Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

Answ • 1. Non • of all the passages call those brethren of Paul whose case he bewaileth verse 3. Children of God, his Son, Children, Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant. 2. The speeches being of a people mixed of good and bad, and the speeches being indefinite, may be true if meant of some only of those people: yea in the Apostles sense they cannot be true of all that were not Gen • iles, all to whom Christ was sent, that they were the children of God. For many are termed by the Prophet Isai. 57 3. the sons of the Sorceresse, the seed of the adulteress and the whore, by John the Baptist, Matth. 3.7. Generation of vipers, by our Lord Christ Matth. • 3 15. Children of hell. 3. Sometimes the term of Children is meant as the term righteous is, Luke 15.7. of one that is so in reputation though not in truth, as the children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. must be meant of them that were so in reputation, though not in truth: For had h • y been so in truth they should not be cast out into utter darkness. 4. By the children of the covenant Acts 3.25. is not meant that they were then in the Evangelical Covenant as made to th • m: For at that time they had not repented, but were exhorted thereto, v. 19 But they are called the children of the Covenant, because they were the posteri • y of those Fathers with whom first the covenant was made, as they are called children of the Prophets, because th • y were the posteri • y of that people to whom the Prophets were first raised and sent, as is shown before Sect. • 7. out of which there is a fair answer to Mr. Blake's Riddles without an Oedipus, that first the Covenants and Adoption, Rom. 9.4. are not said to pertain to those Israelites for whom Paul mourned. v. 3. but to their ancestors. 2. If they did, yet not in Mr. Blake's sense,, but in the sense fore-given. 3. That those Israelites for whom Paul mourned, Rom. 9.3. are not styled children of the covenant. Acts 3.25. 4 Nor though i • be true of those for whom Paul mourned, is it anything to Mr. Blake's purpose, but hath another meaning foregiven. And thus there is a sweet harmony be • ween my gloss and the Apostles expressions.

Mr. Bl. next gives his Analysis of the Apostles words, in which he grants v. 7. a numerous company by Ishmael to be excluded (who were Abraham's seed after the flesh) which evinceth what I contend for, that God's promise Gen. • 7.7. was not made in any sort to Ishmael though he were the child of a believer and circumcised, therefore that covenant is not made to every believers natural child, nor was the reason of circumcising this or that person, taken from the persons interest in the covenant, for Ishmael was circumcised though not in covenant. Then Mr. Bl. adds,

Answer. I should hardly have thought a sober minded man, much less a man reputed an ancient grave Divine, would so slightly have handled such a Scripture in which he saith is my triumphing argument, but that I meet with this passage defective in what was to be done, and made up of flirts, falsehoods, impertinencies, 〈…〉 opposite to the Apostle▪ It is defective 〈…〉 main things, first, in applying the distinction of the Apostle to the 〈◊〉 of the objection▪ by showing how the word fa • ls no • , if • he one sort of seed of Abraham be rejected. 2. In not showing any invalidity in my deduction of my Conclusion thence, that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. • 7.7. as Evangelical is made, are only the elect. His •• irts are at me, 〈◊〉 denying the Israelites according to the discovery of these times, what the Apostle yield • . Falshoods, that the Israelites according to the flesh pleaded all those privileges reckoned up, v 4, 5. For they were so far from pleading it as a privilege, that Christ came of them according to the flesh, that they abhorred and accursed him. 2. That I deny the privileges which the Apostle yieldeth them. Which also are mere impertinenc • es to the solution of the objection, and to the distinction of the Apostle, who doth not at all in the expression af Children of the flesh mention those privileges, nor mentions Children of the flesh, as importing an investiture into those privileges, as Mr. Bl. seems to have conceived, but barely by that term notes their natural descent from Abraham, insomuch that Ishmael is meant as a Child of the flesh, who was no way vested in those privileges v. 4, 5 Instead of telling whether the eternally chosen and beloved of God were the seed meant Gen. 17.7. and • o the word of God f • iled not, he only tells us, In these the seed of Abraham may continue though the other he cast off, which is impertinently and doubtfully expressed, as if there were not a certainty but only a possibility of the seed of Abraham continuing in the eternally beloved and chosen of God. It is in like manner impertinent to the business, to tell what God hath done in successive generations, when the objection is of the inconsiste • cy with his doings and his promises concerning the present generation. Lastly, it is directly against the Apostle, who opposeth the children of the promise to the cast off, to say, that he hath continued a God in covenant to them whom he hath cast off, and continueth • o them the privileges of his pepole though he was upon the rejecting of them. And it is a strange expr • ssion, when there is speech of rejection opposite to eternal love and choice of God, to say, God is now upon the rejection of them, which intimates a beginning of a rejection. But Mr. Bl. thinks to satisfy all by the words of Gomarus, which having set down at large, he then saith, In which we have these three things, 1. Mr. T. his objection wholly solved. 2. The Apostle reconciled to himself. And 3. the doctrine of Covenant holiness from the Apostle fully established, which when Mr. T. hath well considered with that which was spoke before (having the whole current of the Scripture against him) he will have little list to make this one Scripture his asylum.

