
 Chriit was offered up \ As many as are of the Works of the 
 Law are under the Curfe ; but who are they ? I Anfwer, 
 they are fuch as have no Relation unto Jefus Chrift, fuch 
 as are not Abraham's Seed. This Text divides the whole 
 World -, So then they that are of Faith ; that is, they that 
 are of Chrift, Faith being here coniidered objectively -, 
 are bleffcd with faithful Abraham, but others are under 
 the Curfe. 
 
 You fay, that all were loft by Tranfgreffion, all 
 were under the Law, therefore Chrift came to redeem 
 and fave all. 
 
 Reply. What Chrift came to do, that he did -, lhave 
 finijhed the Work, that thou gave ft me to do, John 17.4* 
 but all are not redeemed by Jefus Chrift, fome are un- 
 der ^he Curfe of the Law ftill ; all will not be faved by 
 Jefus Chrift, fome will perifh in their Sins, therefore 
 Jefus Chrift did not come to redeem and fave all. 
 Fifthly, You tell me, that it's exprefly- faid, that 
 
 Chrift 
 
Chrift £^ztf himfelf a ranfom for all, i Tim. 2. 6. 
 
 Reply. Fir]}, This word All is an equivocal Word, 
 and may be taken more largely, or more ftri&Iy, there* 
 fore nothing may be concluded from it, farther then the 
 fcope of the place leads to it, or than the Harmony of 
 the Scripture may be preferved, John 12. And 1, if I 
 be lifted up, will draw all Merimtome-, take the /4//here 
 of every individual Perfon in the World, and it will 
 not hold good ; for all Men are not drawn to Jefus 
 Chnft, all Men have not Faith, and without Faith they 
 can't come to Chrift; all Men have not the means by 
 which Men are drawn to Jefus Chrift -, but take it of 
 thofe that are given unto Jefus Chrift, and it will hold 
 good ; All that the Father giveth me foall come unto me. 
 John tf. 37. 
 
 Secondly j The Word All in the Text before us can'fc 
 poffibly be extended beyond thofe that have the Word 
 vouchfafed unto them , for this ranfom was to be tefti- 
 fied in due time, it was to be publiftied and proclaimed ; 
 but to whom ? I Anfwer, to thofe for whom he gave 
 himleif ; and when ? it muft be in due time ; and when 
 is that, but while Men are in the Land of the living, 
 while they are in a Capacity of coming unto Jefus Chrift, 
 and believing on him ? but there are many that have 
 not the Wofd vouchfafed to them, to whom it was 
 never teftified, therefore this ranfom was not given for 
 all. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, that Jefus Chrift died for all, 
 2Cor. 5. 15. 
 
 Reply. The Word All in this place can't be under- 
 ftood of more than do in time anfwer the end of his 
 Death ; that is, that they fhould live to him that died 
 for them. The end of Chrift can't be fruftrated, he did 
 not only die to juftifie, but to fanclifie alfo, Eph. 5. 
 25, 16. he did not only die to redeem from guilt, Bat 
 to pnrifie to himfelf a peculiar People ualous of good IVorks, 
 
 N 3 Tic. 
 
194 cnitij tmtttncatek 
 
 Tit. 2. 14. but all do not live to Jefus Chrift, therefore 
 he did not die for all. 
 
 Seventhly, You fay, that he tafted Death for every 
 Man , Heb. 2.9. 
 
 Reply. This Word every Man, as well as the Word 
 all, may be reftritted to a peculiar People, 1 Cor. 4. 4, 
 Judge nothing before its time, till he cometh that jhall bring 
 to light the hidden things of darknefs, and make manifeft the 
 fecrets of all Hearts, and then jhall every Man have Praifi 
 of the fame : This can't beunderftood of every Man that 
 fhall be judged, but of every one that hath in a meafure 
 conformed to the Will of God ; of them that ftand at 
 his right hand, not of them that ftand on his left: He 
 will fay to them, I was hungry, and yon fed me not , &c. 
 Thefe fhall never have Praife of the fame. 
 
 Secondly, The fubje&s of the Apoftles Difcourfe, 
 Heb. 2. are the Children of God, the Seed of Abraham, 
 as appears m the following Verfes, and to thefe niuft 
 the Word every Man be reftri<fted \ it is not Reafon to 
 think, that the Word was intended of more than were 
 the fubjects of the prefent Difcourfe. 
 
 Eighthly, You fay, how thefe and fuch like Scrip- 
 tures may be reconciled with a particular Redemption, 
 you do not know. 
 
 Reply. I have in my Anfwer (hewed ydft as well as T 
 can, how thefe Scriptures may be taken, fo as that not 
 one of them may interfere with particular Redemption - 7 
 and have opened them fo, as that the Harmony of Scrip- 
 ture may be preferved 5 but to take thefe general 
 Terms in the fenfe that you do, neither you nor any 
 Man elfe can preferve the Harmony of Scripture.Should 
 the Word World be always taken for every individual 
 Ferfon in the World, then muft we conclude, that 
 nope knew Jefus when he was in the World, 1 John 10. 
 The World knew him not :. This would interfere with John 
 $0.14. 1 Igow my Sheep t, and am known of mine, 1 John 
 
 1»* 
 
5. 19. We know that we are of God, and the whole World 
 lieth in Wickednefs : It carft be fuppofed, that thofe 
 that were born of God did lie in wickednefs, and yet 
 the whole World did lie in wickednefs \ John 17. / 
 fray for thefe^ 1 fray not for the World, Did Chrift pray 
 for fome, or did he not ? If he did, then by the Word 
 World can't be meant every individual Perfon ; if he did 
 not, then tell me what he means, when he faith ? / fray 
 for the fe. Take the Word every Man, 1 Cor. of all 
 that muft be judged, and then thofe that ftand at his 
 left hand, of whom Chrift will fay, / was hungry, and 
 yon fed me not, mull have Praife of the fame,- as well as 
 thofe that ftand on the right hand. And as grest a Nu- 
 dities would follow if the Word All IKould always be 
 taken in the utmoft extent, for then thofe that never 
 heard of the Gofpel ihould be drawn to Jefus Chrift, 
 as well as thofe that have, John 12. / will draw all Men 
 to me. 
 
 Ninthly, You fay, ifGhrift died for the faithful on- 
 ly, then he can't in any fenfe be faid to die for others, 
 but if he died for all, then he may truly be faid to die 
 for his People in a fpeciai manner. * 
 
 Reply. Ftr/l, I never faid that Chrift died for the 
 faithful only, nor do I believe that he died for the 
 faithful at all, confidered as fuch.} he died for Sinners, 
 The J uft for the V?i]Ptfl, that he might bring them unto 
 God; he died for the unfaithful, that he might mak^ 
 them faithful. 
 
 , Secondly, I deny, that Chrift died in a fpeciai man* 
 ner for forae, and in a comraon manner for others -, the 
 Scripture makes no fuch diilinction, and I hope I have 
 removed what you have offered in the Cafe already. 
 
 Tenthly, You fay, that though it be granted, that 
 Chrift interceeded only for the faithful, and not for the 
 World, yet that proves not that he did not die for the 
 
 World, ' . 
 
 N 4 Reply' 
 
1 96 cntty ©tttDtcateD* 
 
 Reply. I defire no fuch grant : I did not fay, that 
 Chrift prayed only for the faithful ; I told you, he 
 prayed for them that (bould believe as well as them 
 that did believe ; he prayed for all that were given him 
 of the father. However, here is a grant, he prayed 
 not for the World, and that is ground-enough for my 
 Conclufion : If he prayed not for the World, he died 
 not for the World ; I think I may fafely argue ( here ) 
 from the lefler to the greater j if he would not ^reath 
 out a Requeft for them, he would not breath out his 
 Life, for tjiera ; if he would not offer up a Prayer for 
 them, he would not offer up his Soul for them. 
 
 Eleventhly, You fay, the fpecial Benefits of Redemp- 
 tion belong to the faithful, and Chrift intercedes with 
 the Father for to give them out to them. 
 
 Reply. Here I would Query, Eirft, What you mean 
 by the fpecial Benefits of Redemption ? Whether Re- 
 rnifllonof Sins be one of them ? If it be, then none are 
 redeemed but fuch as have this Blefling bellowed on 
 them ; you can's fever Redemption and Remiffion of 
 Sin, Eph. 1. 7. 
 
 Secondly, Whether Faith be not one fpecial Benefit 
 of Redemption ? Whether it be not one Branch of the 
 Blefling of Abraham, that comes on thofe that are re- 
 deemed from the Curfe ? 
 
 Thirdly, Whether it be given .to all to believe? if it 
 be, then all fhall enjoy the fpecial Benefits of Redemp- 
 tion, Pardon otSin, and Eternal Salvation. If you fay, 
 its given to all to believe, I would then enquire, HoW 
 fuch as never heard the Word came by it ? Faith ( in 
 refpecl of the Act ) cometh by hearing, if Faith be not 
 given to all, how it appears that ail are in a capable 
 spy of Salvation, according to your own Principles ? 
 for you fay, that the prime Bleffings of the Covenant, 
 as J unification and Glorification, are beftowed on 
 ponq, butoa Condition of Faith and Repentance. 
 
 Twdfthly^ 
 
€vufy wimitatzti 197 
 
 Txvelfthly, You fay, it's not true, that Chrifl: never 
 prayed for the wicked, for he made Interceffion for his 
 Enemies. 
 
 IZfply. If it be not true, it does not at all reflect on 
 me, for I never aflerted it ; you muft charge the un- 
 truth on fuch as are guilty. My Affertion was this - 7 That 
 he frayed not for the World, bnt for them that were given 
 him of the Father ^ fome of which did believe, others 
 fhould in time believe, and till they did I grant thaE 
 they were Enemies unto Chrift. He prayed not for the 
 World, granted by your felf, and yet he prayed for 
 fome that did not then believe, therefore fuch are confi- 
 dered diftintt from the World, antecedent unto Faith. 
 You fay, he prayed for fome that were wicked, and yet 
 you grant he prayed not for the World, therefore 
 thofe wicked ones muft be confidered diftinct from the 
 World whilft wicked ones. 
 
 I (hall now offer one thing to your Confideration, and 
 fo pafs from this Head. If Chrift died for all, as you 
 have here aflerted, then none fhail perifh in their Sins. 
 
 Firfl, Jefus Chrift in dying did defign to redeem 
 from all Sins, not from a part, but from the whole, 
 Tit. 2. 14.. Who gave him felf for us, to redeem us from all 
 Iniquity: Either Chrift did what he gavehimfelf todo, 
 or he did not: If he did, then are they difcharged 
 from all Sin, then there is nothing left to damn, for 
 God damns none but for Sin ; if he did nor, it was for 
 want of Merit in his Blood, and who dares charge this 
 on Chrift ? 
 
 Secondly, He paid the full price, as much as Juftics 
 did require ; he gave his Life a ranfom, and that was all 
 that was expeded; he made his Soul an offering for 
 Sin, upon the performance of which he had the Pro- 
 mife he fhould fee his Seed, Ifa. 53. it. fee them, that 
 is, that he fhould fee ihem delivered} he faw them in 
 Bonds before^ but now he fhould fee them at Liberty. 
 
 Thirdly^ 
 
198 cwty flaittoicsteb 
 
 Thirdly, He did by that one offering obtain their 
 difcharge, Heb. 10. 14. Zech.9. 11. As {or thee, by the 
 Blood of thy Covenant have I fent forth thy Frif oners out of 
 the pit wherein there was no Water. There was not a 
 Prifoner left behind for whom a ranfom was paid by 
 Chrift. 
 
 Fourthly, That Redemption that Chrift obtained was 
 Eternal, they were never to return to bondage more, 
 Heb. 9. 12. he entred once into the Holy Place ; having 
 obtained eternal Redemption for us \ and now I hope, that 
 to an impartial Eye, that will as well weigh what is 
 faid for, as what is faid againft the five Errors that 
 you charge me with, will appear to be Gofpel Truths, 
 and fuch as wherein rr^-Grace does abundantly fhine 
 our, and that the Elect only are the fubjefts of the new 
 Covenant, which was the fourth Note of Diftindtion 
 that I gave between this Covenant and that into which 
 Ifraelmtrcd with their Seed, JDeut. 29. 10. 
 
 In the next place, you fay, that there is one remark- 
 able Note of difference between thefe two Covenants 
 that you have paft over, and that is, the Covenant of 
 Grace is A better Covenant, effablijhed on better ?ro- 
 mfes. To this you fay, you grant, that the Cove- 
 nant of Grace is a better Covenant than the Ceremo- 
 nial Law was, which was called the firft Covenant, 
 f/eb. Si from the ift. verfe to the 2th. but this doth not 
 prove any difference between the Covenant of Grace 
 and the Covenant made with the Jfraelites, Deut. 29. 
 
 Reply. Firft, The Apcftle makes not the Compan- 
 ion here between the Govenant of Grace and the Cere- 
 monial Law, but between two Covenants properly con- 
 iidered ; he calls them the firft and the iecond Cove- 
 nant. The firft Covenant is diftinct from the Ceremo- 
 nial Law as well as the fecond, Heb. 9. 1. Then verily 
 that firft Covenant had alfo Ordinances of Divine IVorJhip, 
 $c. Thefe Ordinances were appointed by the Ceremo- 
 nial 
 
wvuiy wnoicaieo* 199 
 
 hial Law, they were but the adjuncts, of the firfl Go- 
 tenant j and the Ceremonial Law that is mentioned 
 Heb. 8. 3, 4, 5- contains thofe very things that are cal- 
 led the Ordinances of the firfl: Covenant, that are di- 
 flinct from the Eflence thereof ; there was not one of 
 fhefe Ordinances appointed in fourteen Years after the 
 Covenant was made, Gen. 15, 18. compared with Gen 9 
 17. and fome of them were not appointed in four hun- 
 dred Years after. 
 
 Secondly , The Comparifon lies not between Promifes 
 and Precepts, but between Promifes and Promifes } the 
 Covenant of Grace is eflablijhed on better Promifes $ 
 here is the Promife of writing the. Law in the Heart? 
 that all the fubjetls thereof fiall know the Lord ; that 
 God will j vrghe . their Iniquities, and remember their 
 Sins no more : Produce fuch a Promife in that Covenant, 
 Dent. 29. if yon can. And thefe Promifes are abfolute, 
 there is no Condition required of the fubjects thereof 
 entitling them thereunto. Had thefe Promifes been in 
 that Covenant into which the natural Seed were taken, 
 confidered as fuch, they would have been as good in 
 that as in this, and they mould all have enjoyed the 
 Benefit of them. 
 
 . Secondly, You fay, that though this Covenant under 
 the Law was clouded with Mofaical Ceremonies an- 
 next to ir, yet the Nature of it was not hereby chan- 
 ged. 
 
 Reply. It was the firfl Covenant that had the Mofai- 
 cal Ceremonies annext to ir, ( as I have fhewed you aU 
 ready ) Heb. 9. 1. now this firfl Covenant was diilirct 
 from the Covenant of Grace, between which and the 
 fecond Covenant the Comparifon lieth. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, the Prophets did fometimes de- 
 clare the fpiritual Promifes thereof, and the wifefl a- 
 mong the Jews did difcern the fpiritual Bleflings con- 
 tained in them, and the Moral Duties injoincd by ir, 
 $fbe the greateft and the raoft principal, Reply^ 
 
2 oo €fcitt$ tntttfticattb. 
 
 Reply. Firft, That the Prophets declared the fpiri- 
 tual Blcffings of this Covenant, I grant * and that there 
 tfere fome amongft the Jews that did difcern them to 
 be the greateft Bleffings •, but had this been the Cove- 
 nant into which the natural Seed were taken, they 
 would all have had a fighE of them. The Promife is, They 
 (hall all how the Lord, from the leaft to thegreateft of them. 
 
 Secondly, I would enquire, How it appears that the 
 Moral Duties were prefcribed by the Covenant of 
 Grace? That Moral Duties compared with Ceremoni- 
 al are the greateft, I grant, but that they are prefcribed 
 by the Covenant of Grace, I deny. 
 
 SECT. X. 
 
 YOU fay, the next thing debated was, Whether this 
 Covenant into which the Jews entered, be repealed, 
 and Childrens Church-memberfhipbe abolifhed, or no i 
 And whereas I attempted, in my firft Reply, to prove 
 that it was made void by the Death of Chnft, you re- 
 turned this Anfwer,That this Covenant being the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, it was not then abolifhed, but only 
 the Ceremonial Law, which is fometimes called the : fir ft 
 and old Covenant, Heb. 8.7,8, 13. but mftcajof gi- 
 ving you a fatisfaclory Anfwer, I did Nicely difhnguifh 
 between the firfl: Covenant and the Ordinances there- 
 of- and that I then took a great deal of needlefs pains, 
 to foew in what refpefts this Covenant was faulty, and 
 
 111 leply Firft, What I fpoke in that Nice Diftinftion, 
 ras you call it ) (hewing in what refpedts the firft Co- 
 venant was faulty, and in what not, is but poorly an. 
 fwercd by a bare recital thereof, without one Word ot 
 Reply to it. I foould have thought, that a NiceDi- 
 ftinftion fhould have been taken into Confederation, io 
 far as to have (hewn the Nicety and the Unfoundnefs 
 
 tnereor* 
 
crutij satttDicatca. 201 
 
 ihereof, but feeing you have returned no Anfwer to 
 it, I conclude that the Diftindtton ftandsgood, that 
 they were not the Ordinances but the Covenant it felf 
 that was faulty. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, I tell you at laft,tbat the Covenant 
 Bent. 29. is clearly diftinguifhed from the Covenant 
 of Grace by this Mark, that it was the Covenant that 
 God made with them when he brought them up out 
 of the Land cf Egypt, Bent. 29. 25. compared with 
 Jer. 31,32, 33. You fay, you have well confidered 
 thofe Scriptures, and you can't find that thefe were 
 two Covenants, and that you have already proved, 
 Sett.S. pag. 41. that it's the fame Covenant with that 
 Gen. 1 j. 7. Heb.%.10. Jf. 31,33. 
 
 Reply. What proof was then offered was again dif- 
 proved in my Reply, wherein I fhewed you the vafl dif- 
 ference there is between the Tenor of thefe two Cove- 
 nants. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that Covenant into which the Jews 
 entred with their feed contained Spiritual Bkffings, and 
 the Precepts of it were written in their Hearts, Bent* 
 30.6, 14. compared with Rom. 10. 8. 
 
 Reply. I have already anfwered the firffc part of this- 
 Obje&ion, and difproved it. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that the Laws of the Covenant of 
 Grace were written in their Hearts^ or that there was 
 any Law written in their Hearts by vertueofthis 
 Covenant. Fir ft, The word Written is not in the Text, 
 nor is the fenfe of the Word there to be found. Se- 
 condly, That which is called the Law, Beat. 30. 12. is 
 called Ghrift, Rom. 10. 1. ldo not think ic proper to 
 fay, that Chrift was written in their Hearts. Thirdly $ 
 If the Law was written in their Hearts, it mult be 
 there as a ruling Law,or as a Difpoiitive Law : Not as a 
 ruling Law, in that fenfe there was no Law written in 
 the heart fince Adams fall, and it was only the Moral 
 
 Law- 
 
202 Ctut£ wittttcatetk 
 
 Law that was fo written, antecedenc to that fall 
 If it were there as a-Difpofitive Law, then were alll 
 their fins pardoned : He that hath promifed the oueJ 
 hath promifed the other, and both abfolutely, JeA 
 3i. 33 > 34* Shew me a Perfon in whofe heart the Law 
 of God is written, by vertueof this Covenant, and I 1 
 will fiiew you a perfon whofe fins are pardoned. All 
 that can be gathered from thefe two places, is, that 
 Chrift is brought nigh to a people by the Gofpel ; and 
 to grafp after more, is to reach after that which thefe' 
 Scriptures will not afford. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, this Covenant was not firfl made 
 with the jews when they came up out ot Egypt, it was 
 firfl made with Abraham zvA his feed, and only renew- 
 ed with the Jewszt the Land of Moab. • 
 
 Reply. I grant it, yet is that renewing called the mak- 
 ing of the Covenant ; and in that you grant it to be the 4 
 fame Covenant which that Mark refers to that you 
 have in the $$tk verfe, it is clear it was not the Cove- 
 nant of Grace. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that Covenant that was made with 
 Jfrael when they came up out of Egypt , was no other but 
 the MofaicalLzw, as appears Htb. 8. from the ift. t< 
 theSfk 
 
 Reply. Firfl, If the Covenant that was made witl 
 Ijrael when they came up out oiEoypt, was no other thai 
 the Mofaical Law, then that Covenant Dent. 29. 10, 
 ir, 12. was no other than the Mofaical Law ; for thai 
 was the Covenant that God made with them when the] 
 came up out of Egypt, as appears by the lyh.verfe 
 and you confefs your felf, that the Mofaical Law is di- 
 ftindt from the Covenant of Grace, and that it is re- 
 peaied, therefore that Covenant is then repealed. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that the Covenant that God made 
 with them when they came up out of Egypt, was no : 
 Other bu£ the Mofaical Law* You will nnd Dent* 29. 1 
 
 ehac 
 
€vut$ winbitam. 20 j 
 
 that it was according to all the Words that were fpo- 
 ken in the 2%th. Chapter , that he was to make the Co- 
 venant with the Children of I [rati in the Land o(Moab 9 
 which was the Covenant that he made with them ver. 
 10,11, n, 13. Now there is more contained in the 
 2%th. Chapter than the Mofaical Law; there are a great 
 many outward Blefllngs that are promifed on condition 
 of their Obedience, from ver. 2, to 15. among which 
 there is their Profperity promifed in the Land of Cana- 
 an, which was the Land that the Lord promifed to give 
 them, verfe 1 1. now this Land was the Inheritance of 
 the firft Covenant, Gen, 15. 18. God never renewed 
 this Covenant with them after he then made it with 
 Abraham, but he flill mentions the Land of Canaan, as 
 you may fee Gen, 17. 8. Exod. 23. from 22, to the end, 
 2nd Dent. 28. 12. 
 
 Thirdly, There were a great many Curfes threatned 
 in cafe of Difobedience, Dent. 28. from 15, to the 
 end, and thefe are cailed the Curfes of the Covenant, 
 Befit. 29.20,21. Thofe Legal Ceremonial Laws that 
 you refer to, Heb. 8. and the beginning, are the things- 
 which are called the Ordinances of the firft Covenant, 
 Heb. 9.1. which were annext after the firft Covenant 
 was made, Gen, 15. 18. 
 
 Fourthly , You fay,, that this Covenant is delivered in 
 one continued Speech, Chap. 29. 30. 
 
 Reply. If it be granted without proof, that the 29^, 
 and 30^. Chapters were delivered at one continued 
 Speech, yet it will not follow, that what isfpoken in 
 both thefe Chapters, do all of it refpect that Covenant 
 mentioned in Chap. 29. 10,11. I doubt not but Jer* 
 31. was delivered at one continued Speech, and yet 
 there are two Covenants fpoken of, ver. 31,32,33. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that Heart-circumciiion promifed 
 Bent. 30. 6. is a Branch of that Covenant, Bent. 29* 
 iq. or that it belonged to .all the Natural Seed, who 
 
 were 
 
204 Ctputfj wivtokattb 
 
 were the fubje&s of the firft Covenant : I would now 
 Query, Whether the Curfes that are threatned Dent. 
 29. 26,21. be not the Curfes of that fame Covenant 
 mentioned ver. 10, 1 1 ? 
 
 Secondly, Whether thefe Curfes be not threatned in 
 cafe they brake that fame Covenant? And if both of thefe 
 be granted, it will neceffarily follow that it is the fame 
 Covenant that is intended ver. 25. where the reafon 
 is rendered why the Lord laid all thefe Curfes upon 
 them j and if fo, it may ftill be diftinguifhed by this 
 fame mark from the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 Again, If it were only the Mofaical Law that was re- 
 pealed, how then came Circumcifion to be repealed, 
 that was the Token of that Covenant that God made 
 with Abraham and the Natural Seed, Gen. 17. 10 ? This 
 • was no Mofaical Rite in refpect of the firft inftitution. 
 All the Mofaical Law might have been repealed, and Cir- 
 cumcifion have remained; but the Repeal of the Cove- 
 nant, whereof Circumcifion was the fign, made void 
 the Token. 
 
 Again, If it was only the Mofaical Law that was re- 
 pealed,how came the Jewijh Church-State to be repealed 
 and diffolved, when Chrift was offered up ? you fay, it 
 was by vertue of Covenant that they were conftituted a 
 Church, by vertue of Intereft in that Covenant that 
 their Children were Church- members, yet you grant 
 that their Church -date was diffolved when Chrift 
 was offered upj and that the Jews tbemfelves were 
 to be confidered as Aliens, till they embraced the Chri- 
 flian Faith. If the Covenant, by vertue of which they 
 were conftituted a Ghurch, had remained, their Church- 
 ftate would have remained ; that which gave it its be- 
 ing j would have continued it its being : The Repeal of 
 Mo}'ei\ Law would not have made void their Church- . 
 ftate, had not the Covenant been repealed : Now that 
 the Covenant it felf, in which all the people of Ifrael 
 
 flood. 
 
flood, was repealed, when Chrift was offered up is as 
 clear as Words at length can make it, Zach. n. 10. 
 Then I took my <fi l aff \ even Beauty , and cut it afimder, that 1 
 might breakjny Covenant that 1 had made with all the people + 
 and it was broken in that day. Dr. Owen obferves upon the 
 place, " That when the Covenant of Grace was con- 
 ct firmed by the death of Chrift, that then was the pe- 
 culiar Covenant that God made with Ifrael broken* 
 cC snd Jfraelczafed to be a Church. 
 
