members of the invisible church alfo, and do belong to the elec tion of grace; but that is not the breaking off, or grafting in, here spoken of.

And now, having given up Mr Tombes's notion of the invifible church, and election, you are again put to your shifts and muft either fhuffle, and feek to hide yourself in an heap of ftrange and unintelligible distinctions, or (which had been much fairer) honeftly have yielded the caufe; and, wherever you meet with them, I find a whole troop of diftinctions rallied together for this purpose, page 23, 24.

This grafting in (fay you) may be either into the vifible, or ⚫ invifible church; either by faith, profeffion of faith, or by • fome outward ordinance. Children may be either grown men, or infants. The ingrafting in may be either certain, or pro⚫bable. Certain, either by reafon of election, or their natural birth, being children of believers. Probable, as being likely; ⚫ either becaufe frequently, or for the most part, it happens fo: Though neceffary, and fo not certain.' The thing to be proved, is, That the children of believers are in the covenant of free grace in Chrift, and by virtue thereof, to be baptized into the communion of the visible church.

Reply. Words enough, and diftinctions enough, to reduce the text to an indivifible point. But whither doth all this tend? I will ask you two or three plain questions, and then make what ufe you please of your distinctions. (1.) Whether the breaking off of the Jews, and the ingrafting of the Gentiles, here fpoken of, have relation to the invifible church by election, or to the vifible church by profeffion of faith, and fome outward ordinance? (2.) Whether, if it were into the vifible church by profeffion of faith that the Gentile believers were grafted in, as doubtlefs is was (and by relinquifhing the former fenfe, you here feem to yield it, faying, this ingrafture may be certain, upon the account of natural birth, being children of believers); then I would fain know, why you fo ftate the queftion, as to make the certainty of believers childrens intereft in Christ to be the only ground of their admiffion into the communion of the visible church? This (fay you) muft first be proved, or no baptifm for them.

Alas, poor infants! to what hard terms are they here tied up? Very much harder than the terms any of your own fociety are tied to And if baptifm must be fufpended, .till this point can be cleared, that the perfon to be baptized be first in Christ, ad in the covenant of free grace, as to the faving benefits there

then farewel to all baptifm, both of infants and adult pro

Telfors too. For how can you prove, that the perfons you baptize, are all, or any of them, really in Christ? May they not deceive you, as Simon Magus did Peter? I did not think you had proceeded in this matter upon a certainty, but a probability: And if you proceed with yours upon the grounds of probability; how come you to tie up the children of believers, to a certainty of their intereft in Chrift as the antecedent fufpendent condition of their baptifm? We need difpute no more about the proper fubjects of baptifm, for by this account we have loft the ordinance of baptifm itself.

We thought, fir, that our childrens title to baptifm was de rived to them from their believing parents, as the children of the Jews was to circumcifion, from their circumcifed and profeffing parents; and that the fame promife which conveyed their childrens privilege to them, Gen. xvii. had conveyed the right of believers children to baptifm unto them alfo, Acts ii. 38, 39. and that the root being holy, the branches are holy alfo, that is foederally holy, Rom. xi. 16. But to this you make such an answer as astonishes me to read, page 26; where allowing Abraham to be the root, you say, "The holiness here spoken of, is firft in refpect of God's election; holiness perfonal and inherent, in God's intention: Eph. i. 4. "He hath chofen us in

.

him, that we should be holy." (2.) It is also holiness derivative; but not from any ancestors, but from Abraham only; and that not as a natural, but a spiritual father; wherein he is a lively image, or figure of Chrift, and is derived 'from the covenant of grace, which paffed in his name to him and his feed. And, laftly, it shall be inherent, being actually 'communicated by the Spirit of God, when they fhall be ac⚫tually called.'

Reply. Here we fee into what brakes and pits meg run themfelves, when they depart from the plain and fafe path in explica tions of scripture. Here is fuch a tripartite distinction of holinefs, as I never met with before. (1.) Here is perfonal holiness inberent in God's intention. By this you muft either mean fanc. tification decreed for them, and to be bestowed on them at the time of their calling; and then it is coincident with the third member of your distinction. Or else you mean, that it is holiness inherent in the intention of God, as an accident in its fubject; and then the fimplicity of God's nature refifts your incongruous notion. But it would be a lefs crime, to confound the first with the last member of your vain and self-created di

ftinction, than to speak things fo repugnant to the fimple and uncompounded nature of God.

Or if your meaning be, That this holinefs is in God by way of intention, but in them by way of inhefion; that will not deliver you out of your confufion neither, but run you into greater: For then you confound the immanent with the tranfient acts of God, and make the fame thing at the fame time, to be purely in intention, and in execution; or to be only in God's purpose to bestow hereafter, and yet, at the prefent, inherent in the perfons he intends it for: So that I muft leave your strange notion of perional holinefs inherent in God's intention, to be cleared by a more metaphyfical head than mine; or elfe to ftand, among other rare and unintelligible notions, to be admired and applauded by the ignorant 'reader.

But then, when we come to the fecond member of your diftinction, I am as much at a lofs to find your fenfe as before : For there you tell us, The holiness here spoken of, is a derivative holiness alfo; and that from Abraham only; and from f him, not as a natural, but a spiritual father, refembling Christ herein.'