To which I answer, first there are many things in the words of Gomar • s liable to exception, as • , that • e saith, The Jews great privileges mentioned 〈…〉 objected. But the thing that was objected was not those privileges, but the word of God concerning Israel and Abraham's •• ed. 2. That 〈…〉 . That th • se privileges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jews. Which is not true in the sense he 〈…〉 present unbelie • ing 〈…〉 〈◊〉 attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jews by virtue of their outward • all, because salvation is revealed and offered to them under condition of obedience, and that offer sealed with circumcision ▪ wherein 1. he saith, the offer of salvation under condition of obedience, was sealed with circumcision But I had thought the thing Pedobaptists would have sealed with circumcision; had not been the offer of savation upon condition of obedience, but the covenant of God, Gen. 17▪ which is another thing than the offer of salvation which is by men indeed according to the covenant: but it is not the covenant, for that is God's act, and is presupposed to the other. Besides, there are some promises at least in the covenant absolute, not upon condition, as the promise of regeneration, in respect of which the covenant cannot be conditional, and therefore the offer and the covenant are not to be confounded, nor do I think Pedobaptists will like this, that that offer was sealed with circumcision. Besides, there was no offer made to the Jews of salvation under condition of obedience. An offer is made by pre • ching, circumcision was on the eighth day: was there any that pre • ched at circumcision salvation under the condition of obedience to the circumcised, and then circumcised the child to seal that off • r? Nor did the Jews use circumcision to seal the off • r of s • lvation under condition of obedience to Christ, but to bind them to keep the Law of Moses in expectation of righteousness, as appears from Acts 15.1.5.9, 10. Gal. 5.3. Rom. 2, 25, &c. 2. Nor do I see any truth in that which he saith, That those privileges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jews by virtue of their outward call, because salvation is ••• ealed and offered to them under condition of obedience, and that offer sealed with circumcision. For neither do Church-privileges belong to persons barely by re • son of an outward call, which is but an offer of salvation, no man is accounted a Church-member, having right to the seal, as they term it, because salvation is offered without some consent, nor did those privileges in any sort accrue to the Jews upon an outward call by which salvation was offered to them upon condition of obedience, the proceeding of Christ from them, their having Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, for their fathers, their having the Law given them, &c. were not upon such an outward call, but God's respect to them, Deut 7.6.4. It is not true that from thence all Israelites are promiscuously called children of the Covenant, as Acts 3.25. For it is true only of them that were after the Prophets as well as the covenant, since they are called children of the Prophets as well as of the covenant, and neither Title is given to them because of the outward call alleged, but because they were the posterity of those to whom the Prophets were sent, and the covenant exhibited. 5. It is not true that the Apostle affirms that the unbelieving Jews are Abrahamites and Israelites; not only by reason of their birth after the flesh, but also by reason of acceptance of the covenants and promises : For neither is it true they did accept of the covenants and promises, since they rejected Christ to whom the promises were made, Gal. 3.16. Nor doth the Apostle say, They accepted of them, nor at all give that as a reason of their being Abrahamites or Israelites. Yea, they were Israelites or Adamites antecedentally to some of those recited privileges. 6. Nor doth the Apostle s • y, The Fathers and Adoption, and Covenants, and Promises, belong to all the Israelites : yea he denies the promises to Israel and Abraham's seed to belong to everyone that is of Israel and Abraham's seed, v. 6, 7, 8. 7. Nor doth he make any such distinction of promise in respect of the efficacy of it, and collation belonging to some, and tender or offering of the covenant of grace : For neither doth the Apostle at all mention the offer of the covenant of grace with condition of duty to be performed, nor doth he make the promise to belong to any who have not the efficacy of it: yea, to say the promise belongs to any, and yet he not have the efficacy, is to make the word of God fall, which the Apostle disclaims as a thing by no means to be imputed to God, for thereby he should be charged of unfaithfulness in not keeping his promise. 8. Neither doth the Apostle make that answer which Gomarus sets down, that though the privileges v. 4, 5, belong to all the Israelites, yet all are not therefore true children beca • se the privileges are attributed to them by reason of their outward call, not by reason of their inward. For the objection was not thu • , To the Jews belong those privileges, therefore they must be true children and heirs of salvation: But thus, God's promise or covenant was with Abraham and his seed to be a God, therefore either God must be a God of the Jews who are Abraham's seed, and they his people contrary to what your sorrow intimates, v. 2 or else the word of God hath fallen, Now Gomarus sets down another objection than that which the Apostle answers, and another than that which the Apostle makes, as may appear by what I have said before. And for the three things Mr Blake gathers from Gomarus, the first is not true, that my objection is wholly solved : For there is not a word in Gomarus that answers this objection, Every child of Abraham was not a child of the promise Gen 17, 7, 8, as the Apostle determines, Rom. 9, 7, 8. None were his seed to whom the promise as Evangelical belongs, but the elect, therefore neither was the covenant Gen. 17, 7. as Evangelical, made to all the natural children of Abraham, not they circumcised because the covenant was made to them, nor is the covenant made with every believer by profession, nor hath he right to Baptism by virtue of that title, nor is the covenant made to every true believers infant or natural child, there are none of them Abraham's seed but the elect, and therefore all the plea of the Paedobaptists from Gen. 17.7. to prove the right of every believers natural child to baptism, is manifestly false, going on that supposition which the Apostle plainly contradicts. The second thing is frivolous: For there was no contradiction in appearance in the Apostles words, which need reconciliation, and therefore Gomarus and Mr Blake have taken upon them an unnecessary task: But the seeming opposition to be reconciled, is between God's performing his word to Abraham's seed to be a God to them, and his rejection of them from being his people, which the Apostlee doth indeed reconcile righ • lie, but Mr Blake and Gomarus are both mistaken in the thing as hath been d • monstrated. Yet this I find, that Gomarus with the other four Professors of the united Belgic Provinces (of whom Gomarus is first) set down the same that I conclude in their Judgment at the Synod of Dor • about the second Article of the Remonstrants, in which they say, That to the elect only the promises are made, is professedly proved by Paul Rom. 9, 7, 8▪ For only the sons of promise are counted for the seed to whom that word of the everlasting possession of the inheritance appertains. So that I have five more Suffrages together for me. And for the Doctrine of Covenant Holiness, I confess the Apostle establisheth this Doctrine, That all the spiritual seed of Abraham ▪ to wit, true believers, or elect persons, are holy federally as being those to whom God hath covenanted to be God: But Mr Blake's doctrine of Covenant holiness, that God's covenant is to be a God to every believer and his seed, which is no other than his natural seed (for infants are no other ways his seed) is so far from being established by the Apostle, that he determines the contrary, denying that all Abraham's children were children of the promise, and proving the elect only to be his seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7, as it was Evangelical was made by the state of Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob. And for this I am assured that I have the whole current of the Scripture for me, and fear not to make this Text my Asylum, still having considered what Mr Blake produceth both here and before: the frivolousness of which I hope by Divine assistance to show in that which follows.