 In your next Paragraph you fay I tell you, that 
 feeing the Legal Ordinances are repealed, and a New 
 Adminiftration of the Covenant of Grace is eftabliihedf 
 the Ghurch-Biemberfhip of Children mull be proved by 
 this New Adminiftration, and not by the Old, which 
 is aboliihed ; for in the change of the Admioiftratiori 
 there is a change of the Conftitution: The Church was 
 National under the Law, it's Congregational under the 
 Gofpel. To this you fay, that though the Legal Ad- 
 miniftration be aboliihed, yet the Covenant is the 
 fame, and the Priviledges of Believers in fpirituai things 
 is rather greater than leffer under the Gofpel. 
 
 Reply. That the Covenant of Grace remains, is gran- 
 ted, that the Peculiar Covenant that God made with 
 the few's remains, is denied: If the Covenant by which 
 they were conlticuted a Church had remained, their 
 Church-ftate would have remained, but their Church- 
 ftate is diiTolved, granted by your felf, therefore the 
 Covenant by which they held their Church-ftate is dif- 
 folved. 
 
 Secondly, That the Priviledges of Believers in fpiri* 
 ritual things are notlefTened, is granted, but what is 
 that to their Children that are not Believers ? that Be- 
 lievers are Church-members, none denies; theQueftion 
 is, Whether their Children that do not believe are fo 
 
 or no? 
 
 Secondly^ You fay, that by vertue of th§ Covenant 
 
 Q of 
 
206 cnjty ©ittDicateD. 
 
 of Grace, the Children of Believers have a Right to 
 Church-memberfhip. 
 
 Reply, Fir ft, I have but your bare fay fo for 'this, 
 neither Scripture nor Argument to prove it, and my 
 bare denial is of as good Authority. 
 
 Secondly , I proved, that the matter of a Gofpel- 
 Church was vifible Saints, fuch as in the judgment 
 of Charity were inherently holy, among the num- 
 ber of which Children can't be reckoned : I told 
 you alfo, if you could produce but one Infant that 
 ever was a Member of any one Gofpel-Church, I 
 ( would give you the Caufe ^ but thefe things you never 
 replied to. 
 
 Thirdly , You fay, That the Church under the.Go- 
 fpel is not only Congregational 5 for tho* a Congrega- 
 tion of Chriftians under the Gofpel may rightly be 
 called a Church, yet many fuch Churcber, by the A- 
 poftles Authority were united under one Head \ Timo- 
 thy was ordained the firlt Bifhop of Ephtfus, as the 
 Poftfcript declares in 2 Tim. and it's evident he had 
 the Government of feveral Congregational Churches, 
 becaufe he is required to have infpe&ion over other Pa- 
 llors, and to charge fome that they teach no other Do- 
 clrine, 1 Tim. 1.3. And Tims was ordained the firfl: Bi- 
 fhop of the Church of the Cretians, as appears by the 
 Poftfcript, and was left by P**/ to ordain Elders in 
 every City : And the Angels of the Seven Churches 
 of Afia were fingie Perfons, and had Rule over Pref- 
 kyters. 
 
 Rtfly* Tirft, If it were granted, that many fuch Con- 
 gregational Churches were by the Apoftolical Power 
 united under one Head, it would not relieve you, nei- 
 ther on one hand nor on the other, you could no fooner 
 prove that Children were Members under the New- 
 Adminiftration than before : If you can't produce one 
 Child in ten Congregations fingly conlidered, then you 
 
 can't 
 
can't produce one in the fame Congregations collective* 
 ly confidered. 
 
 Secondly, If this were granted, yet it cannot be de- 
 nied bat that the confutation of the Church is alter- 
 ed, and ftill there is a plurality of Churches under the 
 Gofpel} whereas the Church was National under 
 the Legal Difpenfation, and if altered in any thing, 
 it's by vertue of this New-Difpenfation, and thae 
 fliews that we rriuffc now take our rneafures from 
 thence «, and if we will prove Childrens Church-Mem- 
 berfhip under the Gofpel, it mull be done by the Law of 
 the New-Difpenfation, or we do nothing. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that many fuch Churches were 
 by the Apofiolical Power united under one Head, 
 and therefore fhall in the next place examine your 
 proofs. Your firft Inftance is of Timothy ordained the 
 iirft Biihopof Ephefus^ and you prove it by the Polt- 
 fcript. 
 
 Reply. Firft ^ I Queftion the Authorittlof this Pofl- 
 fcript, and that for thefe Reafons : Firjtf I do not find 
 it in all Tranflations ; if it were of Divine Authority, I 
 wonder it fhould be left out. Secondly, The Poflfcripl 
 to that which we call the firft Epiftk to the Corinthians, 
 tells us it was the firft, when it appears Chap. 5. 9. that 
 it was the fecond, therefore I look upon thefe Poft- 
 fcripts to be Humane* 
 
 Secondly, If I grant the Authority of them, it wilt 
 Hand you in little ftead : For, Firfo the Church of 
 Ephefus was but one fingle Congregation, produce at 
 plurality if you can. Secondly, He was ordained by 
 Ele£tion,not made and impofed upon them by any Apo- 
 ftolical Power, he was chofen by the People. 
 
 Thirdly -, A Bifhop and an Elder is the fame things Tiu 
 i.j. compared with the 7^. 
 
 Fourthly, It doth not appear from iTimi.%. that 
 Timothy had an infpettion over other Paftors, in that 
 
 O 2 he 
 
2o8 mvify t&in&icatefc 
 
 he was to charge forae that they (hould teach no other 
 Doctrine. For, 
 
 Firft, You do not know that thefe were Paftors 
 teaching or preaching, not being tyed to Office-Power \ 
 the Members might teach as well as Paftors, they might 
 all prophefie one by one : Prophefying is a fpeaking to 
 Edification, Exhortation and Confolation, i Cor. 12. 
 Many of the Brethren in the Lord waxed bold to preach the 
 Gofpel by my Bonds, faith the Apoftle, Phil. 1. 14, 15, 16. 
 As every man hath received a gift ,fo let him minifler the fame , 
 as good Stewards of the manifold Graces of God: He that 
 fpeaks, let him [peak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4. 1 o. 
 
 Secondly, It it be granted that they were Paftors, yet 
 what power does there appear in Timothy over them by 
 this Scripture, more than was in the Members of the 
 Church of Colofs over Archippus, Golof. 4. Say to Ar- 
 chippus, that he taks heed to his Minifiry that he hath receiv- 
 ed^ to fulfill it. 
 
 Fifthly, Tkre was a plurality of Bifhops or Elders 
 in Efhefks) trough Ephefus was but one Congregation 
 or Church, AEls 20. He fent and called for the Elders 
 of the Church of Ephefus, and gave them a charge to feed the 
 fiock^ofGod over the which the Holy Ghoft had made them 
 Overjeers. The Church of Ephefus was but one flock, 
 and eachof thefe Elders was an Overfeer of the whole 
 flock*, they had equally the overfight of them, and it 
 doth not appear that here was any Superintendent, 
 Primate, or chiejjamong them. 
 
 Your fccond Ioftance is Titus, and his power hath but 
 a Poftfcript for it neither. 
 
 Reply. What I have faid of Timothy with refpect to 
 the Poftfcript you may read over again, and let it fervc 
 for an anfwer here. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, he was to ordain Elders in every 
 City. 
 Reply. Firfi 7 UTitHs were ordained aa Elder of a par- 
 ticular 
 
ticular Church in Crete, it was by Ele&ion, which (hews 
 the power of ordination lay in the Church, not in Mini- 
 fters ; and what power there is in one Church is in ano- 
 ther : Now we may not fuppofe that Paul who never at- 
 tempted to take the power of the Church from them him-' 
 felf, would give Titus a Power fo to do ; he gave him 
 Rules to obferve \ That thou [hould^ft ordain Elders in every 
 City, as I had appointed thee : Titus was left there to be of 
 ufe by way of advice and counfel to them, to acquaint 
 them with the Rules that were to be obferved by them 
 in the Organizing of Churches, but not to cxercifea 
 Monarchical Power over them., 
 
 Secondly, The ordination of an Elder is not the Aft 
 of a Particular Perfon, but of the whole Church, there- 
 fore Titus had not this Power in himfelf, Acts 14.23. 
 When they had ordained them Elders, in all the Churches by ele- 
 ction, &C. Not by laying on of hands ,but by liftivp- up of hands y 
 (zsCartwright obferves on the place in anfwer to the 
 Rhemifts ) it was by common fuffrage ; the ejfence of Ordi- 
 nation lieth in the choice of the people, and the acceptation of 
 that choice* Bez,a notes on the place, That in the Primi- 
 tive Times Miniflers were not made, and thruft upon the 
 people through bribery or Lordly Superiority, but chofe by the 
 common fu]j rage of the people: Each particular Congrega- 
 tion is invented with full power for the right ordering 
 of themfelves, Mat,\%. 
 
 Thirdly, Tims was an Evangelift, as it appears by his 
 work j he was not long Refident in one place, and was 
 only left at Crete for a feafon, to be an Afililant to them 
 in this Work, no fixed Biihop over all the Churches in 
 Crete, 
 
 Your third Inftance is of the Angels, Rev* id, and $d. 
 Chapters, they were (Ingle Perfons you fay, and had 
 the Rule over Presbyters. 
 
 Reply, 'Firft, That thefe were particular men I gran£ ? 
 andfo were the Churches that thsy related to, parties. 
 
 0*3 lar 
 
2io -emtio ©in&icatefc 
 
 lar Churches or Congregations ; produce a plurality 
 of Congregations in any oneofthefe Churches if you 
 can. 
 
 Secondly, Thefe Angels were the Meflengers of the 
 Churches ^ fo the word Angels fignifie. 
 
 Thirdly^ You can't produce one inftance in thefe two 
 Chapters^ that thefe Angels had rule over Prefbyters ; for 
 what is contained in thefe Epiftles is fpoken to the 
 Churches, both by way of commendation, and by way 
 of reproof, and not to the Angels diftinft from the 
 Churches \ what the Spirit fpake was to the Churches, 
 though the Epiftles were fent to the Angels : You can't 
 fay it was the Angel of the Church of Ephefur only 
 that had loft his firft Love, unlefs you contradidt your 
 felf, page 52. You fay it is evident, that fome of the 
 Church of Ephefus fell, and were threatned unlefs they 
 did repent } how the iame that were here threatned, 
 $hat were before commended, that had tried them, thaE 
 had faid they were Apoftles, and were not, and had 
 found them Lyars, verfe 2. fo that it was the Church 
 that had this Infpedtion over the pretended Mini- 
 fters, not the Angels diftinfl from the Church. And ip 
 was the Church of Tergamos that was reproved, in the 
 14th. ver[e r {<yc fuffering corrupt Teachers to remain 
 there: Nor are you ever able to prove that thefe corrupt 
 Teachers had Office-power committed to them. If they 
 had not, then thefe Angels had not rule over Prefbyters \ 
 if they had, it was the Church, not the Angels fingly 
 confldered, that had this ruling power ; if the negledt 
 had been the Angels, not the Churches, the Church 
 would not have been reproved for the Angels fault. 
 
 In the next place you fay I tell you, that the only 
 Commiffion the A potties had from Chrift was to make 
 Difciples by Inftruc~tion a and then to Baptize them \ to 
 this you fay, that Chrilt commiffioned them to baptize 
 all that were difcipkd, and that Infants of Believers are 
 
Crut$ mtvtetoawi. 2 1 1 
 
 infomefenfe Difciples, becaufe God is pleafed to take 
 them into Covenant. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, You granted in your laft, that the 
 chief Commiffion that the Apoftles had from Chrift, 
 was, to make Difciplesby Inftru&ion, and then to bap- 
 tizethem: Upon which I defired you to fhew roe ano- 
 ther, if this were not the only Commiffion that Chrift 
 gave them: Now becaufe you can't find another, but 
 muffc grant that this was the only Gommifion they 
 acted by, you have left out the word Inftruction, which 
 you had granted before ; but this will not do your Bu- 
 finefs. 
 
 Secondly, To bedifcipled by Inftruction, and to be a 
 Difciple of Chrift, is the fame thing ; a Perfon can't be a 
 Difciple of ChrH't unlefs he be taught. Can a Perfon be a 
 Difciple of Chriit unlefs he hath learned Chrift ? If you 
 did no^: know that a Difciple and a Scholar were the 
 fame thing, the Oppofition you make againft it were 
 the more tolerable :You can't define a Difciple of Chrift, 
 but you mufl fay, he is one that hath learned Chrift. 
 Calvin, that was no Friend to the Perfwafion of the Bap- 
 tiftsj faith in the 3^. Book of his Inftitutions, Chap. 2. 
 Seti. 6. that the Apoftledoth commonly ufe the words 
 Faithful and Difciple, as feveral Words expreffing the 
 fame thing; andWilfon in his Di&ionary tells you, the 
 Word Difciple fignifies a Scholar, without giving any 
 other fenfeof it } nor did lever meet with any other 
 fenle of the Word, unlefs the point of Baptifm were in 
 debate, and then I confefs Men will (hift and ftrain the 
 Word ftrangely, ( as you do ) to bring in Children 
 to be Difciples, though they know they are uncapable 
 of learning Chrift. 
 
 Secondly, The Apoftles had no Commifiion to bap- 
 tize any but fuch as were difcipled by Inftrudlion : 
 The Commifiion is, Go difciple to me all Nations, baptizing 
 them ; the word Them is relative^ to all Nations difcipled. 
 
 O 4 Thirdly , 
 
3 ia flftutfj wivtoi catefc 
 
 Thirdly, I deny, that Infants are clifcipled in any 
 fenfe, and ic feems you don't know your felf in what 
 fenfe they are Difciples^ you fay, they are fo in fome 
 fenfe, but do not tell me in what, fn what fenfe I 
 pray is he a Scholar that never learned, that never 
 went to School to learn, that is not capable of Learn- 
 ing- 
 
 Secondly, You fay, that though you grant that Ali- 
 ens from the Faith mull be difcipled before they be bap- 
 tized, yet you car'n fee how all Infants are hereby ex- 
 cluded. 
 
 Reply. The fame Comraiflion that exprefly enjoy ns 
 them to Baptize the former, doth implicitly and con- 
 fequentially forbid them to Baptize the latter. I would 
 but ask, Whether Chrift, when he doth exprefly com- 
 mand them to teach baptized ones to obferve all things 
 whatfoever he hath commanded them, hath not in the 
 fame command implicitely and confequentially forbid- 
 den them to teach them to obferve that whicfe he hath 
 riot commanded them. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that the Children of Believers are 
 born within the Covenant, and fo ought to be bapti- 
 zed before they are capable of Inftruction. 
 
 Reply. Firft, You do but beg the Queftion to fay 
 they are born within the Covenant, that's the thing de- 
 nied by me, and not proved by you. 
 
 Secondly, I deny, that barely Intereft in the Cove,. 
 riant is the ground of Baptifm ; there is nothing that you 
 pitch upon to prop up Infant-Baptifm withal, that 
 you have any exprefs Scripture to prove it by ; if you 
 fay, they are in the Covenant, that muft be proved by 
 confequence ; if you fay, that Intereft in the Covenant 
 is the ground of Baptifm, that mult be proved by con- 
 fequence ; and whatever elfe you make the ground of 
 it, muft be proved the fame way ; and fo you are ftill 
 left upon uncertainties yourfelvesj and from miftaker* 
 
 pre- 
 
prsmifes you draw wrong Gonclufions. Nothing can 
 certainly be made the ground of Baptifrn but the com* 
 mand of ChriJft, keep to that and you are upon a fure 
 Foundation, and if you keep to that, you will never 
 Baptize any but fuch as are difcipled by the Word. 
 
 SECT, XL* 
 
 YOU come now you fay to Vindicate your Argu- 
 ments for Infanrbaptifm againft my Exceptions, 
 Your fit ft Argument is drawn from Attsi.zy. This you 
 fay is ftrongly aflaulted with many Engins of Battery. 
 Fir ft , I argue thus,that what right the Children are here 
 faid to have, they had before their Parents did believe. 
 In Anfwer to this, you fay, the Promife was propofed to 
 the Jews^ to encourage them to believe^ and to repent $ 
 and if they would lay hold on the Promife, and become 
 Difciples, that then they mould gain an Advantage to 
 their Children ; for the Promife was offered to them on 
 Condition that they would embrace Chriitianity, but 
 they had no adfcual right to it till they did believe j 
 and though the Promife was propofed to the Jews whilft 
 Unbelievers, yet an Argument may be drawn from it 
 to prove a Priviiedge to Believers and their Children. 
 
 Reply, Firft, Here is a grant, that the Jews were not 
 Believers when the Promife was propofed to them ; by 
 which I perceive that my Engines of Battery were not 
 raifed in vain, the main Fort is beaten down, and the 
 firongeft hold that ever Infant-baptifm had is now de- 
 roolifhed. No Argument can be drawn to prove a Pri- 
 viiedge to Believers and their Children, from what is 
 fpoken to Unbelievers, 
 
 Secondly j Grant this, and you mult necefiarily grant 
 the other, that what right the Children are here faid to 
 have, they had before the*ir Parents did believe \ The 
 fromlfe is to you, and to your Children 5 this was antece- 
 dent to their Faith. Thirdly , 
 
a 14 CWtt} Wittilitam* 
 
 Thirdly, I deny, that the offer of the Promife was on 
 Condition, that they would embrace Chriftianity : For, 
 Firfl, Had the Parents refufed to embrace Chriftianity, 
 that had cot blockt up the way of the Children -, the 
 advantage or difadvantage of the Children did not de- 
 pend on their Parents receiving or rejecting ; the Chil- 
 dren had the offer as well as the Parents. 
 
 Secondly, Thofe that never .did receive it had the of- 
 fer as well as thofe that did ; nothing can be more free 
 than the offer of the Promife. 
 
 Thirdly, There is no affurance given in the Text, 
 that fuch as did embrace Chriftianity fhould gain an 
 advantage to their Children ; what the Promife was to 
 the Parents before they did believe, that it was to their 
 Children before they did believe -, that is, they both 
 had the offer of it, and the Children had no more af- 
 ter their Parents did believe, by vertue of their Parents 
 Faith, than they had before. I would now Query, 
 What advantage the Parent gained for his Children by 
 embracing of the Chriftian Faith ? If you fay, it was 
 Baptifm, I muft defire you to prove it too as well as fay 
 fo % if you fay, it was an Intereft in the Promife, by 
 vertue of which they had a right to Baptifm, then I 
 lhall defire proof to both, for neither of them is found- 
 ed on the Text. 
 
 Secondly, I would Query, Whether they gained an 
 advantage for all their Children, or but for a part of 
 them? if you fay, for all, then for the Adult as well as 
 for their Infants, then had they an Intereft in the Pro- 
 mife, and a right to Baptifm, though they remained 
 profeft Pagans, or continued Aliens, denying Jefits of 
 Nazareth -, and this is contrary to your own Principles. 
 If you fay, they gained an advantage for their Infants 
 only, then you will be to fee^ for proof for this diftin- 
 ftion -, nay, the Text will contradift you, for their 
 Children are indefinitely confidered. Secondly, This 
 
 would 
 
€tuti& i&ivtoitattb. 21? 
 
 would not reach the Cafe, they had faid but juft before, 
 His Blood be upon us , and upon bur Children * 7 the Apoftle 
 now applies a Plaifter as large as the Sore ', The Promife 
 is to you, andtoyonr Children ; as if he had faid, though 
 you have imprecated his Blood on your own, and the 
 Heads of your Children, yet have you and your Chil- 
 dren the tender of the Promife. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, though the Promife was propofed 
 to the Jews whilft Unbelievers, yet an Argument ma7 
 be drawn thus, the offering of a Promife to the Wicked 
 doth not make it ineffectual tor he Righteous; though 
 the Gofpel be preached to the Wicked that reject it, 
 yet fuch as believe and obey the Gofpel may reap Be- 
 nefit by it. 
 
 Reply. I grant it, but here is no Argument in this to 
 prove an advantage to more than do believe : What is 
 ail this to Infants that do not believe, nor are any wife 
 capable fo to do ? could I have argued no better, I 
 •would have let this alone \ and now I fay again, that 
 r,o Argument can be drawn to prove a Priviledge to 
 Believers and their Seed, from what is fpoken to Un- 
 believers. Should I fay, the Promife is to Believers and 
 their Children, and no more, and bring this Text to 
 prove it, you would turn this Text again!!: me, to 
 prove that the Promife is to Unbelievers and their Chil- 
 dren, and what Reply have I then to make? 
 
 Secondly, You fay, I tell you, that if the Children of 
 Believers have an Intereft in the Promife, they fhall 
 then enjoy the good of the Promife, for Intereft in the 
 Promife can't be loft. You, fay, if this baffled Argu- 
 ment were of any force, many grown Perfons as well 
 as Children that profefs the true Faith, would have 
 no Intereft in the Promife, 
 
 Reply. The Argument has not yet been baffled, and 
 I think it will not for the future ; the Apoftle tells us, 
 Rom. g. that it cannot be. That the Word of God Jhould 
 
 have 
 
ai 6 <Bftutlj suittiiicateD. 
 
 have taken none effetl ; the Promife can't fail thofe that 
 have an Intereft in it; the Promife is not Yea and 
 Nay, but Tea and Amen ; the Reafon why fome of 
 Jfrael went without the Benefit of it, was, becaufethey 
 had no Intereft in it ; the Promife was made to Jfrael, 
 But all were not Jfrael that mere of Jfrael. A new Heart 
 is abfoluteiy promifed to thofe that have an Intereft in 
 the Promife, That God will forgive their Intqmttes, and 
 remember their Sins no more ; how then can they go with- 
 out the Benefit of? Did thefe Promifes hang on Condi- 
 tions, it werefomething, but that they do not •, you 
 grant your felf, that the change ot the Heart is abfo- 
 luteiy promifed. r . 
 
 Secondly, I grant, that many grown Perfons, that 
 profefs the true Faith, have no Intereft in the Promife : 
 This runs me upon no abfurdity ; there are many Hypo- 
 crites that profefs the true Faith. The foolifh Virgins 
 profefTed the fame Faith that the wife did v it s not the 
 Profeffion of Chrift, but Relation unto Cnrift, that is. 
 the ground of Intereft in the Promife ; If ye be Chrifts, 
 then are ye Abrahams Seed, and Heirs according to Pro- 
 mife. It is not the Profeffion of the true Faith that 
 is the Evidence of Intereft in the Promife, but Faith it 
 
 felf 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that all that have an Intereft in the 
 Covenant, in regard of external Priviledges, may not 
 enjoy the faving Benefits thereof, becauie they prove 
 falfc to the Covenant,, and Apoftatize from it. 
 
 Reply. TheQpeflion was not about thole tbat nave 
 an Intereft in the Covenant, in regard of external Pri- 
 viledses, ( though I know no fuch Intereft iwgly conu- 
 dered I ; he that hath an Intereft in the Covenant of 
 Grace, hath a Right and Title to all the good of ir, 
 Grace here, and Glory hereafter. ) The Queftionis 
 about thofe that have an Intereft in the Promife, and 
 that 1 keep to, fuch (hall not fail of the Benefit of it; 
 
muty satn&tcatea. 217 
 
 the Promife is abfol ute, Je r. 3 1 . 3 3 , 34. Secondly , Such 
 ss have an Intereft in the Promife, are by the fame Pro- 
 mife fecured againft Apoftacy, Jer. 32. 40. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that God will not fail on his part, 
 to give us Grace fufficiently to enable us to keep his 
 /Covenant ; but we on our part may fail of our Duty, 
 and fo fall fhort of true Happinefs. 
 
 Reply. Will he give us true Faith ? or will he not? If 
 he will nor, then he will not afford us Grace fufficient- 
 ly to enable us to leep his Covenant 5 For without Faith 
 it's impoffible to pleafe God. If he will, then its impoffi- 
 ble for us to fall fhort of true Happinefs : He that be* 
 lieveth fhall not perifj^ but have Everlajling Life. Every 
 Believer hath his Sins pardoned, Atts 13/39. every 
 Belie veYJhallbefavcd, Mark 1 6. 1 6. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, I tell you, the Promife is not pro- 
 pofed here as the ground ofBaptifm, but as a Motive 
 to enforce the Exhortation,, to repent and be Baptized. 
 To this you fay, the fame thing may be a Motive and 
 a Ground too, in feveral refpecls ; the Promife of Eter- 
 nal Life is a Motive to Obedience and Holinefs, and 
 when we are Holy it's the ground of our Hope : So the 
 Promife here was a Motive to encourage the Jews to 
 believe and to embrace theGofpel, and when they did 
 believe, it was the ground ofBaptifm. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, Should 1 grant you all this, you would 
 be no gainer by the Bargain, for Perfons mufl believe 
 before the Promife here becomes the ground of Bap- 
 tifm % fo that you your felf have left no room for Chifc. 
 dren to come in upon this ground 5 it is only a Motive 
 to them to believe and obey the Gofpe!, and no ground 
 to be baptized upon, till they do believe. 
 
 Secondly, The offer of the Promife was never made 
 the ground ofBaptifm, no inftancecan be given of it ; 
 wherever the Golpel comes, there comes the offer of 
 the Promife j thole that did not repent, had the offer 
 
 of 
 
2i 8 cmt^ wtttotcateh* 
 
 of the Promife as well as thofe that did ; but if the of- 
 fer of the Promife had been the ground of Baptifm, then 
 had they a right to it as well as others. 
 
 Thirdly, It was the command that was the ground of 
 Baptifm; when they had embraced the Promife, and 
 not their Iptereft iu the Promife, the Precept was, re- 
 fent and be baptized; and that was the ground why Pe- 
 nitent ones took up the Ordinance. 
 
