Abraham's Seed? Can they be Relatively Holy, and Perfons of a Religious Confideration, or Church-Members in the GospelDifpenfation, (as the Reverend, most Acute, Learned, and Pious Mr. Baxter hath abundantly proved them,) can they be fo, and no ways Chrift's? Are not the Children of Chriftians, as much Chriftians Externally; as the Children of the Jews, were Jews Externally? And are there not in Chrift, Branches that do not bring forth Fruit? That is, Are there not Reputed Chriftians, which are fo but by External Profeffion, and not by Actual Faith, and Internal, True, Spiritual Regeneration? Surely, all are not Ifrael, that are of Ifrael; All are not Chrift, that are in Chrift. I fay not This, as willing to infift on that Argument; but to evidence, with how much Juftice, as well as with how great Civility, you speak by occafion of It, of my Darkning Counfel without Knowledge: And, with a Candour truly yours, and much to the purpose, add; "That à Man may make "a Shift, 'tis true, by means of fuch a Di

ftinction, to avoid the Dint of his Ad"verfaries Argument, in his own Conceit

at leaft; but unless the Distinction be a "well-grounded Distinction he cannot pre"tend fo much to fubferve the Truth, as "his

"his own Credit thereby. A Very Sober and Inoffenfive Reflection!

In your next, inftead of Admiration how Capable comes in, you are greatly concerned that it fhould be thought you faid, It muft not be in in the Major; and therefore tell me, with fome Emotion; "That

you fhall only need to fay, and which I ແ my felf do know to be true, That you did not at all Admire how Capable came into my Major Propofition, &c. but how into the Conclufion.] As if, had it been So indeed, it had been a Prodigy in Logick, to have a Term in the Conclufion, that had been in one of the Premifes. But to answer in your own Figure of speaking: You cannot but know, that in the Place you Animadvert upon, and where I used the term Capable, I made no Syllogifm at all; and fo diftinguished not the Major, the Minor, and the Conclufion; but only interpreted a Text, Gen. 17.9, 10. Nor is the Argument I make, to be difpofed into bat One, it doth confift of Many Syllogifms: and what is a Conclufion in one Syllogifm, may (I hope) be a Major Propofition in another.

But you proceed: "Whereas you tell me, (Say you). That my Admiration is "more the Object of Yours; after I have σε gran

ແ granted, that God commanded Abraham, "Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore,

thou and thy Seed, in General Terms, "wherein Both Sexes may feem to be com"prehended; you should have added, to "have done well, [As if I had not] that "which follows alfo, That yet it is evi"dent, that the Males only were to be A"Etually figned: And therefore to say, "That the Females were Vertually and Re"putatively figned, in the Circumcifion of "the Males, is not to the purpose; for "according to that Rule, the Females "fhould be only Virtually and Reputa"tively, not Actually Baptized. And in "this Refpe& therefore, to fay as you "now do, That the putting of the Sign " on all thofe in Abraham's Family, that 66 were capable of it; and the wearing of "it by thofe, may be [I faid, must be] "interpreted the putting of it on all; can "be of no Advantage at all, in the prefent Difpute.

In this Paragraph, I have again an ordinary Inftance of your great Candour, and Sincerity, which will be very Manifeft, when I have told you, That notwithstanding a Sly Infinuation to the contrary, I did add, and that in Terms fufficiently expreffive, more than once, that the Males only were G

Actually

Actually figned, with Circumcifion; or else, how could I argue as I did, and you grant I did, That the Females must be understood to be fo Reputatively, For if the Females were figued but in Reputation, and Interpretation, the Males only could be Actual

figned. And to confirm all I have now faid, I need but Repeat the Argument I made before, which was as follows. [But your Admiration is more the Object of mine: After you have granted, that God commanded Abraham, (Thou fhalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed) in General Terms; wherein, fay you, Both Sexes may feem to be comprehended, (and indeed, I fay, are fo:) For if he did com mand in General Terms, that Abraham and All his (Seed, you say) should keep the Covenant, in the Sign and Token of it; and yet, afterward, did Inftitute Circumcifion to be that Sign and Token, which [Mark this] was not competent to All. How can the Generality of the Precept, (Thou shalt put the Sign on All Thine, when Circumcifion, that is not competible to All, Mark that again] is that Sign) be understood Accommodoufly and convéniently, as it must be, but thus ; Thou shalt put the Sign on All thine that are Capable of it; and the wearing of it by Thefe, shall be interpreted and understood.

the

the putting of it on All.] Thus, as Now, the Gentiles are Counted for Seed; fo Then, the Females were Counted for figned. This was the Senfe I gave, and This the Argument with which I urged it: If you approved not the Senfe, why did you not reply to the Argument, and give a Sense, more congruous? But if you do approve It, why, in your Anfwer, do you cloud and darken it with words, and make as if you difowned it as a Falfe One? But a

true 'Senfe it is, you do not, you dare not deny it. Ay, but if true, you fay, It is not to the Purpofe. That, I grant, may be;. not to Tour Purpofe, but fufficiently to Mine. "No, (fay you) not to That nei"ther; for then the Females fhould only "be reputatively Baptized, because they "were only reputatively Circumcized.j As if Females were not Actually to wear a Sign they are equally capable of with the Males, because they were but Interpreta tively to wear a Sign they were not capable of but fo.

Thus far I have followed you ftep by ftep, and written in a Fashion not mine own, but yours; both to make you fenfible of the great Provokativenefs, and of the as great Unfitnefs and Undecency of it. But I am weary of this Drudgery; and thereG 2 fore,