There is somewhat which Mr. Blake adds in that Chapter in answer to the Allegation of Matth. 3.9. in which as I shown before, John the Baptist rejects their claim to baptism, though Abraham's natural children without repentance and faith, and asserts the only seed of Abraham in covenant to be his spiritual. Here to saith Mr. Blake, I answer, First▪ When those that were no better then th • se make the same plea, John 8.3 • . We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any, Christ yields it, v. 37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; he allows all that upon this account they can claim. And for Pharisees he doth not barely yield them to be Church members, but also Church teachers, Matth. 23.2.

I reply, Christ's yields they were Abraham's natural seed, but denies them to be Abraham's Children, verse 39. that is, to whom the promise Evangelical belongs. The Pharisees were not yielded to be Church-members in the Christian Church, nor were admitted by John the Baptist or Christ's Disciples to baptism without repentance and faith, nor were they teachers in the Christian Church, though among the Jews they are said to fit in Moses Chair.

Answer. Neither John the Baptist, nor Christ, nor Paul, y • ilded them either to be in the covenant with Abraham (Mr. Blake's own words: notwithstanding this plea holds, &c. do plainly imply, that God's covenant did not hold with them, and that by them God should not make good what in covenant • e had said ) or to be God's visible people, or to have right to the privilege of baptism: but the contrary is declared by them. What Mr. Blake concludes the Chapter with, • s either but a dictate, that privilege of ordinance (meaning of Baptism) is a Birth-inheritance, without either proof or show of proof from Prov. 19.14. Rom. 3.1. so that I shall trouble the reader with no more of the fopperies of this chapter▪ only I desire the reader to observe, that whereas usually Paedobaptists grant that by birth a grown man is not entitled to the initial Seal without his own profession, Mr. Blake denies that John saith, the viperous Pharisees and Sadducees, and unbelieving Jews are not in • ituled to privileges of ordinances and thereby interested in the prerogatives of God's visible people.