 Fourthly, Your inftance that you bring to prove, that 
 the fame thing may be both a Motive .and a Ground too in 
 feveral refpecls,is not much to the Purpofe -, you fhould 
 have brought an inftance of that which was a Motive to, 
 and the ground of the fame thing ^ and for want of 
 that, you- brought an inftance of that which was a Mo- 
 tive to one thing, and the Ground of another, a Mo- 
 tive to Holinefs, and the Ground of Hope. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, I tell you, that the Children were 
 not baptized when their Parents were, becaufe they 
 were not capable of receiving the Word. To this ycu 
 fay, Firfl, if the Promife belonged to them, then Bap- 
 tifm appertained to them ; and though they were not 
 capable of receiving the Word, yet this did not render 
 them unfit for Baptifm. 
 
 Reply. Yqu grant but juft before, that the Promife 
 was but a Motive to encourage to believe, not the 
 Ground of Baptifm, till they did believe j whence I con- 
 clude, the Promife belonged to the Children no other- 
 wife than as a Motive, not as the Ground of Baptifm, 
 feecaufe the Children did not believe. 
 
 Secondly, The Faith of the Parent gave not a right to 
 the Promife unto the Child, what right the Child had 
 bore date before the Parent did believe 5 The Promife is 
 toyoH, and to your Children ; this was before the Parent 
 did believe, granted by your felf, and there is not a 
 word fpoken of Children after the Parents believed. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, it does not follow that the Chil-* 
 ' • dren 
 
€vutt) minUcattn 219 
 
 drcn were not Baptized when their Parents were, 
 becaufe it is not recorded ; there is no doubt but the 
 Apoftle* were baptized, yet there is no Record when 
 and where it was done. 
 
 Reply. I grant, if there were no more to be faid in 
 the Cafe but barely the want of a Record, it were noE 
 ground enough to conclude it ', but there is more to be 
 laid in it : For, Firfi, There were no more baptized than 
 were added to the Church -, that I fuppofe you will 
 grant me. Secondly, There were no more added to 
 the Church than were admitted unto the Supper ^ The 
 jame day there was added unto them about three thoufand 
 Souls, and they continued in the Apoflles Doclriue, and 
 breaking of Bread, and Prayer. If there were no more 
 Baptized than were added to the Church, and ad- 
 mitted unto all the Ordinances, then their Children 
 were not Baptized ; but there were no more baptized 
 than were added to the Church, and admitted unto ail 
 the Ordinances, therefore their Children were not then 
 baptized. 
 
 Your fecond Argument, yon fay, was drawn from 
 the right the Jewifh Children had to be admitted into 
 the Church-ftate : To which I replied, that the Law of 
 that Church-ftate being repealed, and a new Admini- 
 ftration eftablifhed, we muft not now take our meafure* 
 from thence. To this you fay, though the Adminiftra- 
 tion be different under the Law and Gofpel, yet the 
 Covenant is the fame. 
 
 Reply. The Queftion was not about the Covenant, 
 but about Church- memberfhip ; .now the Adrainiftrati- 
 on being changed, in which there is a change of the 
 Constitution of the Church from National tc»Congre~ 
 gational, you muft prove their Church- memberlhip 
 from the Law of this New Difpenfation, or you do no- 
 thing : Old things are pajfed away, behold all things are 
 become mw % 2 Cor. 5. and fo great is the change, that 
 
 Birth- 
 
220 ®tutt) wivfai ihtti*> 
 
 Birth-Privifedges are ceas'd, and a Son of Abraham ac- 
 cording to the Flelh hath no more notice taken of 
 him than a Stranger. You your felf grant the* Jem to 
 be Aliens as well as others, till they believe \ a Jew that 
 under the Old Adminiftration was born a Church-mem- 
 ber, under the New is not to be lookt on as fuch, till 
 in the Judgment of Charity he be New-born, i Cor. 
 12.13. feeing you can give me no inllance of one Child 
 that ever was received a member of any one Church, 
 fince the change of the Adminiftration, I ftnll pafs from 
 this Head, as judging it a needlefs task to anfwer thofe 
 Arguments that have been anfwered already. 
 
 Secondly, You fay you urged this for Infant-Bap* 
 tifm, that if the Children of Chriftians are excluded 
 the Covenant and Church of God, then they are in a- 
 worfe Condition than the Children of the Jerys were 
 under the Law ', and which is more abfurd, they would 
 have no more Priviledge than the Children of Turks and 
 Pagans. To this you fay I replied, that Interelt in the 
 Covenant of Grace is the fame now as then it was ; 
 and though Children are not now admitted Members, 
 yet have they the Benefit of the Word as then they had. 
 But here you fay the firft claufe is very obfcure, and 
 if I mean by it, as you think I do, that fome Children 
 are ele&ed under the Gofpei as well as under the Law^ 
 this is nothing to the purpofe. 
 
 Reply. Firji; I mean as you think. Secondly, h's 
 much to the purpofe, for I can affure you, that none 
 but the Eleft then, nor now are, or were the fubjetts of 
 that Covenant * for none but the Eleft are given to Je- 
 fus Chrilr, and fach only as are given to him are the 
 fubjefts of this Covenant. As for the laft Claufe, thac 
 they hive the Word allowed them, you acknowledge 
 that a Priviledge to thofe that are capable of receiving 
 ic, but ic can be none to Infants that are uncapable of 
 
 ic. 
 
 Reply* 
 
keply. When the Queft ion was put, What Profit hath 
 thejenynore than the Gentile? The Anfwer was, much e- 
 very way, but chiefly, becaufe to them were commuted 
 the Oracles of God 5 and though Children are uncapa- 
 ble of receiving the Word in an Infant- ftate, yet are 
 they in a fairer way to receive Benefit by it than the 
 Children of Turks and Pagans, to whom the Word is 
 not vouchsafed. 
 
 Secondly, I know not why it mould be looked on as 
 an abfurdity, to fay they have no more Priviledge 
 than the Children of Turks or Heathens in an Infant- 
 ftate, or how does the Lord become more bound to 
 them thantothefe? 
 
 Thirdly, 'You fay I tell you, that the Priviledge of 
 Church-memberfhip is taken from them under the Go- 
 fpel, though the Jewifh Infants enjoyed it, which is a 
 thing that Infants are capable of. 
 
 Reply. Firfi, I deny that Infants are capable of 
 -Church-memberfhip under the Gofpel, though they 
 were under the Law. Firfi, They are not fit Matter : 
 The Matter of an inftituted Church are vifible Saints^ 
 fuch as in the Judgment of Charity are inherently Ho- 
 ly. Secondly, They are not capable of the form, which 
 is mutual Confent. Thirdly, They are not capable of 
 anfwering the ends of Church-Communion. Fourthly^ 
 The Jewilh Infants are as capable of enjoying it now 
 as the Infants of Chriftians} and yet you grant, its taken 
 away from them ; you your felf would not admit them; 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that according to this Doftrine 
 the Children of Chriftians are worfted by Chrifts com- 
 ing, and it had been better for them to have been borri 
 under the Law. 
 
 Reply. You may as well fay, that the Children of the 
 Jews were worfted by Chrifts coming , tor berore that 
 they were Church- members, butasfoon as Chrift was 
 offered up* their Church-ftate ceas'd j ( granted by 
 
 P . ySiir 
 
y 
 
 222 crutlj aifnDtcacteft. 
 
 your felf ) Father and Child were unchurched together, 
 and had the Children ot Chriftians been born under the 
 Law, their Church-memberlhip would have ceard when 
 Ghrift was offered up, as that of the Children of the 
 Jews did. 
 
 Fifthly i You fay, unlefs I could have anfwered this 
 better, it had been my Wifdom to have paft it over in 
 iilence, and that an ingenious Antagonist Ihould acknow- 
 ledge his Error. 
 
 Reply. Firft^ As to the Anfwer that I have given, 
 (landers by may better Judge than you or I that are con- 
 cerned. Secondly, If pafliug things in filence be the way 
 for a Man to (hew his Wifdom, you have in your An- 
 fwer to mine (hewn your Wifdom abundantly. Third- 
 ly, There is nothing of ingenuity in acknowledging an 
 Error antecedent to Conviction. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, that the little Cavil that I make 
 about the PaiTover avails me nothing, and unlefs I 
 couid prove that Infants are qualified to receive it, 
 it's a Vanity to argue for the probability of it. 
 
 Re fly. Fir ft, Did you prove that Children were qua- 
 lified for Baptifm according to Inftitmion, before you 
 offered the fame Argument to prove the probability of 
 their Admiffion? or could you prove that there was 
 one Infant in all thofe Houiholds that were baptized? 
 if not, it was a double Vanity for you to uge it. 
 
 Secondly, I know no qualification that was required 
 of Infants to partake of the PaiTover, ( being circumci- 
 fed antecedent thereunto ) but a capacity of eating 
 Fie 111 ', It was a Lamb for a Ho fife, according to its eatings 
 Exod. 12.4. Now it's ea lie to prove that there were 
 Children in the Houfe, that the whole Houfe was to 
 eat thereof, and that Children in an Infant-flate were 
 capable of eating Fleflij and the Argument is your own, 
 Book 2. Page 29. that whole Houfholds were baptized, 
 and that Children area part of the HouOiokL I fay, 
 
 the 
 
the Houlhold were to eat the Paffover, and that Chil- 
 dren are a part of the Houfhold \ and now methinks an 
 ingenious Antagonifl ftiould not refufe his own Argu-; 
 ment when turned againffc him* 
 
 You fay your lafl: Argument for Tnfant-baptifm was" 
 this, that if the Infants of Believers be not Church- 
 members, nor any way in. Covenant with God, How 
 then could they be in any State of Salvation ? But there 
 is good ground to hope, that the Children of Believers 
 may be faved } For of fnch is the Kingdom of God. To 
 this you fay, I Reply, that fome Children are in Cove- 
 nant with God and in a State of Salvation, is granted ; 
 4>ut what Children they are, is not known. You fay, if 
 I mean by this, that fome Children are elected, this is 
 impertinent \ for the Covenant of Grace is not the De- 
 cree of Election* nor are all the fubjetts of that Cove- 
 nant elected. 
 
 Reply. When I fay fome Children are in the Cove- 
 nant, I mean as I fay ^ they are in the Covenant, they 
 had their Names written there from the Foundation of 
 the World. Secondly^ Such Infants as are in the Gove- 
 nant, they are elefted, and being ele&ed they are giveii 
 unto Jefus Chrifl. Thine they were 7 and thottgaveft them- 
 unto me^ and all mine are thine, and thine are mine, John 
 17. 6. The fame individual Perfoni that are the Fathers 
 by Eledtion, they are the Sons by Fcederal Relation,, 
 Thirdly, Thofe only that are given to Jefus Chrifl are 
 the fubje&s of this Covenant, Gal. 3.29. Fourthly 
 Thefe whilfl: in an Infant-fhte are unknown to its. 
 Fifthly i If they are not ele&ed, they can't be faved, 
 dying in their infancy, granted by your felf. You fay^ 
 that none but the ele<ft,or faithful per fevering ChriHians^ 
 fhall inherit Eternal Life ; you can have no more hopes 
 of their Salvation, than you have of their Ele&ion. 
 
 Secondly^ You fay, the Queitiott was not, Whether 
 Infants were elected ? Bat whether they were in a vifl- 
 bte State of Salvation ? P 2 Reply: 
 
224 €tttttU ©inttcatefc 
 
 Reply. You have forgotten the ftate of the QpefHon* 
 though you repeated it juft before :, the Queftion was, 
 If the Children of Believers were not Church-merrtbers, 
 Dor any way in Covenant with God, How then could- 
 they be faved ? Now fome Children are Church-raem- 
 bers, ( that is, of the univerfal Church ) and in Covenant 
 with God, and fo capable of Salvation, though they 
 are not vifibly fo. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, I feera to deny all Infants to be 
 Members of the Church, and in a vifible ftate of Salva- 
 tion, which will hardly agree with our Saviours Affer- 
 tion, Mark 10. 14. Of fuch is the Kingdom of God. To 
 this you fay I Reply, that Chrift ipeaksnot here of 
 the Children of Believers, but of Children indefinitely. 
 Secondly, He doth not fay, that ail fuch do belong to 
 the Kingdom of God, But, of fuch is the Kingdom of God. 
 You fay, that Chrift fpeaks of fuch Children as were 
 brought to him, and doubtlefs they were the Children 
 of the Jews. 
 
 Reply. Grant that they were the Children of the 
 Jevos\ yet it will not follow that they were the Chil- 
 dren of Believers, confidered as fuch ; he doth not fay, 
 that thefe Children do belong to the Kingdom of God, 
 But, offtchis the Kingdom of God; intimating, that In- 
 fants are capable of Salvation as well as grown Per- 
 fons. 
 
 Fourthly, You fay, that Chrift did not exclude any 
 fuch Infants from the Church, but faith indefinitely, 
 Of fuch is the Kingdom of God. 
 
 Reply. The time was not then come, the Jewifh 
 Church, of which Children were apart, was not then 
 demolilhed. But Secondly, Why had you not replied 
 to the fecond part of my Anfwer, which was this, 
 Chrift did not fay, that all fuch belong to the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, But, of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven : If you 
 ean't fay, that all the Children of Believers fhall be fa- 
 
 ved t 
 
Crtrtij witibimzk 225 
 
 vcd, then you can't fay that they are in a vifible way 
 of Salvation, confidered as fucb. 
 
 Fifthly, You fay, that if the Kingdom of Heaven be 
 made up of Infants as well as grown Perfons then 
 they are in a vifible State of Salvation ; and if fo] they 
 niuft needs be members of the vifible Church. 
 
 Xepty- ftrfa This Doftrine damns inevitably all the 
 Children of Jews and Pagans, dying in their Infancy - 
 for you grant, that they are no Members of the Vifible 
 Church j truly, I thought you had been moreCatho- 
 lick in your Charity towards Children, though you for- 
 bear to commie them to the Duft in fun and certain 
 hope of the Refurreclion to Eternal Life ; if they dye unbap- 
 tized, if their capability of Salvation does neceflarily 
 infer their membership of the Vifible Church, then none 
 butfuch as are Members of the Vifible Church can be 
 faved, and confequently the Infants of all others muft 
 perifli } and thus to exclude all the Infants of Jews and 
 Pagans from Salvation, is to pry too far into the Secrets 
 of the Almighty. And now give me leave to tell you, 
 after all the Pains that yoa have taken to prove Chil- . 
 drens Church-memberfhip, (which you can never do ) 
 could you have accompiilhed this task, you would have 
 been as much to feek to prove their right to Baptifrn 
 as before, Church-memberfhip being not the ground 
 thereof. Chrift m zud John did not baptize Church- mem- 
 bers, confidered as fuch, J)ut fir ft made them Difriples, 
 and then Baptized them, John 4. i . 
 
 SECT. XII, 
 
 YOU fay, that whereas you argued, that Baptifm is 
 the initial Sacrament, whereby we are folemniy 
 admitted into the Church of God, and into the Cove- 
 Bant of God, and that it may rightly be called the Seal 
 oi the Covenant, againft which I make feveral Excep- 
 
 ? 3 •_'■. tioxi^ 
 
226 €vutty SBfnm'catek 
 
 tions j as, Firft, That Chrift: never ordained Baptifm 
 for the folemn entrance of Members into the Church. 
 To this you fay, that if the Apoftles baptized Perfons 
 as foon as they were made Difciples, and none were ad- 
 mitted to Church- Communion til] they were baptized* 
 thisfeems toinfinuate, that hereby they were initiated 
 into the Church. 
 
 Reply. Firft, Such as were difcipled to Chrift by the 
 Apoftles, were Members of the univerfal Vifible Church, 
 antecedent to Baptifm. 
 
 Secondly^ Their Admiflionto Church-Communion is 
 by a particular inftituted Church, and this you grant 
 is not by Baptifm, Page 2. 
 
 You fay my fecond Exception is this, that if Per- 
 fons are in Covenant, and Church-members, before they 
 are baptized, then they are not entred in by Baptifm. 
 To this you fay, though Perfons are reputed Church- 
 members, and in Covenant before, yet it is nQabfurdi- 
 ty to fay, they are entred in by Baptifm. 
 
 Reply. My former Anfwer muft be again repeated, if 
 they were in Covenant, and Church-members before, 
 then they sre not entred in by Baptifm } if they be en- 
 ured in by Baptifm, then they were not in before. 
 
 Secondly % You fay, they were invilibly and before 
 God in Covenant, and Members of the Church, before 
 they were Baptized, but they are folemnly, and in the 
 face of the Congregation admitted by Baptifm. 
 
 Reply* I thought that you had pleaded ail this while 
 that Children had been vifibly in Covenant, and vifible 
 Church-members, but now it feems it's quite another 
 thing, they are invifibly fuch. But be it fo, Fir/l, I 
 would enquire, How you know that they are fuch ? 
 That you have not told me yet : That which is invilibly 
 fo, is cut pf your fight, or elfe it is not invifible. Se- 
 condly ^ If they are not vifibly io r then you Baptize fuch 
 not ?4embers of. the Vifible Church j to be Mem- 
 bers 
 
cnttfc wivtottattb. 227 
 
 bers of the vifible Church, and not to be vifibly fuch, 
 isfuch a piece of Contradiction that I rhink none can 
 unriddle lb as to make fenfe of it ; if the whole be via- 
 ble, the parts are vifible ; that which is invifibleis no 
 part of the vifible Church. Now vifible Church- membcr- 
 fhip is no longer the ground of Baptifm, but mvifible. 
 
 Thirdly, You illuftrate this by a fimile, you Query, 
 Whether it be not common among Men,to ufe fome Ce- 
 remonies in admitting a Man to an Eftate? The Title 
 he hath to it is the ground of his Admiffion, but he is 
 not legally invefted till he be admitted according to 
 the Cuftom of the Mannor. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I do not underftand that the Cuftom 
 of Man nors is founded upon the Word as their Rule: 
 I fuppofe Cuftoras of Mannors may differ in many 
 things, and if fo, they do not go by the fame Rule. 
 Secondly, I do not know why we fhould look to the 
 Cuftom of the Mannor for Example in the. admitting 
 of Members : You fay, the Tide that a Man hath to an 
 Eflate is the ground of his Admiffion, whence I con- 
 clude, this Title muft be vifible ; the Cuftom of the 
 Mannor will never admit a Man to an Eftate that hath 
 no vifible Title to it \ ^o that your fimile is imperti- 
 nent. The Title that the Child hath is inviflble, yet 
 there are two things that may be inferred from hence : 
 Fir ft, That Children are not Members of the Vifible 
 C iiurch antecedent unto Baptifm. Secondly, That the 
 Goaler and the Eunuch were not admitted according 
 to the Cuftom of the Mannor, becaufe they were noE 
 folemnly received by Baptifm in the Face of the Con* 
 gregation. 
 
 Fourthly , You fay I tell you, that there is no Scrip- 
 ture ground to call Baptifm the Seal of the Covenant. 
 To this you fay, if Circumcifion be called a Seal, why 
 may not Baptifm be called a Seal too, feeing it's a Sacra- 
 ment of the fame Covenant ? 
 
 P 4. .Reply* 
 
22$ cwty ©tntiicateti* 
 
 Reply. Firfl, 1 deny, that ever Circumcifion was cal- 
 led the Seal of the Covenant ; it's faid indeed, That 
 Abraham received the fign of Circumcifion, the Seal of the 
 Right eoufnefs of Faith ; this Ordinance was bleftto him 
 for Confirmation, but as it was fet to the Body of the 
 People, it was never called the Seal of the Covenant ; 
 nor did it Seal that to all as it feal'd to Abraham ; did 
 it Seal the Righteoufnefs of Faith to them that never 
 believed ? 
 
 Secondly, It fealed that to Abraham that it never 
 fealed to any but to Abraham, that was, That he jkould 
 be the Father of all them that believe. 
 
 Thirdly, I deny, that Baptifm was an Ordinance of 
 the fame Covenant ; there were many that had an Inte- 
 reft in that Covenant, and a right to ail the Ordinan- 
 ces thereof, that had no right to Baptifm, Luke$. 7, 8. 
 and many that had no Intereft in that Covenant, that 
 yet had a right to Baptifm ; that Covenant was abroga- 
 ted, Zcch. 10. 11. before the Commifllon. was given 
 forth at large, Mat, 28. 
 
 You Query here, Whether Baptifm be not fome mark 
 to diftinguifh the Members of the Church from thofe 
 that are without ? 
 
 Reply. Firfi, If it be, then Perfons are without till 
 fuch time as they be Baptized, and fo you Baptize them 
 that are without. You needed not to have laboured fo 
 Jiard, to prove that Children are Church- members, 
 feeing thofe that are without may yet be Baptized ; to 
 be without and within too, are Terms inconfiftent \ 
 if they are without, they are not within; if they are 
 within, then they are not without. No created Being 
 can be in two places at one and the fame time -, a Per- 
 son can't be a Member of the Vifible Church, and yet 
 at the fame time be no Member thereof. 
 
 Secondly, I do not know that Baptifm is of that ufe; 
 to diftinguifh the Members of the Yifible Church : Per,- 
 
 fons 
 
$wfl& wivtoiGatzh 229 
 
 fons are and may be Members of the vifible Church, tho' 
 they are not baptized. You grant, that fome mud be 
 difcipled to Chrift by inftruction, antecedent unto Bap- 
 tifm, and to fay, that they are difcipled to Quid:, and 
 yet without, feems very abfurd. j 
 
 Secondly? You Query, Whether Baptifm doth not 
 feal remiflion of fins to fuch as are qualified for it, Ms 
 2. 38. 22. 16". 
 
 Reply. That God doth blefs this Ordinance to Believ- 
 ers, and make it of ufe to confirm their Faith in the re- 
 million of fin, by the blood of Jefus Chrift, I grant, yet 
 this proves it not to be the feal of the Covenant of 
 Grace *, nor may a Perfon be known or concluded inte- 
 refted in the Covenant of Grace meerly from taking up 
 this Ordinance ; nor do I yet know any external Seal of 
 that Covenant, by which a Perfon may be known to have 
 an inter/eft therein. 
 
 SECT. XIII. 
 
 YOU fay, I took that in evil part which you fpske 
 concerning the rules of Difputation, when you in- 
 tended no more than this, I fhould have defended, not 
 proved. 
 
 Reply* I took it no otherwife than you do new ex- 
 plain it, and do again declare, that I do not pretend 
 to much Skill in thofe rules, I may again err in them.- 
 
 Thirdly? You fay, if the Scripture in fome places re- 
 quire Faith and Repentance before Baptifm, and in o- 
 ther places alTerteth, that the Children of Believers are 
 Church-members, fcederally holy, and confequently fit 
 Subjects for Baptifm, then it rauft needs follow, that 
 the Adult only are bound to profefs their Faith before 
 they are baptized, but the Children of Believers ought 
 to be baptized firft, and afterwards to believe and obey 
 theGofpel, 
 
 Reply, 
 
430 flftttt!) tttJtn&icateD* 
 
 Reply- I grant all this, with a Frovifo that the Script 
 ture does thus teach, but I deny that any oneofthofe 
 things concerning Children is held forth in the Word. 
 
 Fourthly, Yon fay that-you told me, that Children 
 are as capable of entering into Covenant with God as 
 the little ones were in MoJes>$ time •, to which I replyed, 
 that I did not difpute their capacity, but the Authority 
 thereof- (hew me as clear a Command for it as Mofes 
 did, and I will yield the caufe. Firft, You fay, that 
 there is fuch ground laid for it in Scripture, that it is 
 equivalent with a Command. 
 
 Reply. Bat then there was an exprefs command, 
 Dm .29.1 . So than there was no Scruple left in the cafe, 
 and fuch a one you can't produce. ♦ 
 
 Secondly, You Query, Whether Adam did not ftipu- 
 late for his Pofterity, and by his mifcarriage brought 
 Mifery upon them 5 and if we bring evil upon our Pofte- 
 rity by our vices, it is but equal that they fhould reap 
 benefit by our Piety and Charity. 
 
 Reply. Fit ft, It is yet to prove that Adam did itipu- 
 late for his Pofterity, though God made a Covenant 
 with him, for a Covenant does not always imply a mu- 
 tual ftipulation ', there was no fuch ftipulation in the 
 Covenant that God made with all flefh, Gen. 9. 
 
 Secondly, We do not ftand the Reprefentatives of 
 our Children, as Adam did of his, by vertue of that Co- 
 venant, fo that this inftance is not to the Purpofe. 
 
 Thirdly Though God made a Covenant with Adam 
 for himielfand his Pofterity, yet we can't make a Co- 
 yenan* with God for our felves and Pofterity. 
 
 SECT. XIV. 
 
 Oil fay, the Objections that I urge againft Infant- 
 
 Baptifra are two,the Firft is grounded on the Com- 
 
 midlon, M«.i$ 19. from whence, in reply to your 
 
 Y 
 
Anfwer, I draw thefe two Gonclulions: F/V/?, That 
 there is no other way of Difcipling unto Chrift but by 
 Actual Teaching. Secondly, That Chrift hath not com- 
 manded any more to be baptized than fuch as are dif, 
 cipled by A&uai Teaching. To this you fay, F/>/?, That 
 the fubftance of the Commiffion is to baptize Difcipies. 
 
 Reply. 1 grant it, the Commiffion is, Go y Difciple to 
 m all Nations, baptizing them j and this muft be takefi 
 exclufively of all but Difcipies ^ there are none but Dif- 
 cipies put into the Commiffion, therefore none but 
 fuch are to be baptized by vertue of this Goaimif- 
 (ion. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, the Children of Believers are in 
 the ftate of Difcipies, they are Difcipies of Gods mak-> 
 ing without Man's Teaching. 
 
