they then taken into the Covenant. For as the Sign was directly given only to the Males, fo the Promife alfo, in terms, was only to the Males, [Abraham and Ifaac. But then, as the Females were included in the Males, in the Covenant and Promife, (which, I think, no Body will deny) fo, by like Reason, they were included alfo in the Sign. If any ask the Reafon, why the Females are not taken notice of in the OldTeftament,as much as the Males? and why, at first, they were not, as it were, by name taken into Covenant, and fo figned with the Sign of it; but included only in Men, and act. counted as figned in them? there may be many Reasons but among them, two efpecially. The Firft is, That God is Uniform in his Works; and

that

that as in the First Creation he made Adam firft, who was then the whole Kind, and comprehended the Woman in his Ribs and then afterward took the Woman out of Adam: So in the Restoration, or New Creation, he would first by Name begin with the Man, and take him into Covenant, and Sign hims and take the Woman in but Inclufively, as comprehended in Man, and as an Appendix to him ; which he did in the Difpenfation, under Abraham and Mofes. But then, afterwards, as he took the Woman in the Creation out of Man; fo una der Chrift, in the New-Teftament-Difpenfation, be took the Woman in her own Name, and put his Sign on her too Both Men and Women are Baptized. A Second,:

and

and perhaps no less effectual Reafons is, That the Woman had been firft (as the Apostle obferves) in the Tranfgreffion; she had spoyled the Firft Creation, and the Work of God in it What's this that thou haft done? faith God to the Woman Therefore, as a Mark of his Divine Displeasure, God would not in the Inftitution of his Covenant of Grace, take her in her Own Name and Perfon, or otherwife than by Inclufion in the Man, into the Participation of it, until by bring ing forth the Lord Chrift, the great Foundation of the New and Better Creation, she had made him, as it were, fome Reparation; and therefore, Chrift is emphatically fad to be Made of a Woman. Methinks

beath an Afpect towards

the

both

both 1 ath these Reasons, in 1 Tim, 2. 43,14,15. But hor But how foever that is, Jure I am, tis out of question, that before Christ, there was no little difference between Male and Female, in the Account of Scripture: for if 4 Woman bore a Man-Child, he was to be unclean but Seven days,and to continue in the Blood of her Purifying but Thirty-three days: But if She brought forth a Maid-Child, then he was to be unclean Two weeks, and to continue in the Blood of her, Purifying Sixty-fix days: So much Difference, Then, there was between Male and Female; for fo we read in Exod. 12. 2, 4, 5, 6. But Now, the Cafe is alter'd For under Jefus Chrift there is no Difference; no more Now between the Male and Female, than between

the

the Jew and Greek; for fo the Apoftle Gal. 3.28. There is neither few nor Greek, there is nei ther Bond nor Free, there is neither Male nor Female for You are all one in Chrift Fefus. A plain Text ; wherein the Apoftle as well implies there Was a Diftinction and Difference before, as he affirms that

there Is none now.

As for mine Adverfary; though I do not take him to be the Greatest Clark in the World, or as Learned in the Learned Languages, and Human Authors, as many others; and though I take it to have been a piece of Va nity in him, to tell me, as he doth, [That as he remembred, one of the School-men faid, c.] becaufe I have Reafon to believe, he understands the School-men, as little

as