But Mr. Sidenham in his Exercit. ch. 6. takes upon him to refell the plea from Matth. 3.8, 9. gathering that the pretence of being Abraham's children, could not give them a right to baptism; and if John denied Abraham's natural seed on that account, much more would he the adopted children. But herein I conceive he doth not rightly set down his adversaries collection: For the adopted children of Abraham I conceive are no other than believers, and surely Mr Sidenhams adversaries do not imagine that John denied th • m baptism. I for my part remember not my allegation of this Text afore the writing of this Book. But I find Mr. William Kay in his Baptism without Bason thus averring, 1. That Matth. 3.8, 9. is directly against Infant-baptism, in that none but such as have faith and repentance, must think to be baptized. 2. That the pretence or consequence from circumcision, and being Abraham's natural children, to prove their title to Baptism. I add to the Covenant Evangelical Gen. 17.7. is also condemned, in that he allows them not to think within themselves, We have Abraham to our Father, which is not meant simply as if they might not in any sort think Abraham to be their Father; for Christ acknowledgeth it, John 8 37. and they might lawfully think that to be so which was so but in some respect, and the respects are intimated in the Text, 1, In respect of baptism to which they come, but as Par • us Comment. in Matth. 3.7. John did not admit them as being unworthy. 2. In reference to the covenant▪ Gen. 17 7. which appears in that he adds, For I say unto you that God is able even of these stones to raise up children to Abraham, which can be understood no otherwise than of spiritual children, who are children of the promise, Rom. 9.8. which the Pharisees are not, 3. In respect of that which they imagined, that they should be s • cured from wrath to come, v. 7, in that they had Abraham to th • ir father. Now what saith Mr. Sidenham to this?

1. That they were of age, and men degenerated from Abraham's saith, that he did not refuse them because Abraham was their father, or upon that account that Abraham's seed had not right to the promise, b • t as only pretending Abraham to be their father, when they walked contrary to the principles of Abraham's faith.

Answer. 'It is true, he did not refuse them because Abraham was their Father, nor as only pretending Abraham to be their Father: Nor doth he deny that it was true that they had Abraham to their father in respect of natural generation, but because though they had Abraham to their father in respect of natural generation, yet they did not believe as Abraham, nor had right to the promise, which is enough to show that the children of believers are to be refused and not admitted to Baptism till they become believers themselves.

2. Saith Mr. Sidenham, This is the same as to grown men professing faith, baptized, and then not admitted to the Lord's Supper because carnal and Apostate, it • e said, You have cut off your own right by your contrary actings, which impeach not the truth of this position, That believers and their infants are in covenant, and ought to be judged so until they manifest the contrary; or that if they believed themselves afterwards the promise should not be to them and their children: And that the Text holds out no more than this, that when persons are grown up to years, and come to understanding, they must then stand on their right, and look to make out personal qualifications for new ordinances.

Answer. 1, It is not the same: For such a speech should imply a former right now cut off, but John Baptists speech disclaims any right they ever had to baptism. 2. John Baptists speech proves, believers children as such are not in the covenant, for Abraham's children were not, and that they ought not to be judged so until they manifest faith and repentance, for John the Baptist denied them to be Abraham's children in covenant without them, and that the promise is not to their children because they believe; for the promise was not to Abraham's children by natural generation though he were father of believers, and it proves that none of Abraham's children have right to baptism without fai • h and repentance, and consequently infants no more than grown men. But Mr. Sidenham yet thinks to avoid the inference from this text, thus.

Answer. All this scr • bling is at random, and wi • hout any proof, or answer to the objection: It is quite beside the objection, which was not barely from John Baptists not baptizing their children, but from the reason of John Baptists refusing to admit themselves to baptism. So that Mr. Sidenhams answer is only to the Consectary, inferred from the Conclusion deduced, not to the premises, no nor the first conclusion itself. For the argument is this, If Abraham's natural children had not right to baptism without their own faith and repentance. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Consequent, and consequently no • infants to be baptized. Again, if Abraham's children were not in the covenant without fai • h and repentance, neither are ours, for we have no more privilege for our children then Abraham's had: But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Consequent, and consequently a believers child is not in covenant because a believers child. Yet once more, If persons circumcised and descendended from Abraham, were not therefore admitted to baptism, then the same thing doth not entitle to baptism which did entitle to circum • ision, nor the command of circumcision a command concerning baptism. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Consequent, and consequently infants are not to be baptized because they were to be circumcised. Now Mr Sidenhams answer is to the allegation of John Baptists not baptizing infants, not at all to any of these arguments drawn from his refusing the Pharisees, though coming to his baptism, and conceiving they might, having Abraham to their Father. Yet what Mr. Sidenham faith takes away the force of the argument if it had been thus made: Those we are not to baptize whom John did not baptize: but John did not baptize infants, Ergo. Yea his answer strengthens the argument: For if Johns baptism were at the first institution of baptism, and infants were not baptized, then neither are they to be now. For the first institution is the rule of observing it, as the Lord Christ himself urgeth concerning marriage, Matth. 19.4. and Paul concerning the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. • 1, 23. If baptism were a new institution, and did require actual visible believers as the first subject of it, then it is not all one with circumcision, which admitted infants at the first institution, then such only are to be baptize • d except some further Institution can be shown, the institution for infan-circumcision is not sufficient for infant-baptism • , for that was in force as much at the first institution of baptism as after. It is false that they could not baptize their children first, that is, at the first institution, John the Baptist and the D • sciples of Christ might have baptized infants at first as well as Abraham circumcise • d them, yea ought to have done it, If Paedobaptists say true, that the command of circumcision was the Rule in force concerning baptism: nor need the parents be neglected, no not though they had baptized the children first in order of time; yea the right of the child being contemporary with the paren • s faith, if they say true, they should have been baptized as soon as ever • he parent was a believer, or the child in covenant. God's Covenant with Abraham was to him and his seed ; but his covenant was never made to every believer and his seed. In the New Testament God renews the Covenant wi • h Abraham in respect of spiritual blessings, but for the promises domestic or civil▪ he doth not renew it. He adds to the new Covenant the s • all of Christ's death, whose blood confirmed it, and the initiating seal of his Spirit, I know no other initiating seal added to it. It is not true that the • n • w covenant, or covenent of grace was entailed before to a certain line, though the covenant with Abraham in respect of the civil domistick promises were entailed to Abraham's natural posterity, and is now cut off: Nor is the covenant every way of the same nature with Abraham's covenant, nor upon a believers entering his name is the promise to him and his seed, nor is it Acts 2.38, 39. said, that upon their repenting and being baptized themselves, that the promise is to them and their children, but the being of the promise to them and their children, is urged as a consideration fit to move them to repent and be baptizd.