 Reply. This will never pafs without fome proof to it ; 
 your bare fay fo is not of fufficient Authority . Secondly, 
 Children that are uncapable of learning Chrift, can ne- 
 ver ftand in the ftate of Scholars \ who but a Child 
 would account a Child a Scholar, that hath learned no- 
 thing? 
 
 Thirdly, Youfay, that if Children be Difcipies, then 
 they may be baptized without preceding Teaching, for. 
 it's the ftate of Difcipies that's enquired after, not the 
 manner how they bedifcipled. 
 
 Reply. Firfi y I deny that there is any fuch thing as. 
 a Difciple of Chrift that is not made fo by the Word, 
 either by reading or hearing, produce an inftance if you 
 can. A Difciple of Chrift is one that hath learned Chrift ? 
 and to fuppofe a Perfon to be a Difciple of Chrift that 
 never heard of Chrift , is to fuppofe that which can't be 
 fuppofed. 
 
 Secondly , I deny that the CommiiTion en joyns the bap- 
 tizing of any but fuch as are taught by the Word ante- 
 cedent thereunto : The Word Them in the Commiffion is 
 Relative to all Nations Caught or difcipled, and there is 
 
 no 
 
232 Crtrt^ wfttirfcateb 
 
 no teaching Chrift but by the Word ; what is not here ex- 
 prefly commanded in refpecl of the fubje&9of kaptifm,is 
 implicitly and confequentially forbidden. 
 
 fourthly, You fay, the Teaching in Mat. 28. 19. 
 doth not exclude Infants from Baptifm, but only fhews 
 that Aliens mufl; be taught before they are baptized. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I find no fuch diftin&ion in the Text as 
 here you make, nor do I find any thing offered by you 
 to prove your diftinction. 
 
 Secondly i I find none in the Commiflion to be baptized 
 but fuch as are taught antecedent thereunto \ there 
 is not one more put into the Commiflion; 
 
 Fifthly? You fay, that Children are not to be exclu- 
 ded from Baptifm becaufe they are not capable of be- 
 lieving, though Faith be required to go before Baptifm, 
 Mark 1 6. 1 6. for Faith is there as much required to pre- 
 cede Salvation as to precede Baptifm. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I would Query, Whether it be not the 
 fame Commifiion, this in Marl^ with that in Mat. 2$. 
 only varying in Terms, not in Things. Secondly, Whe- 
 ther a Believer in Mark be not the fame thing with a 
 Difciple in Matthew. Thirdly, How it comes to pafs that 
 a Child mould be uncapable of believing,ashe is by your 
 own grant, and yet not uncapable of Difciple(hip,which 
 is the fame thing ? I wonder you have not found out 
 fome fhift for this before now. Could you not have faid, 
 that the Children of Believers are in the flate of Believ- 
 ers, as well as to fay, they are in the flate of Difciples, 
 and that they are reputed fo ? Surely the one would 
 bave pafl as well as the other } but here is an ingeni- 
 ous acknowledgment that they are uncapable of Believ- 
 ing. 
 
 Secondly y Here is a Grant, that Faith is required to 
 go before Baptiim, and what can be defired more ? If it 
 be required, Chrilt requires it, and how then can you 
 adventure to baptize thofethat youconfefs are uncapa- 
 ble 
 
ble of believing ? is not this the Commiflion you act by ? 
 and is it not inferted in your Commiflion, that Faith mult 
 precede ? have you any other Commiflion than this ? and 
 will this bear you out in the baptizing of fuch as are un- 
 capable of believing? if this Commiflion requires Faith 
 to go before Baptifm, then have you no Commiflion that 
 requires Baptifm to go before Faith. 
 
 Thirdlv, Children in an Infant-ftate are not the Sub- 
 jects of this Commiflion, nor have Minifters any charge 
 concerning them, though they are commanded to preach 
 the Gofpel to every creature, this word rnuft be taken 
 with fome reftridtions. Firft, It muft be underftood 
 of rational Creatures, not of Brutes. Secondly, Of 
 fuch among them that have the ufeof their Reafon : In- 
 fants are rational Creatures, but they have not the ufe of 
 their reafon and underftanding, they are not capable of 
 receiving benefit by the Word, granted by your fclfpag. 
 63. it's irrational to think, thatMiniiters are bound by 
 this Commiflion to preach to fuch that are in an Infant- 
 ftate, and if not to teach tliem, then not to baptize 
 them, for they are not bound to' baptize more than they 
 are bound to teach -, and in that Faith is required to pre* 
 cede Salvation as well as to precede Baptifm, t his Hie ws 
 that they are the Adult only, and not Infants that Mini» 
 Iters have the charge of, by vertue of this Commiflion. 
 Sixthly, You fay, that Children are capable of Sal- 
 vation before they believe, and confequentiy they are 
 fit to be baptized before they believe. 
 
 Reply. Firft, Though Children sre capable of Salva- 
 tion, yet they may not be capable of an Ordinance of 
 Chrilt: Infants are capable of Salvation, yet they are 
 not capable of the Supper of the Lord j now there is the 
 fame Faith required in order to Baptifm as is required 
 to the partaking of the Supper. 
 
 Secondly, A capability of Salvation is not the ground 
 Ot Baptifm •, the Children of Unbelievers are as capable' 
 
 of 
 
2 $4 cratq wtstotcateo* 
 
 qi Salvation as the Children of Believers. Chrifl fpeaks 
 of Children indefinitely, Of fitch fitch is the Kingdom of 
 Heaven ; it would be very uncharitable to fay, that none 
 of the Children of Unbelievers are capable of Salva- 
 tion. 
 
 You fay, that there are three Arguments that you i 
 brought to prove, that the Children of Believers are 
 Difciples. Fir(l % You argue it from Marky. 37. Luke 
 9. 48. Chrift would have them to be received in his I 
 Name, and accounts the 'receiving of them the receiv- j 
 ing of him, therefore they are Difciples. Againft this 
 you fay I make two Exceptions : 
 
 Firfti That it is doubtful, whether this was the 
 Child of a Believer or no : You fay, it's very probable 
 that this Child was born of fuch Parents that were of 
 the Jewijh Church j and feeing he exprefl: fo much fa- 
 vour to him, there is no reafon to contemn him as one 
 out of the Church. 
 
 Re fly. As it was doubtful before, fo it is (till, you 
 have left it but where you found it : You fay, it's pro- 
 bable he was born of fuch Parents, but it is but probable, 
 it's not certain.^biu grant this, and yet the doubt remains* 
 the Child might be born otjervtfh Parents that were 
 Church- members, and yet not be the Child of a Believ- 
 er, for fuch there were among the Jews, John 10. Ye 
 believe not, becaufcye are not myjheef, fo that my firft Ex- 
 ception Hands good. You fay, it's the Child of a Be- 
 liever, but you can't prove it, and it's your unhappinefs 
 you have efpoufed a caufe that notwitftanding all the At- 
 tempts you make, go which way you will, you have 
 but confeqaences to prove it by. 
 
 You fay my Second Exception is this, that by a little 
 Child here is meant a grown Perfon, one that hath 
 humbled himfelf, and is become as a little Child, as ap- 
 pears by comparing both thefe places with Mat. 18. 5, 
 6. co this you fay it's granted, that by little ones, M*t. 
 
 18. 
 
1 8. are meant fuch, but this doth not argue that he 
 fpeaks only of fuch, for it's evident he fpeaks alib' 
 of Children uncapable of believing, becaufe the Greek* 
 Word here fpeaks of an Infant, and it's clear that Chrifc 
 fpeaks of the fame Child here which he propofed as 
 an Emblem to his Difciples, Luke 9. 48. Whofoever re- 
 ceiveth this Child in my name, receiveth me* 
 
 Reply. Firft, That the Child that was fet before them 
 was properly a little Child, is not denied ; that which I 
 deny is,that the Child that was to be received in Chrift's 
 Name is fo to be confidered*The little Child was but the 
 Emblem of thofe that were to be received in Chrift's 
 Name j and whereas you fay,that it's the fame little Child 
 that was to be received, you muft know that one Scrip- 
 ture mull: be interpreted by another ; it's the fame thing 
 that is handled by ail three Evangelifts,upon the fame oc- 
 cafion,3nd to the fame end,which was to teach his Diici- 
 ples humility and meeknefs : And that in Matthew fpeaks 
 riot of the fameCUild, you grant, and yet it's the fame 
 thing that is there treated of, and PooPs Annotation* refers 
 to Matthew, and tells us> that this oiMark and Luke mu& 
 be interpreted by Matthew. 
 
 Secondly, Afor^fpeaksnotof the fame little Child, buG 
 one of fuch Children in my Name \ and though the Child 
 was propofed as the Emblem,yet it's applyed to the Dif- 
 ciples both in Mark and Luke too ; in Mark it's faid 7 
 That whofoever foall give you a cup of cold water to drink in 
 my Name, becaufe ye belong to Chrift, &c< And whofotveY 
 fhall offend one of the fe little ones that believe in me, &c. this 
 can't be underftood properly of a little Child, Luke 9. 
 48. Whofoever is le aft among you, the fame fn all be great : It 7 S 
 the fafelt way to expound Scripture by Scripture, and tor 
 take our meafure from the cleare(r,where feveral fpeak of 
 the fame thing, as here they do ; and by comparing the 
 three Evangeiifts it appears plain enough, that the 
 Child that is to be received in Quill's Name, is one that 
 is become as a little Child* Secondly" 
 
2 3 6 €tuty witfoit&m 
 
 Secondly, You fay, it's a little Child that is uncapa- 
 ble of believing. 
 
 Reply, He that is uncapable of believing is uncapable 
 of Difciplelhip, for a Believer and a Difciple is the 
 fame thing ; he that is a Difciple, Mat, 28. is a Believ- 
 er, Marl^i6. yoa well know that a Difciple of Chrift 
 is a Scholar of Chrift, and that an infant is uncapable 
 
 of. 
 
 Secondly, You fay you proved, that Children were 5 
 Difciples, from Ails 15. 10. Why tempt ye God to lay a 
 yoke upon the neckof the Difciples, &C. To this you fay I 
 replyed, that the Perfons that thefe falfe Apbftles 
 would have laid the yoak upon, were not the Children, 
 but the Brethren ? and the yoak was not barely Cir- 
 cuoicifion, bat the falfe Doctrine together with it. 
 To this you fay, that Circumcilion after the manner of 
 Mofes mull need intend Children as well as the Parents* 
 becaufe they as well as their Parents were the Subjects of 
 Circumcilion, and fo they as well as tfieir Parents muffc 
 .need be Difciples. 
 
 Reply. This is a poor Anfwer with little of Argument, 
 they mult needs be fo, becaufe they were once the Sub- 
 jects of Circumcilion, bur, Sir, does the Text lead you 
 to this conclusion ? or is there any thing in the Text that 
 looks like it ? the manner of Mofes refpecls the Act, not 
 fehe Subject ; the Subject was defcribed before they 
 taught the Brethren, that they muft be circuracifed, but 
 how mud the Brethren be circumcifed ; why, after the 
 manner of Mofes, Fgave you ieveral Arguments in my 
 iaft, to prove that Children could not be numbered 
 among the Brethren here, but not one word of Reply 
 have you made to them , and I dare fay, that you are' 
 fatisfied that Children can't be here numbred among 
 them, and that's the reafon you flipt them without at 
 Reply. 
 
 Secondly, Yoa fay> that if the falfe Doctrine, toge- 
 ther 
 
®vutfy minbitam. *ij 
 
 ther with circumciflon be the Yoke that was laid on the 
 neck of the Difciples, it raufl: needs be granted that the 
 Yoke was on the Children, with refpect to the Act ; and 
 the Yoke being laid on Children as well as Men, it raufl: 
 needs be granted that Children are included among the 
 Difciples. 
 
 Reply. To grant the Falfe Doctrine, together with Cir- 
 cncnciiion, to be the yoke, and yet to fay, that this mul£ 
 be laid on the Neck of the Children, is to argue for 
 an impoflibility, and it's contradictious to your own 
 Principles : p. <$$. You fay, that Children are unea- 
 pable of receiving the Word j now if they are unca- 
 pable of receiving the Truth, then they are as uncapable 
 of receiving a Lye. Secondly, It's to argue for an lmpofc 
 Ability, tho* Circumcifion might have been impofed on 
 them in an Infant- ftate, yet the falfe Doctrine, together 
 with the Gircumcilion, could not ; and to this purpofe I 
 argued the laft time, why had you nor removed the Ob- 
 jections? was it not becaufe you could not ? I offered yoii 
 two things more, which you have notreplyed to : The 
 Firft was this, that to expound this Text of Children* 
 is to expound it contrary to the iignification of the word 
 Difciple, as you well know ; and if I had abufed you in 
 it,fure you would have returned mefome Anfwer,! can't 
 think you would have fpared me. Calvin brings the 
 fame Text for inftance, when he faith* that a Difciple' 
 and a Believer ate ufed as feveral Words expreffing the 
 fame thing. 
 
 Secondly , To expound this of Children,' is to ex- 
 pound it contrary to that plain Text, Luke 14. 26. Ex- 
 cept a man hate Father and Mothet '->yea, andhis own life aU 
 fo, be can* t be my Difciple , verfe 27. And vjhofoever doth . 
 not bear hiscrofs, and come after me, cannot be my Difciple * 
 If the Children of Believers^ conffdered as fuch, are the 
 Difciples of Chrift, what need then is there of any far^ 
 ther fcrarbto defcrib£ a Difcipte by ? but a Difcigfe of 
 
s}8 €mfy mnmatzQ. 
 
 Chrift is not fo eafily known, there mud be fome fpeci- 
 al Mark or Character which the Children of Believers 
 may be deftitute of, and of which a Child in his Infancy 
 isuncapable, Johm$. By this jli all all men know that ye 
 are my Difciples, if ye have love one to another. 
 
 Your third Argument, you fay, that you brought to 
 prove that the Children of Believers are Difciples, was, 
 becaufe they are holy in fuch a fence, that they have a 
 right by vertue of the Covenant of Grace to be admit- 
 ted Members of the Vifible Church, i Cor. 7. 14. Elfe 
 were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. My Re- 
 ply to tiiis, you fay, is, that theholineis of the Child is 
 not Federal Holinefs, but of the fame nature with the 
 holinefs of the Parent, and that the Parents were fanfti- 
 fied each to other, when both were Unbelievers. 
 
 To this you fay, Fir/?, That though Marriage be of 
 the Law of Nature, and the Children of Infidels may be 
 lawfully born, yet they are not holy in the Apoftles 
 
 Reply. Firft, I take it for granted , that you allow my 
 Expofition thus far, that the Sandtification of the Pa- 
 rents each to the other was by the ordinance „of God, 
 when both were Unbelievers. Not to deny in a point ot 
 Controverfie, is filcntly to grant. * 
 
 Secondly, Gxant this, and it will naturally follow, 
 that the Children were holy when both the Parents 
 were Unbelievers; for the Holinefs of the Children is 
 derived from the fandification of the Parents each to 
 
 other * 
 
 Secondly, You fay, though the Children may be law- 
 fully born, yet they are not holy in the Apoftles fence \ 
 for he fpeaks here of fome Priviledge that the Children 
 of Believers have above Pagans, and he expreQy affirms, 
 that the Children of Believers are holy, and the Chit 
 dren of Pagans unclean. 
 
 Reply. fn» % 1 deny that the Apoftle fpeaks of any 
 
cwt# wintttatza. 229 
 
 Priviledge that the Children of Believers have above 
 others, or that Believers and Pagans are here brought ia 
 competition. The bufinefs of the Apcftle was to anfwer 
 a cafe of Confcience, whether the Bslicver might lawful- . 
 ly abide with his or her unbelieving Yoke-fellow ? which 
 cafe he anfwers in the affirmative, and proves the baw- 
 fulnefs of their continuance from the Lawfuinefs of 
 their ftate ; they were Husband and Wife, andfo fan- 
 clified each to other by the ordinance of God, and it's'. 
 from their fanctification each to other that he infers ihe 
 Holinefs of the Children. 
 
 Secondly, I deny that the Apoftle here doth exprefly 
 affirm that the Children of Belivers are holy: Hefpeaks N 
 not of the Children of Believers,confidered as iuch, bus 
 of the Caildren of thofe that were fan&ified each to the 
 other, which San&ifi cation was antecedent unto Faith. 
 
 Thirdly, I deny that he doth exprefly affirm that ths 
 Children of Pagans are unclean 5 the Words are, Elfe 
 were your Children unclean ; had they not been fan&i- 
 fied each to other, the fame Children that now are hoi/ 
 had been unclean. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that the Holinefs of the Child Is 
 not of the fame nature with the Holinefs of the Parent, 
 for the Unbeliever is not holy in hirnfelf, bat is ftnftifW 
 ed in or to the Believer } but the Children are faid 
 to be holy in themfelves, and not barely fancliHed to 
 another. 
 
 Reply. Firft, The Holinefs of the Child is not an In- 
 herent Holinefs, nor is there any fuch thing to be found 
 in the Children of Believers more than in the Chil- 
 dren of Unbelievers 5 That which is bom of the Flefu is 
 Flejh. 
 
 Secondly, The Holinefs of the Child doth not arlfe 
 from the faith of the Believing Parent, but from the 
 fanftification of the Unbeliever -, now fuclias the root is^ 
 fuch are branches* the hoUnefs of the Child being deri- 
 
24o ®tuty saw&icatetj* 
 
 ved from the fan&ification of the Unbelieving Parent, 
 it mult neceffarily be of the fame nature. Is not the 
 ft ream of the fame nature with the fountain from whence 
 it flows ? 
 
 Thirdly, I deny, that the Unbeliever is fandified to 
 the Believer \ there is not a word of a Believer in the 
 Text, it's to the Wife; it is not faid to the believing 
 Wife, or the believing Husband, nor are they fo to be 
 confideredin their fanttification each to the other, but 
 barely as Husband and Wife. 
 
 Fourthly^ You fay I tell you, that if it were granted, 
 that the Holinefs here were federal, yet this would noE 
 tender them Difciples of Chrift, becaufe many of the 
 Jews that were federally holy were not Difciples of 
 Chrift. This inftance you fay is impertinent, for the 
 Jews were not federally holy in relation to Chriil, till 
 they embraced the Chriftian Faith. 
 
 Reply. The Queftion is not, Whether they were fede- 
 rally holy in relation to Chrift ? but, whether they were 
 federally holy till Chrift was offered up? if you deny 
 this, it will foon be proved, the Partition-wall was not 
 broken down till Chrift was offered up, and till then 
 they remained a feparate People ; and whilft they were a 
 .feparate People, they were a holy People : The Cove- 
 nant in which they all flood held good till they weigh- 
 ed for his price thirty pieces of Silver, Zach. u. 10, 
 ii, 12. and whilft they remained in Covenant, they 
 were federally holy. You fay your felf, page 17. Book. 
 2. Thai the Jews were Church-members, were intereft- 
 ed in the Covenant under the old Difpenfation \ and if 
 fo, they were federally holy all that time : And you 
 grant, that the change of the Difpenfation was when 
 Chrift was offered up, therefore they were a holy Peo- 
 ple until then; and if fo, the inftances that I have al- 
 ready given, John 4. 1. and 9. 27,28. are fufficient to 
 prove that Perfons might be federally holy, and yet 
 not Difciples of Chrift, fifthly, 
 
€vut\) TOfntfcatefe' 241 
 
 Fifthly , You fay, if I would have fpoken to the par- 
 pofe, I mould have proved that the Members of the vifi- 
 ble Church of Chrift were not Difciples. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I would Query, Whether the Jews 
 were not the vifible Church of Chrift ? you fay^^e 65. 
 They were the true Church of God : Were they the 
 Church of God, and not the Church of Chrift ? you own 
 them to be Chriftians, page 64. you make the Child 
 of a Jew that was a Church-member, and the Child 
 of a Chriftian,to be the fame thing : Were they a Church 
 of Chriftians, and yet not a Church of Chrilt ? Either 
 the Jews were the Church of Chrift, or they were not ; 
 if they were, all your Obje&ions are removed \ if they 
 were not, then tell me what Priviledge the Children of 
 Believers have now loft, that once they had a right to, 
 in their not being received Members of the Church of 
 Chrift? for if the Church of the Jews were not. the 
 Church of Chrift, no Inftance can be given that ever 
 Children were admitted Members of the Church of 
 Chrift. I do not lay much ftrefs on this, only F was wil- 
 ling you mould fee what might be built on a foundation 
 of your own laying. 
 
 Secondly, If by the Vifible Church of Chrift you mean, 
 a Church that is conftituted to the New-Difpenfation, 
 (I hope you will bear with me if I keep a coniiftency in 
 my own Writings ) my work is to prove that each indi- 
 vidual Member of fuch a Church is a Difciple of Chrift, 
 and not the contrary ; but the Church of the Jews, had 
 many Members that were not difcipled unto Chrift, and 
 yet they were all federally holy, fo that federal Holi^ 
 nefs and Difciplefhip are two things, the latter of which 
 can't be argued from the former. 
 
 SECT. XV. 
 
 TH E Second Objection that I brought againft In- 
 fant-Baptifm, you fay, is this,there fc is no Example 
 
 QL3 in 
 
2 42 mum wuim-cateo* 
 
 in Scripture of any Infant that wss baptized : In anfwer 
 to which, you fay, you gave roe reafons why there was 
 no Example delivered in Scripture : The Firft was, Be- 
 caafe the Apoltles were principally employed in teach- 
 ing and baptizing Men : The Second was, Becaufe that 
 then there was no doubt made but Children were 
 Church-members. 
 
 To this you fay I reply, that the reafon why the Apo- 
 ftles delivered nothing about the baptizing of Children, 
 was, becaufe it was no part of their work, there being 
 no Precept for it, they had nothing to do with it. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, the want of a Precedent is but a 
 Negative Argument, and that's not valid in matter of 
 Raft 5 and that I grant my felf,that the Baptifm of Chil- 
 dren can't be denied for want of a Precedent, provided 
 that there were any Precept for it ^ fothat the mat- 
 ter is brought to this Iffue, if there be any Precept 
 for the baptizing of Children, then it may lawfully be 
 done. 
 
 Reply. I am content to join iiTue with you, and to 
 come to a fair Tryal, and to hazard the Caufe upon the 
 producing but one Precept ; one fuch Evidence (hall end 
 the difference, and the Caufe (hall be yours at lad. 
 
 You come now to bring forth your Evidences , you 
 fay that there is an implicite command for it, becaufe it 
 may be drawn by juft confequence, drawn from clear 
 grounds in Scripture,that Baptifm doth of right belong 
 to them ^for if they be within the Covenant,and Members 
 of the Church, and fcederally holy, as hath been proved, 
 then it muft needs follow by neceffary confequence that 
 they have a right to Baptifm ,and a neceffary confequence 
 drawn from Scripture hath the force of a command. 
 
 Reply. Firfl, I perceive the Controverlie is not like to 
 be iffued yet, if this be all the evidence you have to pro- 
 duce : and I think it's all : You would leave out none of 
 your WitnefTes^being jufl come to the Trial 3 all the Te- 
 stimony 
 
cwt$ wimicatz& 241 
 
 flimony that x you have here brought in will not %fmm* 
 to one command, either explieite or implicite, and fo 
 not iflue the Controverfie,unlefc you give up the caufe. 
 
 Firfi, You fay, that there is an implicite command 
 for it, and that implies that there is no explieite com- 
 mand ; if there had, this had been the time to have 
 brought it forth. Now the Cominifiion is laid by, that 
 will not be fuborned for an evidence, Faith being requi- 
 red by that to precede Baptifm, granted by your ielf, 
 page 72. 
 
 Secondly, Here muff: be confequence upon confequence, 
 to prove your implicate command, enough to weary a 
 Man to keep all in mind till he come to|the conclufion : 
 For, Firfi, You can't prove one of thefe Heads ,but by 
 confequence, either that the Children of Believers are 
 within the Covenant, or federally holy, ( which is the 
 fame thing, though you make two Heads of it, that you 
 may have a threefold-cord ) nor that they are Church- 
 members, but by confequence •, for that is the way you 
 have taken for each of them, and have laboured hard 
 to little purpofe. Secondly, When you have, as you 
 think, proved one or ail of thefe by confequence, you 
 mull to the fame task again for each of theie, to prove 
 them the ground of Baptifm, 
 
 Thirdly, I mall bring in two Evidences that will in- 
 validate all the Teftimony than you have here brought 
 in,and that is^he Evidence of the Pharifees and Sadduces, 
 that had all thefe Qualifications that you have mentio- 
 ned j they were federally holy, within the Covenant, 
 they were Church-members, they were all the Children 
 of Abraham, thefe came to John to be baptized, and 
 were denied, Mat. 3.7,8,9,10. £/j% 3. 7,8,9. That 
 thefe were all put by is evident •, for, Firfi, John calls 
 them a. Generation of Viyers ^ who can think that he 
 would fet fcich.a Brand or Black Mark upon them, 
 and yet baptize them ? Would Baptifm have wafli'dic 
 
 QL4 of 
 
244 Cwti) wivtowtth 
 
 of agaiD. Secondly, He over-rules their Plea, Begin not 
 to fay within your [elves, we have Abraham to our Father ; 
 Why, was not Abraham a Believer, and were not they 
 the Children of a Believer? Yes, but this will not now 
 pafs for a ground of Baptifm; if they will be baptized, 
 they muft bring forth fruits meet for Repentance, Birth- 
 Priviledge will not ferve the turn. Thirdly, It appears, 
 they were denied, Luke 7. 30. But the Tharifees and the 
 Lawyers rejetted the Counfel of God againft themfelves, not 
 being baptized of him, ( that is,, of John : ) What Counfel 
 could this be, but that which God gave them by John y 
 to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance. 7oJwwtmld 
 not baptize them upon the ground they offered them- 
 felves, which was, that they had Abraham to their Fa- 
 ther ; they would not be baptized upon the ground 
 that John propofed, and fo they go w'ithout it - 7 can 
 any think that John would have denied thefe who were 
 Church-members, who were federally Holy, if thefe 
 qualifications had brought them under a Precept to be 
 baptized ? Having gone as far as we can in this Trial, 
 I would now Query, on whom the Duty of Baptifm is 
 incumbent ? ( I mean Infant-baptifm, which you are 
 pleading for,) Whether on the Minifter, on the Child, 
 or on the believing Parent ? 
 