Reply. This word derivative is an equivocal word, and may fignify either inherent personal holiness, or foederal holiness; for both of them are derived. If you fay the former, it looks too black and horrid for me to believe you mean it, though you fhould fay you mean it; for then you make Abraham not only the figure and image of Chrift, as you speak, but Chrift himself, by attributing to Abraham Chrift's incommunicable property and prerogative. Then Abraham may fay to all his children, as Chrift doth, John xv. 4, 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches, c.I am he that fanctifies you. But if you mean the last (as neceffarily you muft, if you mean any thing that hath orthodox fenfe in it) then this derivative holinefs you fpeak of, is not perfonal holiness, or internal fanctification, but foederal holiness, derived from covenanted ancestors, or parents to their children; and therein you come over to us, and to the true fenfe of the But why muft this be fqueezed from you with fo much difficulty? And why did you hide this foederal holiness under an equivocal term, left you should seem to yield the controverfy with a word? This is not fair.

Object. If you fay we are too hafty, and triumph before the victory: For though you do yield it to be a foederal holiness, yet it is fuch as can be derived from no other father, or progepitor, but Abraham only.

Sol. Yes, fir, I hope you will allow Ifaac and Jacob, at least,

to be the root and first-fruit, as well as Abraham, feeing the covenant was jointly and exprefsly made with them all three, and thereby they became root and firft-fruit of that holy nation: And if that people be called the feed of Abraham, they are alfo called the feed of Jacob; and if father-hood be afcribed to Abraham, it is afcribed to Jacob too, Ifa. lviii. 14. And if Abraham be first named in the covenant, fo is Jacob: See Lev. xxvii. 42. But if you allow thefe three patriarchs, perhaps that is all you will allow; for you seem to fay, that no foederal holiness can be derived from any other progenitors. Good fir, whatever your own private opinion be in this matter, allow us to believe otherwife, as long as thofe fcriptures, 1 Cor. vii, 14. and Acts ii. 39. ftand in our Bibles: For we cannot think but the foederal holinefs of children refults from the immediate parent's faith, or covenant-intereft, as well as from the remoter progenitors; elfe we cannot understand how the Corinthians children should be holy, or how the promise fhould belong to the children of them that are afar off, viz. the Gentiles, who could derive no fuch thing to their children by a lineal defcent from Abraham, but only as they became ingrafted branches by faith; and fo fuck the fatnefs of the olive to themfelves, and to their buds, or children, as the natural branches did. I defire you to confider alfo, how this covenant passed, as you fay it did, to Abraham and his feed, in Chrift's name, if it be the fame with Adam's covenant? Did that pass to Adam in Chrift's name too?

I have now difpatched what I at first promised and intended, viz. the confutation of my friends mistakes about the covenants; and the vindication of thofe fcriptures, by which our arguments, deduced from one of them, are confirmed. And now I have no farther concernment with Mr. Cary's folemn call; fave only to note his high confidence, rafn, and most unchristian cenfures, of all his differing friends and brethren, with which he concludes his difcourfe; wherein he calls infants baptifm,

(1.) A great abuse in the divine worship, page 242, 243. And yet he that fo calls it, never looked half way into the controver fy; nor is able, without manifeft fhuffling, and contradiction, both to the words of God, and his own words, to anfwer our arguments; as is here made too evident.

(2.) That it is no other than a change of a divine inftitution, and making void the commandment of Christ,, the horrid fin charged by Chrift upon thofe hypocrites, the Scribes and Pharifees, Matth. xv. 6. With no better than these doth he rank

1

and affociate the many thousands of God's choice and dear peo ple, who differ in this circumftantial point from him.

(3.) He compares it with the fin of Nadab and Abihu; and with that of Ifrael, with refpect to the ark, 1 Chron. xv. 13. A fin, which provoked the Lord to execute judgment, by an immediate ftroke in fire from heaven upon them. Thus Mr Cary is ready to call for fire from heaven upon his brethren. Alas, poor man! he knows not what spirit he is of, as Chrift told the disciples in a like cafe. It is well we are not in his hands, to execute the wrath, as well as charge the guilt upon us. But I hope all this is but rashness in him.

(4.) He affirms it to be no less than a tranfgreffing of the law, a changing of the ordinances, and a breaking of the everlasting covenant. If it be a tranfgreffing of the law, he fhould have fhewn us in what scripture that law that forbids it is, or where God hath repealed his former grant to the children of his covenant-people. And for the changing of the ordinances, I am of opinion, it is he that is guilty of that fin, and not we: For we have proved, God fettled this privilege upon the infant-feed of his people; that the promife, under the gofpel, continues ftill to them; and if he exclude them from baptifm, he changes the ordinance of God. And for breaking the everlasting covenant, for which he cites Ifa. xxiv. 5, 6. the Lord make him fenfible of the danger he hath put himself under, from that very text he produces againft us; for it is manifeft, that the covenant here spoken of, is God's covenant with Abraham, renewed with the Ifraelites at Sinai, which in that text is truly called an everlafting covenant; when, mean time, Mr. Cary hath pronounced it to be an Adam's covenant, and now utterly abolished. Who is it, fir, that fights against, and changes this everlasting covenant, you or we, that are for its continuance to us and our children?

(5.) He affirms these things to be of highest concernment to us. If fo, then fure it must follow, that repentance from dead works, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, must be inferior things to them; for nothing can be higher than the highest, or equal with it. And then by making them the chief fundamentals in religion, as that expreffion doth (if it be not a vain and finful hyperbole) the falvation or damnation of men depends upon compliance or non-compliance with them. And then, whither muft you fend all God's people in the world, that differ from you? Sir, I find your brethren in the appendix to their confeffion of faith, page 110, placing one of thefe which you make of highest concernment, among the other circumstances