He next sets down 4 affirmations, 2. That no man must be baptized, or receive an ordinance by any fleshly prerogative. Answer. Then no infant is to be baptized by virtue of birth from a believer, for that is a fleshly prerogative, as the birth of Christ was but a fleshly prerogative to David, the virgin Mary, though there were an entail of a promise to them of this thing, so is the imagined birth-privilege of believers infants, and yet there is no promise to retain it to a believers child.

2. That no person grown up to years of udderstanding, hath right to a sealing ordinance, but upon his own personal qualification.

Answer. Then Mr. Blake did err in intituling unbelieving Jews to privileges of ordinances▪ and thereby interesting them in the prerogatives of God's visible people. 2. There is no other right to an infant to baptism, than what a grown person hath.

The third affirmation I grant, and the fourth too, if there were any such old privileges of the promise to be conveyed to those which do really embrace the Gospel and their seed. And this grant that those Pharisees and Sadducees had demonstrated themselves to be only the children of the flesh, and not of the promise, and that they were excluded, shows the covenant as Evangelical not to be made to a believers natural seed, nor they thereby have right to baptism.

SECT. XXX. Of the meaning of Mr. M. his second Conclusion, the ambiguity of which is shown.

I now return to Mr. M. whose second Conclusion was thus expressed, Ever since God gathered a distinct select number out of the world to be his Kingdom, City, household in opposition to the rest of the world, which is the kingdom, city, household of Satan, he would have the i • fants of all who are taken into covenant with him, to be accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and Family, and not to the Devils. This conclusion b • ing the main pillar upon which he settles Infant-baptism, the Antecedent of his Euthymem I examined with great di • igence after the exact manner of Scholastic Writers in their Disputes. Which dealing of mine being indeed the one • y way to clear truth, and approved by a learned member of the Assembly [Mr R.C. of P.C.O. ] and known to be one of the most accurate disputants in his time in Oxford, yet Mr M. pag. 105. of his Defense, in a most inj • rious though frivolous way, traduce • h as an indirect Artifice. To which some answer is given in my Apology sect. 5. pag▪ 23 I shall now view the reply he makes: First, he compares my dealing with an unnam'd person in Cambridge, whose faculty was to make a clear text dark by his Interpretation : whereas my way was the true and only way to clear his meanin • by distinction, which is by Logicians called the light of speech, and in all consideration of things to be first, as Keckerm. Log Syst, part. 2. lib. 1. c. 1 sp • aks: No • h •• h Mr M. shown in his Defense, that any of those senses of his words which I set down, might not be conceived to be his meaning; and therefore his complaint of me is ridiculous, and I shall have cause to censure him as a confused Dict • t • r rather than an accurate Disputer, who doth so indistinctly set down his main conclusion, That an adversary cannot determinely resolve what is the meaning, and so nei • her easily examine his proofs, nor know what to oppose.

B •• he tells me he meant it of a visible privilege, in facie Ec • lesiae visibles, yet he doth not tell what that visible privilege is. He tells me, That they have their share in Foedus externum ; but sets not down what share they have, nor what he means by Foedus externum, in which they have share. And after he saith, God would have the children of them who by external vocation and profession join to the Church of God even while they are children, to enjoy the same privilege wi • h them, which hath also ambiguity in it. For whereas there are many privileges which the parents enjoy, as R. G. to be baptized, to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, perhaps the Father to be an Elder teaching or ruling, or a Deacon in the Church, and by ( Children ) may be meant persons of ten or twenty years old, and while▪ they are children may be understood either during their infancy, or during their relation as children to their parents (which is as long as they are men) the words may be understood either that they have the same privilege of admission to the Lord's Supper or Church-government, while they are infants, or that they have even in infancy the same privilege to be baptized that the parent had upon his profession. Which last if it were his meanng (as most likely it was) then his second conclusion being the same with his Antecedent in his Euthymem, his argument is an inapt tautology, Infants of professors have the same privilege with the parents to be baptized: Ergo they are to be baptized, which is to prove the same by the same: yet this I must needs take to be his meaning, till he show what other privilege wi • h their parents children of vi-sible professors have in infancy.