 Firfi, I can't think it's the Childs Duty, or that the 
 Child fhall be called to an account "for the neglect of it, 
 who is utterly uncapable of knowing what Duty is, or 
 of the performance thereof. 
 
 Secondly, It is not incumbent on the Minifter. For, 
 Firfi, He has no Power to Baptize the Child, if the Pa- 
 rent deny it. Secondly, He has no Commiflion to Bap- 
 tize more than are Difq pled to Chrift by the Word: 
 And as for the believing Parent, either he is command- 
 ed to Baptize his Children, or he is not. If he be, 
 produce it ; if he be not, then is there no fucb thing 
 as Infant Baptifm of Divine Inflitution. Now thi$ 
 
 would 
 
would be the fhorteft way, were we come to a Trial 
 once more, to fhew me where the believing Parent is 
 commanded to Baptize his Child $ and truly I think you 
 do nothing that will iffue the Point, till yen do this. 
 
 In the next place, you fay you urged three Reafons 
 for Infant-Baptifm. The Firfi was, Becaufe tjie Pri- 
 mitive Church approved ir, and held that it was de- 
 rived from the Apoftles themfelves. To this you fay 
 I Reply, that the Cuftom of Baptizing Infants was not 
 in ufe the firft two hundred Years after Chrift ^ and 
 that if we receive one Tradition, we may receive more, 
 and fo deny the Scripture to be a perfect Rule.. To 
 this you fay, that the Teftimony of Origin and Auflin 
 are fufficient to Confute ray ground lefs Aflertion. 
 
 Reply. I did not politively aflert this * I told you I 
 had heard fo ; I do not pretend to much acquaintance 
 with Hiftory. 
 
 Secondly, You do not know your felf in what Age 
 it began; you fay, Book,!. Page 28. that the Bapti- 
 zing of Infants was fo early in the Church,* that it can't 
 certainly be known when it began \ fo that itfeems bj 
 this, it was not from the beginning } and if fo, then 
 not of Divine Inftitution ; No, though you could 
 prove it to be of ufe the very next Age afttr the Apo : 
 files were deceafed. 
 
 Thirdly, The Teftimony of Origen and Aitftin is fo 
 mean a thing, that it is not worth a Reply -, Origen re- 
 ports, That the Church bath received a Tradition from tbs 
 Jpoftlesy to give Baptifm to Infants -, but by what hand 
 bath (he received it ? that no Body can tell \ and who 
 can think that the Apoftles would fend this by Word 
 of Mouth, for one to deliver it to another, and io to 
 hand it along by Mortal Men,that might die before they 
 had done their Errand, 2nd not Record it in the Word, 
 where it would furely have been preferved, over which 
 the wing of Providence has been always fpread ^ di<$ 
 
 they 
 
246 crottj winttt&m. 
 
 they not write often enough to the Churches, to have 
 opportunity to acquaint them of a Truth of fo great 
 concernment as this is ? Did they not put Pen to Paper 
 often enough to Record the Baptifm of Men and Wo- 
 men too, and never mind to Regifler the baptizing of 
 Children with their Parents? This is flrange, if any 
 fuch thing was done : Were they not to teach them to 
 obferve all things whatfoever Chrift had commanded them ? 
 And not one Word about Baptizing of Children in all 
 the Records of the Apoftles, but this mud befent by 
 Word of Mouth : Yet as good hap was, the Church re- 
 ceived it, fo he tells you ; but what Church it was, 
 whether the Church of Laodicea> or the Church otRome, 
 or which of all the Churches it was that received it, 
 that's not declared : Nor is it any great matter which 
 received it firft, for there is no doubt but it's to be had 
 at Rome now, where the reft of the unwritten Tradi- 
 tions are. jiuftins Teflimony is to the fame purpofe, 
 that the baptizing of Children is no otherwife to be 
 !ooktt>n than as an Apoftolical Tradition ; and if fo, 
 then I conclude, that Auftin could fee no Scripture Te- 
 flimony for it. But I have written enough about Tra- 
 ditions, to let you know how little efteemrf have for 
 them; therefore if you write again, I defire you to 
 leave them out ; for I will allure you, I will wafte no 
 more Paper to anfwer them. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, there is no fuch danger as I pre- 
 tend in believing the Teflimony of the Fathers, or the 
 Traditions of .the Church, concerning the ancient Pra- 
 €tife of Baptizing Children ; for Tradition herein con- 
 sents with Scripture, and we retain Infant-Baptifm, be- 
 caufe there is Scripture-proof to it, and not barely up- 
 on Tradition. 
 
 Reply. Firft, If it had been recorded in Scripture, 
 then the Apoflles needed not to have fent it by Word 
 of Mouth to the Church. Secondly, If it were recorded 
 
 in. 
 
€vufy winMcam. 247 
 
 I in Scripture, why did Atfiin declare, that it ought no 
 otherwife to be accounted than as an ilpoftolicai Tra- 
 dition ? Thirdly, If you have Scripture-proof for it, 
 fend me that, and keep your Traditions /or your felf, 
 Fourthly, It feems you can't credit the Teftimony of 
 the Fathers, nor yet the Traditions of the Church, un- 
 lefs you have Teftimony from the Word to the fame 
 thing 5 and if you have Teftimony from the Word, 
 you have no need of the Teftimony of the Fathers, nor 
 yet of the Tradition of the Church. 
 
 The fecond Reafon you brought for the probability 
 of the baptizing of Children in the Apoftles time was, 
 becaufe there were whole Houlholds baptized, wherein 
 it's probable there were fome Children. To this you 
 fay I Reply, that two of thefe Houiholds were faid to 
 believe ; the third was the HouOiold of Stephanas, and 
 they were fuch as had addicted themfelves to the 
 Mhiiftry of the Saints. The fourth was Lydia, and 
 no Body knows whether fhe was Maid, Wife, or Wid- 
 dow. 
 
 Secondly, You fay, there is no mention that the 
 whole Houfnold of Stephanas believed. 
 
 - Reply. Firft, There is no mention that Stephanas 
 hirafelf believed -, what then? May we conclude, that 
 he was Baptized while an Unbeliever ? Secondly, It's 
 faid, that the Houfliold of Stephanas was the firft Fruits 
 of Achaia, and that they had addi&ed themfelves to 
 theMiniftry of the Saints, which is tantamount to 
 Believing. Thirdly, There is 110 mention of one Child 
 in all thofe Houiholds, therefore no probability that 
 Children were baptized from thofe inftances. 
 
 Thirdly, You fay, that though it be faid, that the 
 Jailor believed with all his Houfe, yet by a common 
 Synechdoche it may figoifie no more than the grown 
 Perfons in his Family. 
 
 Reply, Though it be faid. That the Jailer and all hid 
 
 Hoafe 
 
n8 Cratlj winMcaUb 
 
 Houfe were baptized, yet by the fame common Synech- 
 doche may be iignified no more than the grown Per- 
 fons in his Family ; and if I thought there were any. 
 need of it, I could argue the fame way for the other 
 three Families - 7 but there is no need to run a Syncch- 
 docbe in the Cafe. 
 
 The third Reafon you urge, for the probability of 
 Infant-Baptifm in the Apoftles times, was this ^ if In- 
 fants had been denied Church^memberfhip in the Apo- 
 ftles times, thofe Jews that were by them Converted 
 unto Chrift would have made a ftir about it, as they 
 did about leder things. To this you fay I made no 
 Reply at ail ; you think I would not have pair, it over 
 fo, if I had been able to return any reafonable anfwer 
 to it. 
 
 Reply". I made this Anfwer to it, that your doubt- 
 Icfs proved no more than your probabilities did^ and 
 that was the Reafon I faid no more, nor do I fee any 
 great Reafon to fay more to it now : What have you 
 proved by it ? Or what have you offered to prove by 
 it, that has not been anfwered already ? 
 
 Secondly, What are thofe leffer things that they made 
 a ftir about? The fuileft account that I can have of 
 them, is in AUs 21.21. They were zealous of the Law, and 
 were informed that Paul did teach the Jews to for fake Mo- 
 fes's Law, not to Circttmcife their Children^ nor to walkjtfter 
 their Cuftoms. Fir ft. Then I would enquire, Whether 
 it does not lye fair before us to conclude, that they did 
 make a ftir about this very Matter, becaufe their Chil- 
 dren were denied Church- memberfhip ? Have you not 
 declared, that they were entered in by Circumcifion ? 
 And is not here a ftir made about this initiating Ordi- 
 nance, ( as you call it ) ? fo that they came near the 
 Cafe, if not home to it; but if their Children bad been 
 baptized, it's probable they would not have contended 
 about Circumcifion \ or if they had, that the Apoftle 
 
 would 
 
€mtty winfcfcatcb 249 
 
 would foon have pacified them, by letting them know, 
 that they had Baptifm in the room thereof. 
 
 Thirdly, If they did not contend about this, it's pro- 
 bable God might give them more light in this great and 
 weighty Matter than he did in lefler things, the want 
 of light in which would have occafioned fo great a ftir. 
 If you fay,that all the Anfwer I have now returned is but 
 probable -, I anfwer, your Argument was but to prove 
 a probability, nor had it more than a probability in it, 
 if fo much, and a probable Anfwer may ferve to a pro- 
 bable Argument. 
 
 Laftly^ You fay, that there is more need of an ex* 
 prefs Prohibition, to exclude Infants from the Church, 
 than there is of an exprefs Command or Example to 
 receive them ; for before Chrift's coming they always 
 enjoyed it, and if this ancient Priviledge be repealed, 
 where is the Precept or Pre fident for it? To this you 
 fay I Reply, that the Legal Adminiftration is done 
 away, and in that there is a repeal of their Church- 
 memberftiip: To this you fay, though the Legal Ad- 
 miniftration be done away, yet the Covenant re- 
 mains, and all that are Church members have right un- 
 der the new Adminiftration to be admitted into the 
 Church. 
 
 Reply. Tirfi, All that are Church- members are in al- 
 ready ; this might well have been fpared. 
 
 Secondly, The Covenant it felf, in which the natu- 
 ral Seed flood, is done away, Hcfa 8. nit. Zeck 
 II. 10. 
 
 Thirdly, In the change of the Difpenfation there is 
 a change of the Conftitution, from National to Congre* 
 gational ; and if you can produce but one Infant that 
 was a Member in any one New-Teftamect-Church, t 
 will give you the Caufe at laft. • 
 
 Thirdly, You fay I tell you, that there is no need 
 of an exprefs Prohibition to hinder Children from Bap- 
 tifm, 
 
250 cwtiO minUcam. 
 
 tifm, becaufe it was never commanded } and that 
 which is not commanded in Matters of Worfhip, is im- 
 pliedly forbidden ; and that it was unlawful for~Na- 
 dab and Abihn to offer Incenfe with ftrange Fire, which 
 God commanded them not. To this you fay, that if 
 God command one thing in his Worfhip, it's unlawful 
 to omit that, and do another; and this was the Cafe 
 of Nadab and AUhn, who offered flrange Fire, when 
 the Lord had prefcribed what Fire they fhould ufe, e- 
 ven Fire from ofFthe Altar, Lev. 9. 6~, 23, 24. 
 
 Reply. Firft, I confefs the evil is the greater, when 
 Men have a command, and omit what God requires, 
 and proceed in a way of their own ; yet obferve, that 
 the ftroke came upon them for offering Incenfe with 
 Fire that God commanded them not. 
 
 Secondly, If it be unlawful to omit what God requires, 
 and take a way of our own that he hath not required, 
 then we had need be fure that Sprinkling is Baptizing, 
 before we lay by Dipping, and make ufe of Sprinkling. 
 Had Baptizing been any other way than by Dipping, 
 there had been no need to have made choice of a place 
 where there was much Water, nor yet for the Admi- 
 fiiftrator to have gone down into the Water with the 
 fubje£t : I had not mentioned this, if I had not been fo 
 fairly led to it ; though I fhould be glad to fee the Or- 
 dinances of Chrifl purely adminiftred in refpeel of 
 Matter and Form too. 
 
 Thirdly, If that which is not forbidden in exprefs 
 Terms may be brought into the Worfhip of God, 
 how burdenfom would the Worfhip of God foon 
 be. 
 
 Sixthly, You fay, that it's granted alfo, that the 
 iubftance of Divine Worfhip is contained in the Word 
 of God, or may be clearly proved thereby ; and what 
 is not commanded, either explicitely or implkitely, 
 ia Matters of Worfhip, is in Effift forbidden, and 
 
 oughs 
 
'<y/Uiuj <wunui*tiu;(j. 251 
 
 ought not to be obferved as a neceflary part of Reli- 
 gion. 
 
 Re fly. Firfi, I acknowledge that here is ingenuity 
 in giving a grant thus far, only here are two Words 
 that are dubious : Firfl, What you mean by the fub- 
 ftance of Worfhip. Secondly , What you mean by a ne- 
 ceflary part of Worfhip ; but where things are dubious, 
 Charity binds me to put the belt Ccnftructiqn, and 
 in things of this Nature, Prudence forbids me to en- 
 quire too far. 
 
 Seventhly, The Baptifm of Infants, you fay, is im- 
 plicitely commanded in Scripture ; and if fuch Bap- 
 tifm be juftifiable, then there needs fomeexprefs Pro- 
 hibition to warrant the denial of Baptifm to them. 
 
 Rcfly. Your implicite command for Infant Baptifm 
 is no whereto be found in the Word - and what yen 
 have offered to prove it, has been anfwered, as I hava 
 met with it, and mult /now be left to the Reader to 
 judge of it. As to the fecond part, I grant it, that; 
 if Infant-Baptifm had been warranted by the Word^ 
 there had then been need offome Word to warrant us 
 to deny them 5 but it was never warranted by the 
 Word, and therefore there is no need of any Word to 
 forbid it: You grant your feif, that what is not com- 
 manded by the Word in matters of Worfhip, either: 
 •exprefly or implicitely,is in effect forbidden, and ought 
 not to be made ufe of. 
 
 Eighthly, You fay, that feeing the Priviledge of 
 Church-memberlhip, which belonged to Infants under 
 the Legal Adminiftration, is not repealed under the Go- 
 fpel, it follows, that the Children of Believers have 
 a right to be admitted Members of the Church. 
 
 Refly. You grant a repeal of the Legal Adminiflra- 
 tion, Page Si. and if the Adminiftration be repealed, 
 the Priviledges that they enjoyed under that Admini- 
 ftratioa are repealed ; Take away the Charter, and the 
 
 Pri- 
 
252 Crutfj ©ittbicatetj. 
 
 Priviledges are loft : How could the whole of their 
 Church- (late be diflblved in the change of the Admini- 
 firation., as you grant, Page 17. Book 2. and the Pri- 
 viledge of their Children remain? Can the whole be 
 diflblved, and not the Parts? And did the Parents be- 
 come Members again, or any of them, by vertue of 
 the old Adminiftration, or of the New? The Law of 
 which New Adminiftration you have Mat. 28. 19, 20. 
 and can their Children claim it by vertue of the old 
 Adminiftration, when their Parents could not ? Cer- 
 tainly if Children have a right, it's by vertue of the 
 New Adminiftration, and by that you mull prove it, 
 or you do nothing. To conclude then, I defire you 
 to read over the new Deed, or the Law of the New- 
 Adminiftration, Mat. 28. 19,20. and if you can find 
 but one Glaufe in it that does Priviledge the Children 
 of Believers to Cburch-memberlhip and Baptifm in an 
 Infant-ftate, only fend me that, and I will give you 
 the Caufe at laft. 
 
 And now if yon pleafe to write again, in the Vin- 
 dication of what you have aliened, I hope I may find 
 an opportunity, and room enough to return you a fair 
 Anfwer \ and in the mean time, Fare yon wdl. } 
 
25? 
 
 A BRIEF 
 
 DESCRIPTIO 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Covenant of Grade, 
 
 OR THE 
 
 H E Covenant of Grace is a Mutual Compact 
 between the Father and the Son, before the 
 World was, ( the Son confidered in the Divine 
 Nature only ) in behalf of the Elect o^God, whefeiri 
 the Son undertook the performance of certain Conditions 
 on his part : And the Father engaged hirnfeif by feveral 
 promifes on his parr, fome of which were peculiar* to 
 the Son, others made to the Son in behalf of the EJecT^ 
 who were the Subjects thereof* 
 
 Having given this Defcription of the New- Covenant* 
 Ifhallin the next place prove each part thereof by the 
 Word. 
 
 F/>/?, It is a Mutual Compact between the Father and 
 
 the Son, lfa. 49. from 3, to 10. We have in thefe ver- 
 
 fes a Tranfcript of the whole Compact or Agreement 
 
 that was between them. 
 
 firftt The Father pfopofeth$ vtrfe$. Thoti art my 
 
 B Servant^ 
 
254 Si 7&wf &>zf ex iption of 
 
 Servant, I frael, in thee J wiH be glorified. This Propo- 
 sal was made to the Son, who was to be the Lords Ser- 
 vant,when he had taken our nature upon him, //rf.42.1. 
 Behold my fervant whom I uphold, mine Eletl, in whom my 
 foul delight eth. 
 
 Secondly, We have the Anfwer of the Son, verfe 4. 
 Then I fed, I have laboured in vain^ and have [pent my 
 ftrength for nought, and in vain ; yet furely my workjs with 
 the Lord, and my judgment with my God. 
 
 In which Anfwer there are two things to be confider- 
 cd : Firft, TheSubje&s here propofed were too fmall a 
 number for fo great an Undertaking ; 1 have laboured in 
 vain: Not that his labour was fuccefslefs, inthatfenfe 
 he did not labour in vain, nor (bed one drop of his 
 blood invain, he did fee of the travel of his Soul with fa- 
 tisfaction, and was allured that the pleafure of the Lord 
 fhould profper in his hands : But the Elect within the 
 confines oil frael were too fmall a number. 
 
 Secondly, So fmall a number as it was, he undertakes 
 it at the firft Propofal ; this is plainly intimated in thefe 
 words, My worl^is with the Lord, and my judgment with my 
 Cod. Though the Purchafe would not anfwer the price, 
 he would leave that to the Father, whom he knew 
 would make it up. 
 
 Thirdly, The Son having granted the Propofal, the 
 Father fpeaks again to the Son, verfe 5, 6. And now, 
 faith, the Lord that formed me from the womb, to be his Ser- 
 vant, to bring Jacob again to him, though I frael be not gathe- 
 red, yet jljall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God 
 fljall be my ftrength : And he faid, it is a light thing that thou 
 (liouldft be my fervant, to raife hf the Tribes of Jacob, and to 
 reflore thepreferved of I frael : I willalfo give thee for a light 
 to the Gentiles, that thou may eft be for jalvation unto the ends 
 of the Earth. In which Words there are three things 
 obfervable: » 
 
 &rfii There is a Promife made to the Son, that be 
 
 (hould 
 
ttje Covenant of <$#& s 5 5 
 
 fhould be glorious in the eyes of Lord \ that God would be hi* 
 ftrength. Secondly, A Grant given, that Jfrael were too. 
 fmall a number for fo great an Undertaking : Andhs 
 fa\d, it is flight thing thatftmildft be my fervant, to raife up 
 the Tribes of Jacob, and to reft ore the preferved of JfraeL 
 Thirdly , The Elecl among the Gentiles added unto the 
 Jews : 1 will alfogive thee for a\ light to the Gentiles^ that 
 thou may* ft be for falvation to the ends of the Earth. 
 
 That the Son was a party Covenanting may further 
 appear, Zach. 9. it. /4s for thee, by the blood of thy cove- 
 nant have I fern forth thy prifoners out of the pit whereiti 
 there was no water. This is the Father fpeaking unto the 
 Son, and he calls it his Covenant, as being made bj 
 him, Pfal. 89.28. My mercy will 1 keep for him for ever' 
 more, and my Covenant (hall ftandf aft with him. It's the 
 Fathers Covenant, and it's the Sons Covenant, as being 
 tranfscted between the Father and the Son. That it is 
 the Sons Covenant is yet more evident, in that he laid 
 down his life to confirm it, Heb. 9. 15, 16,17. Tor this 
 canfe he is the Mediator of the New Teftament, that by means' 
 of death for the redemption of the tranfgrefftons that were 
 under the fir ft Teftamem, that they that are called might 
 receive theprdmife of eternal Inheritance ; For where a Teflon 
 ment>is, there m-aft alfo ofneceffitybe the death of the Teftator ^ 
 for a Teftament is of force when men are dead, otherwife it is 
 of no force at all, whilft the Teftator liveth. Had not Ghrifl 
 been the Teftator as well as Mediator, there had been no 
 need for him to dye, nor could the Teftament have beeri 
 confirmed by his death, If a thoufand dye, if the Tefta- 
 tor live^ the Teftament is of no force. Either the New- 
 Teftament is confirmed by the Death of Chrift, or it is 
 not 5 if it be, then was Chrift the Teftator $ if it be nor $ 
 then it's of no force at all, and what condition are we 
 now in. 
 
 Secondly, The Ne w- Covenant was tranfafted betv/eeii 
 fchg Father gad the Son before the world was, Tims i s ij 
 
 R % 
 
2^6 .a 53?t'ef ©efcsiptiou of 
 
 In hope of eternal life , which God that cannot lye promt fed be- 
 fore the foundation of the World began. This promife was 
 made to Chrifl:, for there was none in being but the Son 
 to whom a promife could be made ♦, before the World 
 had a being it was made to him for the Elect, or elfe 
 the Apoftle could not have bottomed his hopes upon ir, 
 2 Tim, 1.9. Who hath faved us, and callecLus with a holy call- 
 ing, not according to our works, but according to tys'ownpw* 
 pofe and Grace, which was given to us in Chrijr Jefus before 
 the World was. How could this Gift of his Grace have* 
 been beftowed on us in Chrifl, but in the trsnfadt of the 
 New-Covenant? This Grace, or Love, or Good Will 
 of God, it's a New- Covenant Bleffing. God hath 
 made over himfelf by Covenant, Gen; 7. 7. And in fo 
 doing he hath made over his Grace -, he could not make 
 over himfelf, biit he muffc make over his Grace, it be- 
 ing eQentiai in God ; now this was done before the 
 Worid began. It war> promulgated as foon as Adam fell, 
 The feed of the Woman jhall break the Serpents head j there- 
 fore it was in being before he fell. 
 
 The Mediatorfhip of Chrifl commene'd as foon as 
 fin had a being, he was the Lamb (lain from the foun- 
 dation of the World, therefore the New-Covenant was 
 in being from the foundation of the World. 
 
 Thirdly, The New- Covenant was tranfacted between 
 the Father and the Son, the Spn confidered in the Di- 
 vine Nature only. This appears, Firft, In that it was 
 tranf acted before the World began, before the Humane 
 Nature had a being : God did not fend forth his Son made 
 of a woman, till thefulnefs of time, Gal. 4. 4. Secondly, It 
 appears, in that the taking of the Humane Nature was 
 an effect of the compact, Heb. 2. 17. Whereforeit behooved 
 him in all things to be made lik$ to his Brethren, that he 
 might be a merciful and faithful High- Priefi in things pertain- 
 ing unto God. Merciful, with refpect to us, faithful 
 Yfith refpeft to the Father. Now faithfulnefs doth im- 
 ply 
 
ttie Covenant of ©?ace* 2 5 7 
 
 ply fome pre-engagement. When Chriil took our Na- 
 ture upon him, he renders this as the reafon, That in 
 the Volume of the Book it was written cfhim to do the will of 
 God, Pfal. 40.7,8. This was not the Book of the 
 Scripture, ic was not written there antecedent to the 
 penning of this Pfalm, therefore take it of the Book of 
 the Covenant, ( to fpeak it after the manner of men ) 
 that which is called the Lamb's Book of Life, which 
 the Subjects of this Covenant had their Names written 
 in. Rev. 17. 18. 
 
 Fourthly, This Covenant was tranfacted between the 
 Father and the Son, in the behalf of the Elect only. Here 
 Ilhall premife two things. Fir fly That God hath an 
 Elect People. Secondly, That this Elect People were 
 given to Jefus Chriil.' And then prove that this Elect 
 People thatare given to Jefus Chrift, are the only Sub- 
 jects of the New-Covenant. 
 
 Fir fl, That God hath an- Elect People, a certain 
 number of particular Perfons, both Qljews and Gentiles, 
 that he hath chofen in.Ghiift Jefus to Salvation as the 
 end, and to Salification as the means. 
 
 Firfl, That God hath an Elect People, Mat. 24, 22. 
 For the Elecls fake thofe days [hall be jhortned ; ver. 24. 
 For there [haft arije falfe Chrifts, and falfe Prophets, in jo- 
 much that tf it were -pojfible, they [hall deceive the very 
 Eletl : But that is impoflible, they are fo iecured by 
 the Decree of God, the Merits of Chrift, and the Pro- 
 mifes of this Covenant, ver, 31. And he fo all (end his 
 Annls, with a great found of a.Trumpet, and fhall gather 
 his Ekcl, from the four winds, from one end of Heaven to 
 the other. 1 fa. 65. 22. And mine Elect fhall long enjoy the 
 work^of their Hands, . 
 
 Secondly Thefe Elect are. a certain number of parti- 
 cular Perfons, Eph. 1.4. Who hath chofen m in him be* 
 fore the Foundation of the World, that we Jhould be Holy, 
 and without blame before him in Love. Fad and the Ephe-* 
 
 R 3 fians 
 
2 <> 8 a pmi 5®rt txi ption of 
 
 jww in particular, to whom he wrote this Epiftle, 
 Rom*(). ii. For f^e Children being not yet born, neither 
 having done either good or evil, that the purpofe of Cod 
 according to Eleclion might fiand, not of works, but of him 
 that calleth. Ver. 12. It was f aid unto her, Jacob have / 
 loved, Efau have I hated. Now thefe Elect are known 
 to God, they are not known to us, 2 Tim.%. 19. Ne- 
 verthelcfs the Foundation of God ftandeth fure, having this 
 Seal, the Lord kyowctb them that are his : Each individu- 
 al Perfon are known to him : The Lord knoweth them 
 by Name : Jacob have 1 loved, and Efau have 1 hated. 
 Their Names are written in Heaven, Luke 10.20. They 
 are written in the BookpfLife, Rev. 20. 1 5. 
 
 Thirdly, Thefe Elect confift both of Jews and Gentiles 7 
 of Jews, Rom* 1 1. 5. There is at this day a Remnant, ac- 
 cording to the Eleclion of Grace : Of Gentiles, 1 TheflT. 
 1. 4.. Knowing, Brethren, Beloved, your Eleclion of God. 
 
 Fourthly, They are chofen to Salvation as the end, 
 and to Salification as the means, both in one Decree, 
 1 Theff. 2. 13. We are bound to give thanks for you, Bre- 
 thren, Beloved of the Lord, becaufe God hath from the be- 
 ginning chofen you to Salvation, through Santlification of 
 the Sprit, and belief of the Truth : To Salvation as the 
 end, and]to Sancliikation as the means, both in one De- 
 cree. 
 
 r The fecond thing to be premifed is this, That this 
 Elect People are given to jefus Chrifr, Johnij. 6. Thine, 
 iheywere, and thou gave ft them unto me : Thine by Ele- 
 ction, and thou gaveft them unto me by federal Re- 
 lation. 
 
 Either they mufl be confidered the Fathers in re- 
 fpect of Eleclion, or in refpedt of Creation. In the fe- 
 cond fenfe we cannot poffibly take it , for, Firfi, In 
 refpect of Creation the whole World is his, but thefe 
 are not all given to the Son : Thofe that are given to 
 Use Son arc diftinguifhed from She World, Verfey. 
 
etje Covenant of tiffjsce* 2 59 
 
 / />r/*y /or f Jtf/e, / pray not for the World, but for thofe 
 whom thou haft given me, for they are thine. They are 
 doc only diftinguifhed from the World, as they are 
 given to the Son, but as they are the Fathers too: They 
 r^re thine, and that in a peculiar fenfe. 
 
 Secondly, Chrift declares, that all his Number is the 
 Fathers, and the Fathers are his: All mine are thine , 
 and thine are mine : They are the fame individual Per- 
 fons. * : 
 
 Thirdly, Chrift gives Eternal Life to as many as are 
 given him by the Father, . yo/w 17. 2. but Eternal Life 
 is given to none but the Elect, Rom. 1 1 . 7. The Eletlion 
 hath obtained, and the reft were blinded. Therefore they 
 are the Elect only that are given to Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Thirdly, I (hall prove that they are the Elect only 
 that are given to Jefus Chrift, that are tne only fub- 
 jects of the New Covenant. Firfi, ft appears, that 
 they only are bleft with the Bleffings of the New Co- 
 venant, Eph. 1. 3, 4. Bkffedbe the God and Father of our 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, who hath blejfed us with all fpiritual 
 Bleffings in heavenly places in Chrift Jefus. But who are 
 they that are thus blefled ? Are they not thofe that 
 were chofen in him before the Foundation of the 
 World? 
 
 Secondly, It was upon their account only, that Jefus 
 Chrift underwent ail his Sufferings, If a. 53.$. For the 
 Tran/greffions of my People was he [mitten. He laid down 
 his Life for the Sheep, John 20. 15. He loved the Churchy 
 and gave him felf for them, Eph. 5. 25. 
 
 Thirdly, It was upon their account only he had his 
 Name Jefus given him, Mat. 1.21. And thou fialtcall 
 his Name Jefus, for he fliall fave his People from their 
 Sins. 
 
 Fourthly, It's only they that are the Heirs of the Pro- 
 nrife, Gal. 3. 29. And if ye be Chrift s, then are ye Abra- 
 hams Seed, and Heirs according to the Promife. 
 
 R4 . Fifthly, 
 
A'6o & j&^ief &efcrtptioti of 
 
 Fifthly, They only are jollified by his Bloody Ron, 
 8. 33. Who jhalllay any thing to the Charge of Gods Elett ? 
 it is God that jufiifieth ; who is he that condemns .? it's Chrif. 
 that dyed. 
 
 Sixthly, They only (hall be glorified, Rev. 20. if. 
 'Jlndwhofoever was not written in the Lambs Book^of Lift, 
 was cafl into the Lake of Fire. 
 
 Fifthly, In the Tranfaft of this Covenant between 
 the Father and the Son, the Son undertook the per- 
 formance of certain Conditions ; He was to raife up the 
 Tribes of Jacob, and to reftore the preferved of lfrael; He 
 was to be a light to the Gentiles, and for Salvation unto the 
 ends of the Earth. 
 
 Fir ft, He was engaged to take our Nature upon, him, 
 he ciuft Le a merciful and faithful High-Prieft in things 
 pertaining unto God; He had covenanted fo to do, 
 and he inuft make good his Covenant, Heb. 10. 5. Sa- 
 crifice and Ojfering thou wouldtft not, a Body haft thou pre 
 fared me: Ver. 7. Then J [aid, lo I come. He hath re- 
 fped to the Covenant here, as being engaged thereby 
 to take a Body. 
 
 Secondly, He was engaged by Covenant to fulfil the 
 Law in our Nature, Mat. $.17. Think not that 1 am 
 come to deftroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to 
 deftroyj but to fulfil. He came not only to fulfil the Lsw, 
 bat to fulfil it upon the account of the fubjetts of this 
 Covenant, Rom. 1 o. 4. Chvifi is the end of the Law for 
 Right eoufnefs, to every one that believeth. He hath yield- 
 ed that very Obedience that the Law aimed at, He 
 was in Covenant to do whatever the Will of God was, 
 Tfalm 40 . 7, 8. Then faid I, lo I come, in the Volume of thy 
 $ookjt is written of me to do thy Will, O God: X^y thy 
 Law is within my Heart. Now this was one part of the 
 Will of God, that he fhould fulfil the Law, by yielding 
 aftive Obedience thereunto ; God fent him into the 
 |Vorld on purpofe. He was not only fent to make an 
 
 end 
 
tljt Cobetmnt of d2>?ace* 261 
 
 end of Sin, but to bring in Everbfting Righteoufnefs, 
 Dan. 9. 24. Seventy Weeks are determined to make an end 
 of Sin, tofinijhthe Tranfgrejflon, and to make Reconciliaiu 
 on for Iniquity, and to bring in Ever lofting Right coufnefi. 
 
 Thirdly, He flood engaged to offer up himfelf a 
 peace-making Sacrifice, for the fat is fed ion of Divine 
 Juftice, Heb. 10. 5. wherefore when he cometh into* the 
 World, he faith. Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldft not, 
 but a Body haft thou prepared me. Then faid I, lo I come, * 
 in the Volume of thy Book^it is written of me to do thy Will 
 God. This was the Will of God, that he ffoculd of- 
 fer upthis Body ; it was fo the Will of God, that there 
 was no avoiding of it, he muft drink that bitter Cup : 
 Therefore when he prayed, Father, if it be poffible, let 
 this Cup pafs from me; he rellgned up his Will to the 
 Will of the Father ; Neverthelefs, not my Will, but thy 
 Will be done. Whatever was the Will of God that 
 Chrid fhould do, that Chrift was in Covenant to do ; 
 and therefore he faith, that in the Volume of the Book is 
 was written of him to do the Will of the Father. 
 
 Fourthly, He was engaged by Covenant to bring in 
 all the fubjeds- thereof , to accept of himfelf on Gq- 
 fpel Terms, that io they might enjoy the good and Be- 
 nefit thereof, Johnxo. id. And other Sheep 1 have, that 
 are not of this fold, them alfo 1 muft bring, and they Jhall 
 hear my voice, and there ftiall be one Shepherd, and one Fold, 
 He doth not fay, I may bring, or I will bring, but I 
 muft bring. And why muft he bring them in ? but be- 
 caufe he was in Covenant fo to do. 
 
 Fifthly, He was engaged not only to feek, and to 
 fave that which was loft -, but alfo to keep them, when 
 he had fought them out, that they fhould ftray away no 
 more, John 6.38. / came down from Heaven^ not to do 
 mine own Will, but the Will of him that fent me, and this 
 is the Will of him that fent me, that of all that he hath gi- 
 ven me 1 fhould lofe nothing, but fhould raife it up #gaw 
 at the loft day. Sixthly 
 
*6 2 a #jief j^efcrtpttott of 
 
 Sixthly, Jefas Chrift ftood engaged to confirm the 
 Covenant by his Death, Heb. 9- 1 5- For this canfebe is 
 the Mediator of the New 'Covenant, that by means of Death, 
 for the Redemption of the Tranfgreffions that were under 
 the firfl Covenant, they that were called might receive the 
 Promife of Eternal Inheritance. For where a Teftament is, 
 there muft alfo of necejfity be the Death of the Teftator. 
 Verfe 17. For a Teftament is of force after Men are dead, 
 othcrwife it is of no ftrength at all, whtPft the Teftator li~ 
 vetb. The Promifes made to the Fathers were not 
 confirmed 'till Chrift was offered up, Htb. 11.13. 
 Tbefc all through Faith obtained a good report, not having 
 received the Promife, Cod havtng provided fome better thing 
 for us, that they without us jhould not be made perfc.bl. 
 This Provifion was made in the New Covenant, where 
 all our Mercies are wrapt op : Thefe are the Conditions 
 that the Son undertook;the performance of. Now 
 what he was engaged to do and fuffer, he hath made 
 good, John 17. 1. 1 have finijhed the Work^that thou ga- 
 veft me to do. John 19. 30. He cried out, it is fini(hed, 
 and he bowed the Head, and gave up the Gbojt. So that 
 the Covenant is compleated on Chrift's part, withre- 
 fpecl: to what he was to do and fuffer, both which are 
 of Eternal Efficacy, and being compleated on the Sons 
 part, all the Promifes made by the Father are con- 
 firmed and fulfilled, Ms 1 3. 32, 33- And m declare umo 
 you glad-tidings, how that the Promife that was made to the 
 Fathers, God hath fulfilled to us their Children, in that he 
 bath raifed Chrift from the dead. The Promifes were 
 confirmed by his Death, and his Refurreclion was a 
 fignal Manifeftation of the fulfilling or Confirmation 
 thereof; fo that the New Covenant is now of force, 
 the Death of the Teftator hath confirmed the Tefta- 
 ment. ■ ' 
 
 Sixthly, In this Compact between the Father and the 
 Son, the Father engaged himfelf, by feveral Promi- 
 fes, 
 
t$e Covenant of deface*' 26 j 
 
 fes, fome of which were peculiar to /the Son j others 
 made to the Son in behalf of the Elect, who are the Sub- 
 jects thereof, Ifa. 49. 5, 7, 8. The Promifes that are 
 peculiar to the Son are as followeth : birft,That hefmild 
 be glorious in the Eyes of the Lord, that God would be his 
 Strength^ ver. 5. Secondly, That God would (land by 
 him, and help him, ver. 8. In an acceptable time have I 
 heard thee, and in the day of Salvation have I holpen thee. 
 Here are two things to be considered : Firft, Jefus 
 Chrift took hold of thefe Promifes, and bottomed up- 
 on them, Ifa. 50. 7, 9. My God wiU help me, therefore 
 have Ifet my Face as a Flint, and 1 know that 1 fliall not be 
 confounded. Behold! the Lord God will help me, therefore 
 Jjhallnotbe ajhamed. Secondly, The Father made good 
 thefe Promifes to Chrift when he was offered up, 
 2 Cor. 6. 2. For he faid, in an acceptable Time have 1 
 heard thee, and in the day of Salvation have 1 holpen thee * 7 
 behold now is the acceptable Time % behold now is the day of 
 Salvation. When God was in Chrift reconciling the 
 World to hirafelf, not impufing unto them their Tref- 
 pafles, then were thefe Promifes made good : Then Was 
 the accptable Time, then was the day of Salvation, 
 then dii God hear him, Hth* 5. 7. Be was heard in the 
 things he feared y then was he holpen under all his Suffer- 
 ings. 
 
 Secondly, The Father engaged hirnfelf by feveral Pro- 
 mifes made to the Son in behalf of the Elect, Ifa. 49. 
 8,9. Thus faith the' Lord, in an acceptable Time have I 
 heard thee, and in the day of Salvation have I holpen thee % 
 and I will give thee for a Covenant of the People, to efta- 
 bltjh the Earth, and caufe to inherit the dejolate places, ver. 9. 
 That thou may ft fay to the Prijoners, go forth, to them that 
 fit in darknefs jhew your felves : That he Jhould be a light to 
 the Gentiles, and for Salvation to the ends of the Eartho 
 Tit. r . 2. In hope of Eternal Life, which God that cannot lye 
 proniifed before the World began, I fuppofe that Eternal 
 
 U 
 
264 a T&iitt tettcviption of 
 
 Life here, comprehends all the good of the New Cove- 
 nant. As Death is a comprehenfive of all Mifery, ib 
 is Eternal Life a comprehenflve of all Happinefs. This 
 Promt fc was made to Chrift before the World began : And it 
 was made to hioi in behalf of the fubjetts of this Cove- 
 nant, or elfe Paul could not have grounded his hopes 
 upon it. I doubt not but all the Promifes that are now 
 in the New Covenant, containing Temporal, Spiritual, 
 and Eternal BleQings, were made in the firft Tranfact 
 of the Covenant.. As Ghrifl did then engage -to perform 
 all the Conditions, fo the Father engaged to beftow 
 all the Bleffings that were contained in the Promifes - 9 
 he did give Chrift for a Covenant to the People in 
 the very firft Tvanfadt *, and are not all the Promifes 
 Tea and Amen'm Chrift Jcfus ? All the Promifes were 
 confirmed by Chrift, as he was confidercd the Teftator 5 
 therefore 1 conclude, that they were ail made in the 
 firft tranfad of the Teftament. There are Promiies put 
 into the Covenant with refpect to the fubjects thereof, 
 and nothing but Promifes :'The New Govenant is a bun- 
 dle of Promifes, there is not one Precept, nor one 
 Threat to be found.there ♦ ( on the Sons part it contain- 
 ed Conditions, that were to be performed by him, and 
 that upon account of the fubjects thereof ;) On the 
 Fathers part it contained only Promifes, the fulfilling 
 of which depended on the performance of the Condi- 
 tions by the Son. Thefe are the two parts of the Co- 
 venant, and the whole thereof } there is not a third 
 part to be produced. That this Covenant is made up 
 all of Promifes, with refpect to the fubje&s thereof, 
 will appear in a few particulars. 
 
 Firfti There are nothing but Promifes to be found 
 in that which God calls the New Covenant, Jer. 31. 
 B 3 ) 34« % Ht thisjhall be the Covenant that I will make with 
 the Honfe of Ifrael^ after thofe days^ faith the Lord, I 
 willpHt my Laws in their inward fart /, and write them in 
 
 thsi? 
 
t^e Covenant of <®w& 26^ 
 
 their Hearts : And J will be their God, and they jljall be my 
 People : And they fhall all know me, from the leaft to the 
 great e(l of them, for 1 will forgive their Iniquities , and re- 
 member their Sins no more, God himfelt calls this the 
 New Covenant, verfe 31. Behold the day is come, that I 
 will make a New Covenant with the Houfe of Ifrael ; And 
 this is that New Covenant which is contained in the 
 3 3, & 34. verfes. And fure I am, there are none but 
 Promifes here: If we look Gen. 17.7. Ez.ek.36.21, 
 26,27. Heb.%. 10, 11. in which Scriptures the New 
 Covenant is moft largely defcribed, you will fee no- 
 thing but Promifes. 
 
 Secondly, It appear*, in that the New Covenant is 
 fliled the Promife, or Promifes. 
 
 Firfi, The Promife, in the lingular Number, Acls 13. 
 32, 33, 34. And we declare unto yon glad-tidings , how that: 
 the Promife that was made to the Fathers, God hath ful- 
 filled to us their. Children, ■ in that he raifed him from th't 
 Dead, now no more to return to Corruption : He faid on 
 this wife, I will give you the fure Mercies of David, By 
 the Promife in the 32*/. verfe is intended the Covenant, 
 for he prefently addeth, / will give ycu the fJre Mercies 
 of David. And thefe are the Mercies of the New Co- 
 venant, Gal. 3 . 29. And if ye be Chrifts, then are ye Abra- 
 hami Seed, and Heirs according to the Promife. Gal. 
 3. 17. The Law that was four hundred and thirty Tears 
 after could not difamtl, that it fiould make the Promife 
 of none Ejfetl, That which is there called the Pro- 
 mife, is in the former part of the fame verfe called 
 the Covenant that was afore confirmed of God in 
 Chrift. 
 
 Secondly, It is fometimes called Promifes, in the Plu- 
 ral Number, Rom. 15. 8. Now, I fay, that J ef us Chrift 
 was a Minifter of the Circumcifion, for the Truth of God, 
 t9 confirm the Promifes made to the Fathers. Gal. 3. 16. 
 To Abraham and his Seed were the Promifes made. 
 
 Thirdly^ 
 
266 a Wtf mtttiption of 
 
 Thirdly, It appears, in that the fubjects of this Co- 
 venant are ftiled the Heirs of the Promife, Heb.6. 17. 
 Wherein God willing more abundantly to [hew to the Heirs 
 of the Promife the immutability of his Council) confirmed 
 it by an Oath. What did God confirm by an Oath ? 
 Was it not the New Covenant? GaL 3. 17. And what 
 was the New Covenant but the Promife ? 
 
 Fourthly, It appears, in that it was a free Cove- 
 nant, in refpeft of the fubje&s thereof ; there was no 
 Condition pat into it, the performance whereof doth 
 entitle to the BleHings therein contained. It's their 
 Union with Chrift entitles, and not any thing done 
 by them, r Cor. 3.22, 23. GaL 3.29. You can't find 
 one Condition put into the Covenant, with refpect to 
 the fubjects thereof, in all the places where it is moft 
 largely defcribed : All the Conditions were to be, and* 
 are performed by Chrift, Now if this be granted, 
 that the New Covenant contains nothing bat Conditi- 
 ons on Chrift's part, and nothing but Promifes on the 
 Father's part, it will follow, that fuch as have no in- 
 tereft in the- Merits of Chrift, that have no Intereft in 
 * the Promifes of the Father, have no Intereft at all in 
 the New Covenant. There is not an internal and an 
 external part in the New Covenant, ( as fome would 
 have ) the Covenant containing nothing but Promifes, 
 with refpect to the fubjects thereof. What can we fup- 
 pofe the external part to be, that a Perfon rriay have 
 an intereft in, that hath no Intereft in the Promifes? 
 .Such as have an Intereft in the Covenant, have certain- 
 ly an Intereft in the Promifes ; To Abraham and his 
 Seed were the Promifes made. And here take notice of a 
 few things : 
 
 Firfty There is not one Subject of the New Cove? 
 nant that (hall go without the Bleffings thereof, Ju- 
 ftification, Sanctification, and Glorification, Jer* 31. 
 33 > 34- This is the Covenant that I will m*k§ with the 
 
 Houfi 
 
tfte Covenant of ©jace* 26 j 
 
 Houfe of Ifrael, after thofe days faith the Lord \ I will 
 write my Laws in their Hearts, 1 will be their God, and they 
 Jhail be my People ; they fhall all know me from the lea ft to 
 the gr eat eft of them : For 1 will forgive thdr Iniquities y 
 and remember their Sins no more. There is not one fub- 
 je& that fhall not know the Lord, not one that fhall 
 mifs of the Pardon of Sin : And coufequently not one 
 that fhall come fhort of Salvation } for luch as are J uni- 
 fied, and Sanctified, fliall certainly be Glorified. 
 
 Secondly, There can t be one fubjeci brought into 
 this Covenant by the Faith of the Parent, there are as 
 many in already as ever will be : Their Names were 
 written in the Lambs Book^ of Life from the Foundation of 
 the World, Rev. 17. 5. And all the World wandered 
 after the BeafL Whofe Names were not written in the 
 Lambs Book of Life from the Foundation of the World, 
 We are not here to underfland every individual Per- 
 fon of the World j but only fucb, Whofe Names were 
 not written in the Lambs Book of Life from the Founda- 
 tion of the World. God had his two WitnefFes at the 
 fame time, thefe did not admire the Beaft, they bore 
 their Teftimony againfr. him : And if fa, then their 
 Names were written in the Lambs Book of Life; and that 
 long before they began to bear their Teftimony again!!; 
 him, even from the Foundation of the World. We can. 
 no more add to the Subjecls of this Covenant, than 
 we can add to the Decree of Election. 
 
 Thirdly, It is not poflible for a Perfon that was once 
 a fubject of this Covenant to lofe his Intereft therein, 
 Jer. 32. 40. / will make an Everlafting Covenant with 
 them, that I will never turn away from them to do them 
 good : And I will put my fear in their Hearts, that they 
 fhall not depart from me. God Covenants here for him* 
 felf and them too : Firft, For himfelf, That he will ne- 
 ver turn away from them to do them good* He hath en- 
 gaged all his Attributes to be exerted as the Cafe re- 
 quired, 
 
268 a 7&iitf teztiviptim of 
 
 quires, his Wifddm to direct, his Power to protect, 
 his Grace and Mercy to fave. He Covenanteth for 
 them too, That he will put his fear mo their Hearts^ that 
 thgi fljall not depart from him. This Covenant is free 
 and abfolute, and is now confirmed by the Death of 
 the Teftator - 7 and therefore, there is no difanulling 
 or adding thereunto : No Name to be ftruck out, nor 
 yet put in, no Legacy to be altered or changed. This 
 appears by the inilance that the Apcftle gives cf a 
 Man's Covenant, Cal. 3. 15. Brethren^ I fpeak after the 
 manner of Men. If it be but a Man's Covenant, when 
 it is confirmed, no man difanullech h^ nor addeth 
 thereunto ; this he brings to (hew from the very Na- 
 ture of a Covenant, ( or Teffoment ) how unalterable 
 the New Covenant ( qr Teftament ) is, being con- 
 firmed by the Death of the Teftator. But here are 
 fome Objections that mull be anfwercd before I leave 
 it. 
 
 ObjeBion the Firfti That the Covenant that was 
 made with the Lord jefas Chrift, was the Covenant 
 of Redemption, not the Covenant of Grace, or the 
 New Covenant. 
 In Anfwer to this I (hall propofe a few Queries : 
 Firft 3 I defire to know where this Distinction is to be 
 found ? for I cannot find it in the word of God ; or by what 
 mark the Covenant of Redemption, and the Covenant of 
 Grace, or the New Covenant, may be known one from 
 the other, if they aredifbinct Covenants? for I cannot 
 find any Marks or Characters in the Word that sre 
 peculiar to each of thefe. I have met with many that 
 have made the Diftinction, bat I could never meet with 
 one as yet that could make it Intelligent. to me, what- 
 ever they fancy to themfelves : No, not Gelapfy him- 
 felf, who I think was the firffc Founder of it. The Au- 
 thor to the Hebrews mentions but two Covenants, the 
 firft and the fecond, an Old and a New, one that h 
 
 confirmed? 
 
fyz covenant of ®iatz> *og 
 
 confirmed, and another that is done away ; arid yet he 
 handles the Covenants more largely and diftindlly thea 
 any other of the Penmen of Scripture had done before; 
 and doch plainly fliew, that Chrifl: was the Teitator 
 of the New Covenant, Heb.g. 15, \6, 17. And if ib f 
 then was the New Covenant made with Chriil; as I 
 party Covenanting. 
 
 Secondly, I would know, Whether the Covenant of 
 Redemption may not properly be called tbeCovenan*; 
 of Grace ? Whether God did ever manifeft more of 
 his Grace and Mercy, either to Jew or Gentile, than in 
 giving Jefus Chrifl:, To raife up the Tribes of Jacob i 
 and to re (lore the prefer ved of Ifrael, to be a light to ths 
 Gentiles, and to be for Salvation to the end ofths Earth ? 
 
 Thirdly, Whether the New Covenant be not the 
 Covenant of Redemption, as well as it is the Covenant 
 of Grace? My meaning is, Whether Redemption be 
 not a Branch of the New Covenant ? Whether Jefus 
 Chrifl: was not the Mediator of ff$e New Covenant, that 
 by means of Death, for the Redemption oftheTrnufarejfJoxs 
 that were under the prfl Covenant, that they that are called 
 might receive the Promife of Eternal Inheritance. I find 
 Redemption, Juftification, Sanftification, and Glori- 
 fication, put into the New Covenant, and all confirm- 
 ed by the offering up of the Lord jefus Chrifl. So thaE 
 I fee no room for a' Covenant of Redemption, diftincli 
 from the Covenant of Grace, or the New Covenant- 
 
 Objetlion the Second, The Covenant of Redemption 
 wasjnade with Chrift, but the Covenant of Grace, or 
 New'Covenanfc, was made with us, #^,5.8. Behold the 
 day is come^ faith the Lord, that I will make a New Coye~ 
 nam with the Honfe oflfrael, and the Honfe ofjudak^ &Co 
 To this I Anfwer, 
 
 Firft, We are not here ( by the Word make ) to uii- 
 derftand the firlt Tranfacl of the New Covenant^ for 
 in that refpeft the New Covenant was made long be- 
 
 9 
 
2 7 o a #ii£* $>ef ctipf ion of 
 
 fore •, it was promulgated as foon as Adam fell, 
 therefore ic was in being when he fell. If the Cove- 
 nant of Grace^was not from the beginning, 1 defire to 
 know by vertue of what, God did write his Law in the 
 Hearts of his People, from the beginning. 
 