Then he distinguisheth of the Covenant of grace taken largely and strictly, which distinction is shown before Sect. 25, to have no footing in Scripture, and to be inaptly used by Mr M. He distinguisheth of Jews some Abraham's seed according to the promise, some only in the face of the visible Church, and of being in Christ by the mystical union, and by visible and external profession Which distinction I mislike not though they be not of use here, since they were not the terms used in his Conclusion. He distinguisheth of Seals belonging to the Covenant, the Seal of the Spirit, and external Seals. But he nei • her show • s where the external seals (as he calls them) are termed Seals of the Covenant: nor was the term ( Seal of the Covenant ) at all used in his conclusion. Yea to show how unskilfully he handles the matter in all these distinctions, he doth not distinguish any of those terms that were in question, and were the predicate in his proposition, to wit, to be accounted God's, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devils. And this piece of unskillfulness is in that which followeth.

When therefore I say they are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents, I mean, look what right a visible professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the visible Church, quà visi • le professor, that right hath his child so to be esteemed.

But first, this speech here explained was not in his Conclusion in his Sermon, these words were not there, They are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents, but this, They are to be accounted God's, to belong to him, to his Church and Family, and not to the Devils. 2. Were the sense here given the meaning of his Conclusion, it would not be true. For if the right belong to the visible professors, quà visible professors, the same right cannot belong to the child except he be a visible professor. For what agrees to any quà talis, as such, agrees universaliter & reciproce, and therefore by this expression, every visible professor is to be received and esteemed, and everyone to be so received and esteemed, is a visible professor, which cannot be said with any truth or show of truth of the infant child of a believer. Besides, if this Conclusion were good, an infant should have right to be admitted to the Lord's Supper since the parent hath right thereto as a visible professor.

But Mr. M. makes a large discourse to prove, That to those to whom the spiritual part of the Covenant belongs not, yet there are outward Church-privileges which belong to them as they are visible professors. And to prove this he cites, Gen. 6.1. Deut. 14.1. Gal. 3.26. Matth. 8, 12. Acts 3.25. Rom. 9.4. Rom. 9.3.1. John 8 17. Psal. 147.19, 20. Deut. 33.4. John 4.22.

In answer to which I say, • , That I grant this speech to be true. 2. I deny that the Texts are pertinent to the purpose of Mr. M. who intends this speech of Gentile visible professors, whereas the texts are most of them of the privileges peculiar to the Jewish people, namely, Deut. 14.1. Matth. 8.12. Acts 3.25. Rom. 9.4. Rom. 3.1. John 8.17. Psal. 147 19, 20. Deut. 33.4. John 4.22. Of the other two the former is of those before the Flood, who whether they were called Sons of God by descent, or profession, or some other way, it is uncertain. The other Gal. 3.26. is to be understood of being the Sons of God really, and the term [ All ] is to be limited, as v. 27. by [ye that are believers] as the very words show. For when he saith Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, it is plain this is meant only of those who had faith in Christ Jesus 3. In all this discourse he doth not show a Text proving the privileges he mentions to belong to the infants of Gentile visible professors. Certainly some of them cannot be applied; no, not to the Infants of the Jewish nation, as v. 9. that to them were committed the Oracles of God, that to them God shown his word, &c. 4 Nor doth Mr M. distinctly tell us, which of these, • or what other outward privilege it is that belongs to the Infants of visible professors, which is the only thing pertinent to the present business.

After this he asserts, That there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible Membership who only partake of the visible privileges, and undertakes to prove it from Rom. 11. But I have in the first p • rt of this Review shown Mr Ms, and others mistakes about the engraffing, Rom. 11.17. and proved that it is meant of giving faith according • o election. Yet I grant it true which Mr M. asserts in those word, and do take notice that pag. 110. he acknowledgeth that I grant in my Examen pag. 149. a lawfulness of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession, and that rightly even by a judgment of faith, though their inward holiness be unknown to us. And yet in the next pag. 111. he tells me, This mistake runs through your whole Book, that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of Grace, but onily such as partake of the saving graces of it. But of this calumny more may be seen in my Apology, Sect. 10. pag. 47.

After all these expressions of his meaning in his Conclusion he adds, pag. 111. This then was and is my meaning when I say, that infants of Believers are confederates with their parents, that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members, as their parents have by being visible professors, and are therefore to be admitted to all such external privileges as their infant-age is capable of; and that the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children; that the invisible takes in neither all of the one, nor the other, but some of both.