 Secondly, By the Word make, we are to underftand 
 the Confirmation of the New Covenant, which was 
 made long before. It is obferved by thofe that under- 
 ftand the Greek, that the Word iignifieth the Contam- 
 ination thereof, and that it fhould be read thus, / will 
 confiimmatc a New Covenant with the ttonfe of Ijrael ; and 
 it's applied to the offering up of Chad, by whofe 
 Death the New Covenant was confirmed, Heb. io. 14, 
 l< 16 For by one Offering he hath for ever per fetled 
 them that are fantlified. This Perfection confifts in the 
 Remiffion of Sin, and this Remiffion is that the Spirit 
 bears Witnefs unto; Their Sins and Iniquities mil I re- 
 member no more. And from hence the Apoftle draws 
 this Inference, When Remiffion of 'the fe is , there is no more 
 
 Sacrifice for Sin. ' r « j \* 
 
 Objcffion the Third, The Covenant of Redemption is 
 abfolute, bun the Covenant of Grace is conditional : 
 Faith is the Condition thereof, Mark x6 .^6. He that 
 Believeth, and is Baptized, jhall be faved. 1 o this 1 An- 
 
 ^f\A7Pt* 
 
 Firli If Faith be tbe Condition of Intereft in the Co- 
 venant of Grace, then Baptifm is the Condition ; alfoi 
 the Text faith, He that believeth, and is b*pttz.ed, Jbau be 
 Uved: God hath joined them together, and no Man 
 may pat afunder what God hath joined. Now mould 
 this be granted, that Baptifm is the Condition of In- 
 tereft in the Covenant, then the Argument for Infant- 
 Baptifm, which is this, that Children have an Intereft in 
 the Covenant, therefore they muft be Baptised, is gone, 
 there being no Intereft in the Covenant antecedent there- 
 unto. Aid ihould the Objection is fclf be granted 
 
tint Covenant of ®tatti §7 * 
 
 that Faith is the Condition of Interefl: in the Govenanr^ 
 the Argument for Infant-Baptifm will fall to the ground* 
 unlefs you will fay, that at! the Children of Believers 
 do believe as well as their Parents. 
 
 But this I think is a task too hard for any to under- 
 take ; fure I am, it is Coo hard for any to go through 
 withall. Faith comes not by Generation, but ^Regene- 
 ration, in refpeft of the Principle, and by hearing ia 
 refpeft of the Aft. 
 
 Secondly^ The Text doth not fa? * He that believetb^ 
 ihallhave an Interefl in theGovenarit, but that he that 
 believetb, fhallbe faved: Salvation here intends Glorifi- 
 cation, for it is put in oppofition to Damnation. . Novr 
 though it be granted, That he that believeth Jhall be faved ; 
 yet it doth not follow, that Faith muft be coniidered as 
 a Condition, the performance of'which doth entitle us 
 to Salvation. Salvacion may be coniidered as an end 
 following^ Faith as a means preparing, fitting and 
 difpoflng, but not as an end depending on Faith, as a 
 means procuring, or as a Condition, the performance 
 of,which may be confldered that which doth entitle t»i 
 thereto* 
 
 Secondly, Faith is fo far from being the Condition of 
 the Covenant, that it is a Fruit of Intereft therein, 
 both in refpeft of the Principle and Aft too, 
 
 Firft, In refpeft of the Principle, it's a New Cove- 
 
 ' riant Biefling, held forth in a free Promife, Ezjck:$6. 2&* 
 
 A new Heart alfo will I give unto yon, and~a new Spirit will 
 
 I put within you, and I will takf away the Heart of S tons 
 
 qm of your Flefh, and will give you an Heart of Flefh. 
 
 Firft, This Promife is not made to all, but to a pe- 
 culiar People : This is evident, Firfl, In that the Pro- 
 mife isabfolute, it doth not hang on Conditions to be 
 performed by us, what can be confidered as a Conditi- 
 on antecedent unto a new Heart. Secondly, In that all 
 do not en : )oy the Benefit of it. 
 
 S- t- Sadndh' ■ 
 
572 a Tfyitf mtcv tptf on of 
 
 Secondly, Thofe to whom this Prornife is made have 
 an Intereft therein, antecedent to the change of the 
 Heart. 
 
 . Thirdly, This new Heart that is here promifed, is 
 a Heart renewed 7 it's not new in refpect of Matter, 
 but in refpecl ot the Form } which new Form confifts 
 in thofe new Principles that are infufed in a Work of 
 Regeneration,- fo that the Principle of Faith is held 
 forth in a free Promife. 
 
 Secondly, In refpect of the Act : Firft, As 'tis confi- 
 dered the Aft of the Underftanding, I fa. 54. 13. All 
 thy Children Jliall be taught of God. Jer. 31.33. They ftiall 
 all know me, from the leaft to the great eft : This is ihe Act 
 of Faith, as it is confidered the Act of the Underftand- 
 ing, which is always followed with the Act of the Will ; 
 John 6. 45 . Every one that hath heard and learned of the 
 Father, cometh unto me. 
 
 Secondly, As it's confidered as the Act of tke Will, fo 
 it's held forth in a free Promife, Pfalm 1 10. 3. Thy Peo- 
 ple Jloall be willing in the day of thy Power ; John 6. 37. 
 All that the Father giveth me fiall come unto me. Now if 
 Faith be a frait of intereft in the Covenant, then it is 
 not a Condition ^ but it is a fruit of Intereft, it doth not 
 preceed but follow Intereft, and is an effect thereof. 
 
 Objection the Fourth, The Covenant of Redemption 
 had no Mediator, but the Covenant of Grace, or the 
 New Covenant had.. To this I anfwer : 
 
 Fir ft, If there were no Mediator in the Tranfact 
 thereof, yet it's apparent that the Son engaged to be a 
 Mediator in the TVanfact thereof. Had there been no 
 Mediator, there could have been no Redeemer; Chrift 
 was no otherwife a Redeemer, then as he was a Media- 
 tor, Heb. 9. 15, For this Caufe he is the Mediator of the 
 New Covenant, that by means of Death, for the Redemption 
 of the Tranfgrejfions, that were under the firfi Covenant , 
 they that wen called might receive the Promife of Eternal 
 
 Inheri- 
 
t$e Covenant of dftace* 2 7 j 
 
 Inheritance : He muft be a Mediator, that he might be 
 a Redeemer. By vertue of the fame Covenant that 
 Chrifr. is a Redeemer I find he is a Mediator, and that 
 is the New Covenant : He is both Redeemer and Medi- 
 ator, and alfo the Teftator thereof. Having now done 
 with the New Covenant, I dial] make fome Remarks on 
 the Old. 
 
 Obferving the various Apprehenlions that are among 
 ProfefTors, concerning the Covenant that God made 
 with Abraham, and the natural Seed,confidered as fuch, 
 Gen. 15. 18. which Covenant was figned with Circum- 
 cifion, Gen. 17. 10. dedicated with the Blood of the 
 Sacrifices, Exod. 24.8. and renewed with all the Con- 
 gregation of Ifrael, Deut. 29. 10, 1 r. 
 
 Andlikewifethe Extreams that Men have run upon, 
 according to their various apprehenlions^ fome ma- 
 king it to be the Covenant of Works, or fo many New 
 Editions of that Covenant that God made with Adam 
 in a ftate of Innocency, others erring as much on the 
 other hand, making it to be the Covenant of Grace: I 
 fh,3ll endeavour to free it from the abfurdities that will 
 neceflarily follow thefe two Extreams. But, Firft % I 
 fhall prove that the Covenant Gen. 1 5. 18. is the fame 
 that is mentioned in the other three places quoted be- 
 fore. And that it is fo, appears, 
 
 Firft^ In that the Subjects are the fame in each of 
 thefe, the Natural Seed, confidered as fuch. Secondly^ 
 In that the Inheritance is the fame in each of them, 
 the Land of Canaan : This is fufficient to prove it the 
 fame Covenant, in thefe four Texts of Scripture. Ei* 
 ther the Covenant fpoken of in all thefe places; 
 is the fame, or it is not 5 if we fay they are di- 
 ftincl: Covenants, we (hall be to feek for Names to 
 diftinguiQi them by, one from the other ; if we fay it's 
 the fame Covenant often repeated, then the Queflioq 
 will be, whether it be the Covenant of Works, theCo- 
 
 S 3 venant 
 
? 7 4 91 T&iitt 5©ef tvivtim of 
 
 rant of Grace, or a diftinft Covenant from each of 
 thefe. 
 
 firjFi It's not the Covenant of Works, it differs from 
 that in in any refpeds. 
 
 Firft, It diiTers from the Covenant of Works in re- 
 fpeft of the Paribus covenanting : .That was made with 
 Adam, this with Abraham; tho' Abraham was a fubjeft 
 of th^t, yet Adam was npt a fubjecl of this. 
 
 Tho' he lived long after he brake the Covenant of 
 Works, yet he was dead long before this Covenant was 
 in being. 
 
 Secondly, Adam was a Reprefentative in that Cove- 
 p int j while he flood we flood, when he fell we fell ; 
 jjiom, 5. i2» Wherefore as by one man fm entered into the 
 World, and Death by fin, and [0 Death gaffed tifon all men, 
 for that all had finned, or, In whom all had finncd^MavgenU 
 But this Covenant had no reprefentative, each fubjecl: 
 |lopd and fell by himfelf, Exod. 32. 33. And the Lord 
 '[aid unto Mofes, whofoever hath finned againfl me y him will I 
 blot out of my book. 
 
 Thirdly, They differ in refpeflt of the Subjects there- 
 of: That Covenant took in all Mankind that defcended 
 from Adam by ordinary generation, Rom. 15.18. There- 
 fore as by the Offence of one judgement came ufon all men 
 to son4emnation : If all Men had not had an interefl in that 
 -'Covenant* and flood really under the threat thereof, the 
 Sentence would not have been clapt on all for the 
 breach thereof, but this Covenant took in no more with 
 lefpect to the inheritance thereof but the natural feed 
 of Abraham • fuch as were born of Sarah^ Ijhmael, and 
 the Profelited Gentiles, had nothing to do with the Land 
 of Canaan. Now as the Seed of Adam were abundantly 
 ynore than the Seed of Abraham, fo the Subjects of that 
 Covenant were abundantly more than the Subjects of 
 %\m\ they were many whole Nations that were in being 
 ^hsn this Covenant ^as in being* that were never taken 
 
 into 
 
t fje €odmant of d^ace* 2 7 ? 
 
 into this Covenant, as the Subjects thereof. This Cove- 
 nant was never intended for comprehenfion, but tor re- 
 paration, Exod. 19. 5, 6~. Now therefore if yon will obey 
 my voice indeed, and keep my 'Covenant , yon fhal Ike a pecu- 
 liar treafitre unto me, above all people , for all the Earth is 
 mine ; and ye [hall be to me a Kingdom of Priefts, an holy 
 Nation -, that is, a Separate Nation. It was this Covenant 
 that was the Partition- wall between' Jen? and Gentile, 
 that was broken down when Chrift was offered up. 
 
 Fourthly, They differed in refpecfc of :he Bond there- 
 of,*the Bond of that Covenant contained the Moral Law 
 only. The ten Precepts that were firft written in the 
 heart of Man by Nature, .^afterwards in Tables of Stone, 
 Dent, 4. 14. He declared unto you his Covenant, which he 
 had commanded you to perform, even ten Commands, and he 
 wrote them upon Tables of ft one. The Lord fpake thefe 
 Words, and he added no more, Deut, 5. 2. but the Bond 
 of this Covenant contained befides thefe a great many 
 Political LawSjWhich refpected Ifrael, as they werecon- 
 lidered a Common-wealth, and reached no more but 
 the ftranger that was within their Gate, and EccJefiafti- 
 cal Laws, with refpeft to their Cnurch-ftate, which 
 were all put down in the Book of the Covenant, Exod, 
 2l. 22, 23. Chapters. 
 
 Fifthly, They differ in refpecl: of the Tenor thereof; 
 that Covenant was a Covenant of Life, the Tenor 
 whereof was, Do this and live. -, had Adam kept that Co- 
 venant, he had never returned to the Dull again, but 
 this was not a Covenant of Life, Gen. 15.1$. Thoufhalt 
 go to thy F 'other s in peace, thoufhalt be buried in a good old • 
 age : This was fpoken to Abraham the fame day the 
 Lord made a Covenant with him. And here obferve, is 
 was not fpoken as a Threat, as the Lord fpake to Adam, 
 In the day thou eat eft thereof thou ftialt dye ; here was no 
 Provifo in the cafe, but dye hemuft : Yet was it not a 
 Threat but a Gracious Pronv fe. Life was never put into 
 
 S 4 this 
 
276 g 75tkl ©efcrfptf on of 
 
 jthis Covenant, neither to be continued here, nor to be 
 enjoyed hereafter. 
 
 Sixthly, The firft fin broke that Covenant, Rom. 5. 
 1 6~. Not as it xv a shy one that finned Jo is the free gift, for the 
 judgment nas by one to condemnation, ( that was by one adt 
 of fin ) but the free gift is of many offences unto jufiification. 
 But the fii ft fin did not break this Covenant, Abraham 
 was guilty of a foul Mifcarriage as foon as thi.s.Cove- 
 nant was made, in going in to Hagar^ and many tranf- 
 grefiions were committed by his Seed before they were 
 poflefied of the inheritance, yet this Covenant re- 
 gained. 
 
 Seventhly, That Covenant admitted of no Repen- 
 tance ; Had Adam broke his Heart with Grief,he coald 
 pever have been rein veiled with the PriviledgeS of that 
 Covenant : The threat was. In the day that thou eatefi 
 thereof, thoujhalt dye, Or, In dying thou (bail dye : Which 
 threat was immediately turned into a Sentence, as foon 
 2S ever Adam fell, Daft thou art, and unto du(t Jhalt thou 
 return: Rom. 5.18. Therefore by the offence of one judg- 
 ment came &pon all men to condemnation, &c. The Sen- 
 tence was immediately paft, and remains.unrepealed to 
 ajl not redeemed by Jefus Chrift. I cannot fee how that 
 Covenant can be faid to be renewed, when theCurfe 
 that was clapt on all for the firft tranfgreifion, remains 
 on all, but fuch for whom Jefus Chrift hath born it - 7 
 por to what purpofeit mould be renewed, feeing Jufti- 
 cation was never to be had by the. Works of the Law 
 ilnce the firft tranfgreifion, The Law being become weak^ 
 through theflefh, : So that it could not give Life, whatever 
 Obedience might be fuppofed to be yielded thereunto. 
 I fay, the Covenant of Works admitted of no Repen- 
 tance, but this Covenant did, Lew. 26. 41, 42. If 
 their mcircumcifed hearts be humbled, and they then accept of 
 the putiijhment of their Iniquity, then will I remember my Cove- 
 nant with Jacob , andalfo my Covenant with Ifaac^mdalfo my 
 
 Cove- 
 
ti)e Covenant of ©jace* 277 
 
 Covenant with Abraham will I remembtr,andl will remember 
 the Land. Now an uncircumcifed heart may be humbled, 
 tho'not flncerely,as AhaPs was,t Kings 21. ult. Seeft thou 
 bow Ahab humbleth himfelf, thir evil jhall not come in his 
 days: There might be an outward Humiliation and Re- 
 formation, where the Heart was notuprightyupori which 
 Reformation God might remove the Judgment, PfaL 
 78. from 34, to 39. this Covenant is not then the Co- 
 venant of Works. 
 
 Secondly, This Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace ; 
 there are a great many Marks and Characters by which 
 they may be diftinguifhed one from the other. 
 
 Firft, They differ in^efpect of the Perfons with 
 whom they were tranfacled : The Covenant of Grace 
 was tranfafted with the Lord Jefus Chrift, I fa. 49. from 
 3, to 10. this I have cleared p. 1. therefore fhall 
 fay no more to it now •, but this Covenant was 
 tranfacTed with Abraham, Gen. 15. 18. The fame day the 
 Lord made a Covenant with Abraham^ faying r unto thy feed 
 have I given this whole land. 
 
 Secondly, The Covenant of Grace was tranfacted be- 
 tween the Father and the Son, before the World was, 
 Titus r . 2 . Jn hopes of eternal life, which God that cannot lye 
 promifed before the World began. 2 Tim, 1 . 9. Who hath 
 faved us^ and called us with an holy calling, not according to 
 oar Works, but according to his own purpofe and grace, which 
 was given to us in Chrifi Jefus before the World was . 
 
 1 do not amplifie on thefe Scriptures, having done k 
 already, p- 2. But this Covenant was not in being till 
 Abraham had a being ; it bears Date but four hundred 
 years before lfrael came up out of Egypt, Gen. 1 5. from 
 1 3, to 19. This Covenant was never heard of before, 
 do inftance can be given of it till then. 
 
 Thirdly, They differed in refpect of the Subjecls 
 thereof : The Subjects of the Covenant of Grace are the 
 Elecl: only, Abraham and hisMyftical Seed, Gal. 3. 16. 
 
 To 
 
*7& a *&ml 'Btfctiption at 
 
 To Abraham and his feed were the promifes made ; he faith not 
 tcfeeds,as of many, but to thy feed, as of one, and that is Chnft ; 
 Chrift, not perfonally considered, for then all the Pro- 
 irifes would have terminated in the perion of Chrift, 
 but rayftically conlidered, Chrift and the Elect, Head 
 and Members, Gal. 3. 16. AndifyebeChrifl's, then are 
 ye Abraham's feed, and heirs according to the Promife. This 
 Scripture is fufficient to decide the Controverfie about 
 the Subjects of the Covenant of Grace ; clear your rela- 
 tion to Jefus Chrift, and you may conclude your relati- 
 on to Abraham, and confequently your intereft in the 
 Covenant of Grace : It was To Abraham and his feed that 
 the promifes were made -, not to e^ry Believer and his feed. 
 Nor did the Promife take in all the feed of Abrabam, 
 there were fome that were properly his Seed according 
 to the flefli, that yet were no part of his Myftical Seed, 
 to whom the Promifes were made,te*.4.i2. And the fa- 
 ther of the Circumcifon, to them that are not of the Circumci- 
 fon only, but that walkjn the ft eys of that faith which he had, 
 yet being uncircumcifed. It was not enough to demon- 
 strate 'them to be the Myftical Seed of Abraham, that 
 they were circumcifed, though they were his Natural 
 Seed, Rom, 9. 7, 8. Neither bee aufe they are the feed of 
 Abraham are they all Children, bat in Ifaacfhall thy feed 
 be called-, that is, they that are the Children of the ftefi, 
 fhefe are not the Children of God, bat the Children of the Pro- 
 wife are counted for the Seed: ( Here IJhmael is put by. ) 
 It-was not the Children of the flefh, confidered as fucb, 
 but the Children of the Promife that were accounted for 
 the feed. Some you fee were the Children of Abraham^ 
 that were not the Children of the Promife, and fuchas 
 were not the Children of the Promife were never ao 
 counted nor intended as a part of that feed with whom 
 the Covenant was eftablifhed, Gen. 17. 7. nor were all 
 the Pofterity oflfaac accounted for the feed, There was 
 mEfaii as well as a Jacob ^ the one hated , the other loved % 
 
 nor 
 
t$e Covenant cf dtyace* 279 
 
 nor were all the Pofterity of Jacob accounted for the 
 feed, For all were not Ifrael that were of IJrad. I fay, the 
 Subjects of the Covenant of Grace are the Elecl only, and 
 to this agree the Alterably in their larger Catechifm, 
 p. 8 1 . their Words are as followeth, c The Covenant of 
 4 Grace was made with the Lord Jeius Chrift as the Se- 
 cond Adam, and in him with alkthe Elect of God, as 
 'his Seed. But this Covenant took in all the Natural 
 Seed, considered as fueh, both Elect and Non-elecl;, 
 there were none put by, it was made with all the People, 
 Zach. 1 1 . 1 o. With all the Congregation cf Ifrael, the 
 Captains of their Tribes, their Officers, with all the Men 
 of 1 frael, from the Hew^rof the Wood to the Drawer 
 of the Water, it took in the whole Camp, their little 
 Ones, their Wifes, and the Stranger that was among 
 them , the Egyptians that came up with them out of 
 Egypt as lve U fi s the Ifraelites, for they came up a mix- 
 ea multitude, Exod y \2.\%. when it was dedicated with 
 the blood of the Sacrifices, £aW.24.8. Mofesfprinkledthe 
 Bookand all the People, and [aid, behold the blood of the Cove- 
 nant, which the Lord hath wade with yon concerning all the fc 
 Words* 
 
 Fourthly , The Covenant of Grace was abfolute, Jer. 
 31. 33, 34. This pall be the Covenant that J will wake with 
 the Houfe of Ifrael after thofe days, faith the Lord, J will put 
 my Law in their hearts, and write it in their inward parts, I 
 will be their God, and they pall be my people ; and they jhall all 
 know we, from the leafl to the great eft, for I will forgive their 
 iniquities, and remember their Sins no more : And it denotes 
 thus much, that pardon of fin doth precede Sanclificati- 
 pn. Here is not one Condition in the Text, nor any 
 thing that looks like a condition ; but this Covenant is 
 partly abfolute, and partly conditional, thatfortte of 
 Abrahams Seed fhould poflefs the Land of Canaan, thaC 
 W£S abfolute, Gen. 15. 18. The fame day the Lord made 
 a Co'venant with Abraham, faying, mto thy feed have I given, 
 
 this 
 
a8o a J&jtef mtcviption of 
 
 this whole land, &c. but their continuance in it, and 
 their Pofterity in the enjoyment of it, did hang all on 
 Conditions of their Obedience, Dent. 28. 1,2. If thou 
 (bait diligently hearken unto the Lord thy God, to do all that 
 he commandeththce, then all thefe blejfmgsjhall come upon thee y 
 &c. ver. 15. But if thou fialt not hearken to the voice of the 
 Lord thy God, to do all that he commands thee, then all the fe 
 Curfesjhallcome upon thee, and overtake thee, &c. Now ac- 
 cording to all the words of the 2%th. Chapter, was Mo- 
 fes to make a Covenant with them in the 2$th. Chapter^ 
 ver. 1. 
 
 Fifthly, They differed in the matter of the Promife?, 
 fo that they differed in the ve#y Effence and Subftance 
 thereof, and not only in the Circumftances, fasfome 
 would have it. ) The Promifes are an eflential part of a 
 Covenant, the Promifes of the Covenant of Grace arc 
 better Promifes than the Promifes of this Covenant, 
 Heb* 8. 6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent Mini- 
 firy,by how much alfo he is the Mediator of a better Covenant , 
 which was eftablijhed on better promifes : The Promifes are 
 better on a twofold refpect ; Fir ft, In that they are ab- 
 folute, when the Promifes of this Covenanr are conditi- 
 onal, but this 1 have fpoken to in the preceding head. 
 Secondly, They are better, in that they contain in them 
 better bleflings, Juftification, Sanctification and Glori- 
 fication, Jer. 31. 33, 34« Pfd.%4. if. God hath put 
 Spiritual Bleflings into the Promifes of the New Cove- 
 cant, but the Promifes of this Covenant contain only 
 outward bleflings, temporal Enjoyments ; if you look 
 Dent. 28. from 1, to 15. where you have a Lift of the 
 Bleflings of this Covenant, you will find none but out- 
 ward and temporal Enjoyments there. 
 
 That this Covenant contained outward and temporal 
 bleflings only, doth farther appear, Rom. 3.1. What ad' 
 vantage then hath the Jew, or what profit is there in Cir cum- 
 cifion, much everyway, but chiefly becaufe to them were com- 
 mitted 
 
tfyt Coiicitaii t of <!5?ace. 2 8 1 
 
 mined the Oracles of God. Now Ifuppofe that by cir- 
 cumciiion here is to be underltood the Covenant which 
 was figned with circumcifion, into which God put all 
 thofe bkifings that were peculiar to the few, diftind: 
 from the Gentile, the chief or top of which Bleflings were 
 the Oracles of God, and yet it was in it felf bat an out- 
 ward and temporal benefit, there were many among 
 them that reap't no advantage at all by it : The Woid 
 preached did not profit them , not being mixt with Faith 
 in the hearts of them that heard it. Now if the higheft 
 Privildge that they enjoyed by vertue of this Covenant, 
 was barely to have the Word of God vouchfafed to 
 them, then this was not the Covenant of Grace, 
 for there are greater Bleflings to be found there : 
 There is a Promife of Writing the Law of God in 
 the heart, that they frail all know the Lord, Jer. 31. 
 3 3 . That God will put his Spirit within them, and canfe 
 them to walk, in his flatiites, to obferve his judgments, and 
 do them. A Heart to underlfcand and conform to the 
 Word of God, is a greater bleiling then barely to have 
 the Word vouchfafed to them, and that is a New Cove- 
 nant Bleffing. 
 
 But here is one Objection thatmuftbe Anfwered; but 
 feme may fay, That God did make over himfelf to Jfrael 
 by vertue of this*Covenaht, 6*^.17*8. And I will be their 
 God. 
 