In answer whereto I say, 1. Neither Mr M. in his pretended explication keeps the terms of his second Conclusion in which the words were not as Mr. M. sets them down, That infants of believers are confederates with their parents. Nor (2) do any of the words explain that proposition. Far would any that knows the meaning of words, take this for a right paraphrase? Infants of believers are confederate with their parents, that is; they have the same visible right, &c. Is [ confederate ] all one with [ to have visible right, to be reputed Church-members, to be admitted to external Church-privileges, to be of the visible Church? ] Yea would not a Grammarian count such a paraphrase to be quite besides the words paraphrased, and the words paraphrased plainer than the paraphrase itself? Sure [ Confederate ] is [ being in Covenamt together ] And yet in all this Paraphrase there is not so much as the term Covenant mentioned, much less any explication in what covenant, and in what manner, by what act believing parents are in covenant together with their infants. 3. By this Paraphrase we have 4 propositions of one, like so many Hydra 's heads rising up in the place of one▪ The first is, That Infants of believers have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their parents have by being visible professors. But this is manifestly false: For if the visible right be by being visible professors, infants cannot have the same visible right but by being visible professors, which to assert of them is all one as to say, the snow is black. The second, [ And are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-privileges as their infant age is capable of ] is ambiguous: for the capacity of their infant-age may be understood of Capacity from the institution of God; and so infants of Gentile-believers are to be admitted to no external privileges Sacramental, for none are appointed for them: or natural capacity in respect of receiving the Sacrament, and then if by the Sacrament be meant not only the outward element, but also the use or signification by it, they have not a natural capacity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism: if only of the elements they are capable also of the Lord's Supper, as well as baptism. For they may eat and drink bread and wine as well as be washed by baptism. The third proposition is, That the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children. This is indeed the conclusion of the Assembly in their Confession of Faith, ch. 25. art. 2. and they cite to prove it, 1 Cor. 7.14. Acts 2.39. Ezek. 16.20, 21. Rom. 11.16. The impertinency of which is shown before in the first part of this Review, and in that which goes before in this part of this Review : Of the impertinency of two other texts, to wit, Gen. 3.15. Gen. 17.7. Somewhat is said also before, and more is intended to be decla-in the remainder of this Review. The fourth proposition, That the invisible neither takes in all of the one nor the other, but some of both, I grant to be true.

After all these Mr M adds,

Answer. Here again Mr M. explains the term Of Infants being taken into Covenant, which was not in his second conclusion▪ However I note first, That in respect of saving grace, all the infants of believers are not taken into covenant, but only the elect. 2. That when he asserts, That all the infants of visibls professors are taken into covenant in respect of outward privileges. 1, He never shows what those outward privileges are. 2. Nor anywhere • lse that I know, instanceth in any but the initial seal, which is now no other than baptism, and this then being the antecedent in his Enthymeme, his argument is this, All infants of believers are taken into Covenant in respect of the outward privilege of Baptism, Ergo, they are to be baptized; which is all one as to say, They are to be baptized, Ergo they are to be baptized, unless he mean they are taken into covenant de facto, and so his assertion should be, They are already baptized (wich is false) and if his inference be, Ergo they are to be baptized, his argument is, They are already baptized, Ergo they are to be baptized, which were to assert Anabaptism. 3. Nor doth Mr. M. tell where that covenant is that promiseth the outward Church-privilege of an initiaall seal, nor by whose act they are taken into • covenant, or who takes them into covenant. 4. If he understand it of the outward covenant, meaning thereby the outward administration, he useth, the word improperly by a Trope, and so speaks obscurely in his main conclusion on which his whole dispute r • sts, which is contrary to Logic Rules, and • ll right Disputation. Besides, he doth but trifle thus in his arguings, I • fants of believers are taken into covenan • , that is the outward covenant, that is the outward administration, that is (now) Baptism, Ergo they are to be baptized, which is to prove the same • y the same. Lastly, if that speech of his be true, That in respect of outward privileges the same is to be said of visible members both parents and infants under the New Testament, in this point of being in covenant, as was to be said of visible members in the former administration▪ whether Jews and their children, or Proselytes and their children, it is apparent to me that he makes the covenant now and then not only the same for substance, but also in respect of administrations contrary to his first conclusion. For what are those outward privileges in respect of which they are the same but outward administrations? And if so, his speech is in my apprehension professed Judaism opposite to the Apostles determination in the Synod Acts 15. And yet Mr. M. tells me he endeavors in all this to speak as clearly as he can possibly, which makes me hopeless of anything but confusedness in his writing, when after I had distinctly opened the various senses of his terms, yet he willfully declines making answer in which of those senses I should take his words, and when he takes on him to explain his meaning, he takes on him to explain other terms then were in his conclusion, and yet his explications are as dark as his terms which he would explain, and in the upshot his second conclusion can have no other sense consistent with his own Hypothesis but such as asserts Judaism, or being cōceived to be the antecedent of his Enthymeme, is the same with the conclusion of it, which is merely to trifle, proving the same by the same: which course how unfit it is for him who is to dispute, I leave it to them to judge who know what belongs to Scolastick exercise.