 To this I anfwer, It's true he did, but there is a vail 
 difference between the Lords making himfelr over to a 
 People by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, and his ma- 
 king himfelf ever to Ifrael by vertue of this Covenant ; 
 when God makes himfelf over to a People by Covenant, 
 it is to make good that Covenant, and to give out the 
 Bleflings contained therein, to be enjoyed by the Sub- 
 jects thereof according to the tenor ottbe Covenant^ 
 fuchasthe Covenant then is, fuch are the Privjledges 
 of that People that have an intereft in God by vertue 
 thereof. Firft^' 
 
282 g 2S?M mtctiption of 
 
 Fir ft, The Covenant of Grace is abfolute, and God 
 hath made bimfelf over to the Subjecls thereof abfolute- 
 ly , Jer. 31.33. I will be their God, and they fljall be my peo- 
 ple : Here is no */inthe cafe/but this Covenant is condi- 
 tional, and God did make himfelf over to Ifrael on con- 
 ditional terms, Jer. 7. 23. Obey my voice, and I will be your 
 God, andyoujhallbe my People* 
 
 Secondly, The Covenant of Grace contains Spiritual 
 Bleflings, Juftification, Sanctification, and Glorificatr 
 on, fo then by vertue of the Covenant of Grace he is 
 their God to juftifie, fanctifie, and glorifie them , but this 
 Covenant contained outward and temporal bleflings on- 
 ly, Dent. 28. from 1, to 1 5. they could expect no more 
 than God bad put into the Covenant. 
 
 Thirdly, By vertue of the Covenant of Grace he is 
 their God for e"ver, Jer. 32. 40. I will make an everlaft- 
 ing Covenant with them, that I will never turn away from 
 them to do them good, and I will pit my fear in their hearts, 
 that they jhall not depart from me : And if God will never 
 turn away from them to do them good, and to do them 
 ail the good that they need from a God* they may 
 then conclude with the Pfalmift, This God U our God, for 
 ever and ever, he will be our Guide to death. But that ln- 
 tereft that Ijrad bad in God, by, vertue of this Covenant, 
 might be loft, Hofea 1.9. Call his name Loammi, for ye 
 are not my people, neither will I be your God: Ten Tribes 
 cut offat once, and fuch of them as had no other inte- 
 reft in God but what they had by vertue of this Cove- 
 nant,have now no intereft in God at ab\no Enjoyment of 
 him, but are for ever fhut out of hisPrefence^ fothat 
 though God bean eterrial Good, yet their relation to 
 him by vertue of this Covenant was but temporal 5 
 therefore I faid, that this Covenant contained temporal 
 Bleflings only. 
 
 Sixthly,They differed in refpect of the Mediator :je- 
 fus Chrift is the Mediator of the Covenant; of Grace* 
 
t^e Covenant of efface* 28 j 
 
 tieb. 9. 1 5. Tor this caufe he is the 'Mediator of the New* 
 Covenant , &c. Heb. i 2. 24. JS«f s^b/w aw r/?e Media* 
 tor of this Covenant, Exod. 32. 30. -^W # c^we to pafs on 
 the morrow, that Mofes [aid mito the people, ye have finned a 
 great fin, and now will 1 go up unto the Lord, per adventure 
 J may make an attonemem for you : He was a middle Per- 
 fon between the Lord and them, bat Jefus Chrift was 
 never the Mediator of this Covenant, no inftance can be 
 given where Jefus Chrift is called the Mediator of this 
 Covenant ; He is [aid to be the Mediator of a better Cove- 
 nant, Heb. 8. 6. but he is not faid to be the Mediator 
 of this: If he had been the Mediator of this Covenant, 
 lie had been the Redeemed alfo of the Subjects thereof, 
 confidered as-fuch, but he was not their Redeemer* 
 therefore he was not their Mediator ; thofefor whom 
 be is a Mediator, for them alfo he is a Redeemer, Heb. 
 p. 15. 
 
 Seventhly, They differed in the Dedication therof; 
 the Covenant of Grace was dedicated or confirmed by 
 the Lord Jefus Chrift, and that with his own blood. 
 
 Firft, It was Chtiit confirmed it, he was the Tefta* 
 tor, and he confirmed the Teftament by his Death* 
 Heb. 9. 15, 16. thePromifesmadeto the Fathers were 
 fulfilled by him, ^^13.33. 
 
 Secondly, He confirmed it by his own blood ; it was 
 by a bloody Death : His blood is called The blood of the 
 Covenant, Zacb. 9. 1 1 . Even as Mofes called the blood 
 of the Sacrifices, £#0^.24.8. with which this Covenant 
 was confirmed, The blood of the Covenant ; fo is the blood 
 of Chrift called The blood of the Covenant. That he con- 
 firmed the New Covenant with his own blood,appears, 
 
 In that we have a Symbol of it to this day by his own 
 Ordination, in the Supper of the Lord : Chrift tells us f 
 that the Cup in the Supper is his blood of the New Te- 
 ftament, Mat. 25.28. that is, it's a Symbol of Chrift's 
 blood, with which the New Telhm;nt was confirmed, 
 
 and 
 
2S4 a J5?f ef ©efmptwtt of 
 
 and we fiiould look on it fo when we come to the Sap- 
 per of the Lord; bat M>/b dedicated this Covenant not 
 with his own, bat with the blood of Oxen, Exod. 24. 8. 
 And Mofes took the blood that was in the bafons, and fprinkled 
 the Bookjtnd all the People, and faid,behold the blood of theCo~ 
 tenant, which the Lord hath made with yon, concerning all the fe 
 words. Jefus Ch rill never confirmed this Covenant by 
 his blood, no inftancecan be given thereof. 
 
 He was fo far from confirming this Covenant, that 
 he made it void when he confirmed the Covenant of 
 Grace, Zach. 1 1 . 1 o. 
 
 Eighthly, The Covenant of Grace is an undivided Co- 
 venant, he that hath an intereft in a part hath an inte- 
 reft in the whole ; the branches of that Covenant are fo 
 concatinated and knit together, that he that can clear 
 his intereft in a part, may conclude his intereft in the 
 whole: It is interefi in Ghrift that gives us a right to 
 any part thereof} he that can't clear his intereft in 
 Chrift, can't challenge an intereft in one New- Cove- 
 nant Promife ; and he that can clear his intereft in 
 Chrift,rnay conclude his intereft in the whole, GW. 3.29. 
 And if ye be ChrijVs, then are ye Abrahams feed, and Heirs 
 according to the promife. But this Covenant was a parted 
 Covenant, a Perfon might have an interefi in a part that 
 had not an intereft in the whole ; Iflimael and the Profeli- 
 ted Gentiles had a right to Church-memberfhip, and to 
 the Ordinances qf this Covenant, that had no right to 
 the Land oiCanaan, that was the inheritance thereof. 
 
 Ninthly, Once an intereft in the Covenant of Graced 
 and for ever an intereft therein, Jer. 32. 40. Iwillmake 
 an tverlafling Covenant with them, that I will never tarn a- 
 xv ay from them to do them good, and I will pit my fear in their 
 hearts, that theyfliall not depart from me : We do not hold 
 falling from Grace, and yet we can't deny it, if interefi 
 in the Covenant of Grace may poffibly be loft} but inte- 
 reft in this Covenant might be loft, Hofea 1/9, Ye are 
 
 not 
 
t$e Covenant of (Bwei si 5 
 
 not my People, neither will 1 be your God ; and yet they were 
 once his people. By vertueofthis Covenant the Lord 
 gives a Bill of Divorce to ten Tribes at once. 
 
 Tenthly, The Covenant of Grace contains Bleffings on- 
 ly, there is no Curfe put into it, there is no Plague that 
 fhall come near the dwellings of thofe that are the fub- 
 jectsof the New-Covenant ; the Surarn and Subfhnce 
 thereof is bleffednefs, Gen. 22. 18. In thy feed {hall all the 
 Nations of the Earth be blejfed. 
 
 Secondly, There are nothing but Promifes put into the 
 Covenant of Grace, and therefore there can be nothing 
 but Bleffings contained in it. Curfes are held forth in 
 Threats,not in Promifes, but there are no Threats put in- 
 to this Covenanr, therefore there can be no curfe there. 
 
 Thirdly, The Subjects thereof are all bleffed, Gd. 3, 
 8. They that are of faith, ( that is, of Chrift, Faith be- 
 ing taken objectively, ) are bleffed with faithful Abraham. 
 That there are nothing but Bleffings in the Covenant of 
 Grace,3ppears,in that thofe very things that are in them- 
 selves the matter of the Curfe, (as Death, and other Af- 
 flictions ) being in the Covenant of Grace, are turned in- 
 to Bleffings unto the Subjects thereof, 1 Cor, 3, 21, 22. 
 Rom. S. 28. But this Covenant contains Curfes as well 
 as Bleffings, Dent* 28. from 15, to the end •, and 29* 
 20,21. The Lord threatens that he will fe far ate them oat 
 of all the Tribes of I fr ad, according to all the Curfes of the 
 Covenant, The Curfes then that were written in the 
 book of the Law were the Curfes of this Covenant, 
 
 Secondly, Thefe Curfes might fall on the Subjects of 
 this Covenant, without a fanctified ufe of them, asthef 
 did on thofe that were compared to the evil figs^r^.S,- 
 9, 1 0. The Lord threatens that he would give Zedek}ah,and his 
 Prince s, and the re fidue of the men ofjmlah, to be removed to 
 all the Kingdoms of the World, for their hurt, to be a Reproach^ 
 a Taunt, and a Cmfe 1 Yet Shefe were the Subjects^pf this 
 Covenant. But thole that were compared to thi^ood 
 
 T 
 
286 si 23jtef J^efcriptton of 
 
 Figs, fuch as had an intereft in the Covenant of Grace 
 were fent away into the fame Captivity for their good, 
 verje 5. 
 
 Eleventhly , The Covenant of Grace can't be broken, 
 it's confirmed by the Lord Jefus,and now there is no dis- 
 annulling of it } the Subjects thereof have all their fins 
 pardoned by that one Oblation, Heb. 10. 14. By one Ob- 
 lation he hath for ever perfected them that are fanblified ; By 
 perfection here we are to underftand remiiTion,and this 
 Word For ever (hews, that it is all fin, pall, prefent, and 
 tocofite, this is wknelTed by the Holy Ghoft, ver. 15, 
 16. Their fins and iniquities will 1 remember no more : Par- 
 doned Sins will never break this Covenant,and the Sub- 
 jects thereof have no other but what are pardoned : 
 God hath covenanted, That he will not turn away from 
 them to do them good, that they fljall not depart from him : 
 How then can they break Covenant with God ? but this 
 Covenant might be broken, and was broken by the Sub- 
 jects thereof. 
 
 Fir ft 1 It might be broken, Gen, 17. 14. That Man- 
 Child that is not circumcifed the eighth day, faallbecutojf 
 from his People, he hath broken my Covenant. 
 
 Secondly, It was broken, Jer. 31.32. The which my 
 Covenant they braize, altho* I was an Husband unto 
 them : This very Covenant that God made with Ifrael, 
 Deut. 29.10. when he brought them up qui oi Egypt, 
 they brake, as appears by comparing ver. 25. with 
 3^.31,32. 
 
 Twelfthly, The Covenant of Grace was the Second Co- 
 venant, Heb. 8. 7. Jf that fir ft Covenant had been faultlefs, 
 then fhouldno place have been fought for the Second • but this 
 Covenant was the firft, Heb. 9. 18. So neither the firfl 
 Covenant was dedicated without blood,for when Mojes had fpo* 
 ken every Precept, he fprinkled the Bookand all the People, 
 andfaid, this is the blood of the Teftamem which the Lord 
 hath enjoined you; This carries us back to Exod.i^- $• 
 
 and 
 
tyt€QUmntof<$mz> 2S7 
 
 and fhews plainly, that the Covenant that was there de- 
 dicated with the blood of Sacrifices was the firft Cove- 
 nant, and that it was diftinct from the Covenant of 
 Grace. It was the firft Covenant, not in refpect of the 
 Tranf^ft thereof, in that fence the Covenant of Grace 
 was the firft that ever was ; but it Was firft, in that in 
 was firft confirmed by Blood. 
 
 Thirteenth^, The Covenant of Grace was faultlefs, 
 there was no deficiency in it, it was A Covenant ordered 
 in all things , and fur e, 2 Sam. 23* 5. That Covenant 
 made Provifion for fatisfying the Juftice of God, and for 
 magnifying his Mercy, there was enough in k to re- 
 lieve all the neceflkies of the People of God, but this 
 Covenant was not faultlefs, Heb. 8. 7. If the firft Cove- 
 nant had been fault lefs 7 then fhould no place have been fought 
 for thefecond} but we fee there was place fought for the 
 fecond, and found too, and therefore the firft was not 
 faultlefs. 
 
 It was not pofitively faulty, it was a good Covenant, 
 confidered in it felf, and did anfwer the ends of God for 
 which it was made} but it was negatively faulty, there 
 was not that in it which did anfwer all the ends of God, 
 he had higher ends than could be anfwered by this Co- 
 venant, which were the Exaltation of his own Glory in 
 the Salvation of his People. This Covenant could not an- 
 fwer .thefe: Pardon, Peace, Reconciliation, Sanctifica- 
 tion,and Glorification, were never put into this Cove- 
 nant; if they had, all the Subjects thereof fhould have 
 enjoyed the benefit of it. Godis a faithful God, a Cove- 
 nant-keeping God. 
 
 Fourteenthly, The Covenant of Grace is a New Cove- 
 nant, Heb. 9. 1 5 . He is a Mediator of the New Covenant , 
 &c. but this is an old Covenant, Heb.S. 13. In that he 
 faith a New Covenant , he hath made the fir {k old, 
 
 Fifteenthly^ The Covenant of Grace is a better Cove- 
 nant, Heb* 8. 6. He is a Mediator of a better Covenant , 
 
 T 2 efta- 
 
sS8 a j&jfef Sfefcvtption of 
 
 fjt.tblijhed on better promifes. I have (hewn already in 
 what Refpedts the Promifes are better, in that they are 
 abfoiute,and contain fpiritual bleflings: Now if the Pro- 
 mifes are better, the Covenant mult needs be better, 
 for the Promifes are an elTential part of the Covenant. 
 
 Secwdly, As the Covenant of Grace is a better Cove- 
 nant, in refpecT: of the Promifes, fo it's a better Cove- 
 nant in refpecl of the conditions,for they are all perfor- 
 med by Chrift, ( but this was a worfe Covenant, Heb. 8. 
 7. This fir ft Covenant was not f ankle fs^ there can't be a bet- 
 ter, but there run ft be a worfe ; there cannot be a de- 
 gree of comparifon where there is but one : ) The con- 
 ditions of this Covenant were to be performed by the 
 Subje&s thereof, 
 
 Sixteenth!]/) The Covenant of Grace ftiil remaineth, 
 fiebl 12.24. W* *re come to Jefus the Mediator of 
 the New Covenant: He remains a Mediator, therefore 
 the New Covenant ftili remains ; he is not a Mediator 
 of any other but the New Covenant, but this Covenant 
 is donelaway, Heb. 8. 13. In that he faith a New Cove- 
 Wnt) he hath made the fir ft old \ now that which is old decay- 
 ethj and is ready to vantjh away : The Geneva reads it, 
 that which is old is abrogated, and fo it was by the 
 death of Chrift, if you look on the Contents, placed be- 
 fore this Chapter, you will fee the Author was of the 
 fame mind, that this Covenant was diftinct from the 
 Covenant of Grace, and that it was made void by the 
 Oblation of Chrift; it runs thus, That by the Eternal 
 iPriefthood of Chrift, the Levetical Priefthood of Aron 
 -is abolifhed, and the Temporal Covenant with the Fa- 
 thers, by the Eternal Covenant of the Gofpel. When 
 Chrift was offered up, then was this Covenant made 
 Void, Zach. 1 1 . 1 o. Then I took^my ftaff, even Beauty^ and 
 %ut it afurider, that 1 might breaks my Covenant that I hadi 
 made with all the People , and it was broken in that day : That 
 was, when they weighed for his price thirty pieces of 
 
 filver. 
 
t^e Covenant of <&iatti 28 9 
 
 filver. Dr. Owen obferves on the place, that when the 
 Covenant of Grace was confirmed by the offering up of 
 Chrift, that then the peculiar Covenant that God made 
 with Jfrael was made void, and lfrael ceafed to be a 
 Church. If this Covenant that was made with all the 
 People, and that was broken when Chrifl was offered 
 up, was not that Covenant that was m.jde with Abra- 
 ham, and all the Natural Seed, Gen. 15.18. that was 
 figned with circumcifion, Gen. 17. 10. that was dedica- 
 ted with the blood of the Sacrifices, when Mq/es fprink- 
 led the Book and ail the People, Exod. 24. 8. and that 
 was renewed with all the Congregation of Jfrael, Dent. 
 29. 10, 1 1. then fhew me what Covenant it was \ (hew 
 me another Covenant if you can,that was made with all 
 the People of Jfrael, and that was made void when 
 Chrifl: was offered up. But here are fome Objections that 
 mud be removed out of the way : 
 
 Objcft. 1 . The Covenant that Chrifl brake, Zach. 1 r . 
 1 o. was the Covenant of Grace,for it was that Covenant 
 that Chrift himfelf had made, and he did not make a 
 Covenant of Works with all the People. To this I an- 
 fwer, 
 
 Firfi, /grant that Jefiis Chrifl: made this Covenant 
 with them, as he was confidered in the Divine Nature, 
 and fa one with the Father : I deny that he made it 
 with them, as he is confidered as Mediator. Chrifl is 
 not always to be confidered as Mediator in what he is 
 faid to do, but fometimes as Creator, in refpefl of the 
 Divine Nature, Col. 1. 16. For by him were all thjnp 
 created, &c. By him, not confidered God-man as Media- 
 tor, but as one with the Father, in refpect of the Divine 
 Nature, and in this fence he may be faid to make this 
 Covenant with the People, Exod. 23. 20, 21. Behold! 
 lend an Angel before thee, to hep thee in the way^ and to bring 
 thee in to the place that J have prepared, beware of him , obey 
 bu voice, (His Yoke is no otherwift obeyed, but in their 
 
 Obe« 
 
2 9 o a l£>iiii ©efctfptfott of 
 
 Obedience to the commands of God, nor is it heard but 
 in the commands of this Covenant, which are the com- 
 mands of God ) Provoke him not, he will not far don your 
 iniquities, my Name is in him, my Nature is in him, he is 
 God : Now if he will not pardon their iniquities, he is 
 do Mediator for them, for thofe for whom he is a Medi- 
 ator, for them he is a Redeemer, In which redemption 
 there is remilfion of fins, Heb. 9. 1 5 . Eph . 1 . 7. 
 
 Secondly, If this Covenant which Chrift brake when 
 he was offered up was the Covenant of Grace, that was 
 a bad-fruit of his Oblation, for that Covenant that was 
 then broke was never renewed again, fo that there is 
 now no Covenant of Grace, this would render our eftate 
 
 very deplorable. ^. . . 
 
 Thirdly, The fallacy of this Objection appears, in that 
 the Covenant of Grace was then confirmed when this 
 Covenant was made void, the Death of the Teftator 
 confirmed the Teftament, and therefore it was not the 
 Covenant of Grace that was then broken. 
 
 oftheiiMance thereof, yet it was broken inrefoefto £te Atom- 
 flrationor Difpenfation thereof 5 and in that reipea ,the Covenant 
 might be faid to be broken. To this I aniwer, . 
 
 9*fi, That the Difpenfation of the Covenant ^» ^^^t 
 grant, the Old Adminiftration done away, and NwAgni at 
 
 te reVea of matter § and form. '^^$S*£ 
 of the Covenant is now extended arger than be or ^ t ^ ommlIhon 
 ic to Teach all mtions , to prexch the Go pel to every Creature. 
 
 but a diftind Covenant. 
 
 Cbjeft. 
 
t^e Covenant of <&mt* % \ \ 
 
 Objeff. But if the Covenant that was made with all the People 
 Ifratl was made void when Chrift was offered up, then the Moral 
 Law or Ten Commands was made void, tor that was a branch of that 
 Covenant, and comprehended in thole Laws that Ifrael was bound to 
 obierve, Vsut. 28. 2. / 
 
 To this I aniwer, it doth not follow that we .are difcharged from 
 the Moral Law, as its considered a rule of Life, tho' it be mo/1 cer 
 tain that this Covenant be made void, the Moral Law was in beine 
 as a Rule of Life, tho not written in Tables of Scone before this Co 
 venant was in being. wo 
 
 Secondly, The Moral Law reached farther than this Covenant when 
 this Covenant had a Being ; my Meaning is, it was a Rule of Life to 
 the Gentiles, that were not the Subjects of this Covenant * 
 
 Toirdly, He that made void this Covenant hath confirmed the Mo, 
 ral Law that fame Law that was given out upon Mount Sirai fo 
 mfymg that it is perpetual binding, as a Rule of Life to all, Mat I ,T 
 
 Nowb/alltheMaitsand Chanters that I have laid down L 
 which I have diftinguiflied the Covenants one from a no ther i ■ doA 
 appear that the Covenant made with Abraham, and the N tukl W 
 confideredasfuch, was a peculiar Covenant, diftincl from tie S' 
 venanto Works made with^ w , and ali Mankind 5 M £% 
 tne Covenant of Grace made with the Lord TefiK Child " !'J • V 
 with ali the Elefi of God. Bat lo^ffj "^^ ^ 
 Covenant of Works, nor the Covenant of Grace, wha Covenant?, 
 K ? By what Name may we call it ? I anfwer, vou may ca!Ht tht 
 Covenantmade with all the People, that's a Name the &3pXri 
 
 £ ufiYt' a ? d **■*»&» the four forementione" r'!"7 
 you will find that k was made with all the people of S ht tS 
 
 ?hl£X ° f , G T ??l n T 1 ' m3de H ' ith ^" theVpkl that toc\ " 
 the Elea only, the Mifitca Seed of Abnbxm or v™ m,,!, r " 
 
 Covenant of Circumcifion, fo to/^calkk J?l fl " " tne 
 
 call itthefirft Covenant, that's a Name k' known fT T? 
 
 nant j or it you wnl, you may call it the Typical Covenant th X 
 
 ?vpicai ac ^ ng t0 its N ^ Hr ^ ^aSSS 
 
 iypicai, £,xorf. 4. 22, 22. -Iwlismv (m »»v a./» a„ / u, r 
 
 Land .of c««, and that Reft that ftfi, M gave them thereS a 
 ChdftTS" """" POi " ted ™ th » Et —1 ^ft that «^ # 
 
 CoSt.^.f 3 d r- o Tr'vtl' **f 7 S * e Mediator of thi S 
 HrM.f. 3 3 md Ql!tthe ^d l atorn,ipofCnrift, 
 
 IiLm^. Fourthly, 
 
2 9 2 g jBtf ef feef crtptton of 
 
 Fourthly, The Dedication was typical, the blood of the Sacrifice, 
 Exod.24 8. that: typ't out the blood ofChrift, by which the New 
 Covenant was confirmed, which is a lib called the blood of the Cove- 
 nant, Zacb.p- 11. 
 
 Fifthly, Their Prlefthood, and alfo their going into the Holy of 
 Holies, with the blood of Calves, and of Goats, was typical, that typ't 
 out the Prieflhood of Chrift, and his going into the Holy Place not 
 made with hands, and that with his own blood, Heb. 9. 12. 
 
 Sixthly, All the Ordinances of this Covenant were typical, Heb. $. 
 from 1, to n. they were all figures for the time then prefent. That 
 this Covenant was typical, appears, in that it vani(hed,as all the Types 
 did, when the fubflance was come, Heb. 8. 1 3. Zich. 1 1. 10. 
 
 There is but one ching more that I would note, by which it appears 
 that this Covenant was diftin& from the New Covenant, and that is, 
 the Apoflle calls ihem Covenants, in the- Plura! Number, Eph. 2. n« 
 At that time ye were grangers to the Covenants ofPromife; I think he 
 would not have ipoken in the Plural Number if there had been but 
 one Covenant. 
 
 Objcff. But ibme may fay, by Covenants is intended Difpenfations 
 of the fame Covenant, for tho' there be but one Covenant, yet there 
 hath been two Dilpenlation of the Covenant of Grace. To this I an, 
 iwer, 
 
 Firft, We had better read it as God by his Servant wrote it, who 
 knew how to phrafe it better than we: To read it Covenants is better 
 ier.ee than we can make by reading it Difpenfations* 
 
 Secondly, Tho' there have been two Difpenfations of the Covenant 
 of Grace, yet there were not two Difpenfations at the fame time. The 
 -time that this Text relates to was antecedent to the offering up of 
 Chriif, and then there was but one Dilpenfauon -, the New Difpen- 
 fation of the Covenant of Grace was not till after Chrift was rifen 
 again. 
 
 That it refers to a time antecedent to the offering up of Chrifr, will 
 appear, if we confider ver. 1 1, 12, 13. In v. 11. he tells them, Thit in 
 times paftye veere Gentiles, in theflejh 5 that was before the offering up 
 of Chriif. In v. 12. At that time they were ftr angers to the Ccvenants cf 
 Promife. In v. 13. He tells them, That thy rvho [omet we were far off, 
 are made nigh by the blood of Chriji : If they were made nigh by the 
 blood of Chrift, then the time in which they were far oft ( which 
 was the time in which they were Grangers to the Covenants of Pro- 
 mife ) was antecedent thereunto. So that it's in vain to turn the. 
 Word Covenant into Difpenfations, unlefs you can clear ft, that 
 rhere were two Difpenfations of the Covenant of Grace at the fame 
 time, both antecedent to the offering up of the Lord Jefus. 
 
 FINIS.