Mr. M. next chargeth me with holding no more promises for believers children in reference to the covenant, then to the children of Turks. And yet page 119. he doth in these words maintain the same which I do. I join with you that it is an error to say, that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the covenant, for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture of God's giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people, and that experience teacheth us, that God uses to continue the Church in their posterity, and that God's election lies more among their seed then others, yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the covenant so made at any time, that the spiritual part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all, which is directly to contradict the usual plea of Pedobaptists, that the covenant of grace is made to every believer and his seed, and particularly the words of the Directory, The p • omise is made to believers and their seed ▪ seeing the covenant of grace is made to none but those on whom the spiritual part is conferred, nor can (without wresting the words from the plain meaning according to the Grammar sense) the speech of the Directory be understood of any other promise than saving grace.

Mr. M. and with him Mr. G. Vindic. Paedob, pag. 12. charge me, that in my judgment believers children are not actually belonging to the Covenant or Kingdom of God, but only in possibility; that they belong to the Kingdom of the Devil actually, which calumnies are re • u • ed in my Apology, Sect. 14.

Next, he speaks thus to me: But say you, to make them actually members of the visible Church, is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church, which Protestant Writers use to give, because they must be all Christians by profession. I reply, It overthrows it not at all, for they all include the infants of such professors, as the visible Church among the Jews did include their infants male (and female too, lest you say that circumcision made them members.)

Answer. Though Protestant Divines do hold many of them, that infants belong to the visile Church, yet they put them not in their definitions. There are many definitions cited by me in the first part of this Review Sect. 14. in which infants are not included, not in that definition of the Church (visible) which Baxter plain Scripture proof, page 82 saith,

The Church visible of the Jews consisted of the whole nation, and was visible otherwise than the Christian, and therefore the definition of the Christian Church visible is different from that of the Jewish Church visible, and infants included in the definition of the one are not included in the definition of the other.

Mr. M. saith, I add also Baptism now (as well as circumcision of old) is a re • all though implicit profession of the Christian faith.

Answer. Baptism of itself (I mean dipping in water) is no real explicit or implicit profession of faith, but only when it is done with consent of the baptized to that end: Otherwise the Indians driven into the water by the Spaniards against their wills, should be prof • ssors of the Christian faith. The like may be said of circumcision.

Mr M omitting my next reason, [That to make infants [visible Church-members, is to make a member of the visible Church, to whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree] saith thus to me: But say you, Infants are only passive, and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians. I answer, Even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old, who yet in their days were visible members.

I reply, It is so; yet that which made a visible Church member in the Jewish Church, is not enough to make a visible Church member in the Christian Church, which consists not of a whole nation known by circumcision, genealogies, outward policy, national meetings, family dwelling, &c. But of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to profess the faith of Christ. Mr. M. adds, Yea (say you) further it will follow, that there may be a v • sible Church which consists only of infants of believers. I answer, no more now than in the time of the Jewish Church; it's possible, but very im • roble, that all the men and women should die and leave only infants behind them, and it's far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist only of hypocrites.

Answer. It is somewhat more possible, or more probable, there should be only infants left in a Church of a house, town, or village; than in the Church which consists of a numerous nation, as the Jewish Church did: nor is it unlikely; • uch things h • ve happened in sweeping plagues. And if it be far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist only of hypocrites, the s • me with more probability may be said of a Church gathered in the Pedob •• pists way, in which there is of necessi • y so much ignorance in matters of Religion, all being admitted Church-members afore they know or can know anything of Christ. Jam sumus ergo pares. But if it be possible, as it is granted, that a Church visible of Christians may consist only of infants, it will follow that there may be a visible Church of Christians in which there is no one professor of the faith, contrary ro the defini • ion of a visible Church, That it is a company of professors of faith, and they shall be visible Church-members, who neither by themselves or any for them, do anything which is apparent to the understanding by the meditation of sense, whereby Christianity is expressed. The case is not the same of the Jewish Church and the Christian; for the Christian Church is any company though but of two or three gathered together in Christ's name, Matth. 18.20. But the Jewish Church was the whole Congregation of Israel known otherwise, as h • th been said, than the Christian.

Next, Mr M. against these words of mine [It is also true that we are not to account infants [of believers] (which he omits in repetition) to belong to God [before God] (which he likewise omits in repetition) in respect of election [from eternity] (omitted by him) or promise of grace [in Christ] (omitted also) of present estate of in-being in Christ, or future estate by any act of Science, or faith without a particular relation: for there is no general declaration of God, that the infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life, or are in the covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in-being or future estate, excepts two things- 1. This makes nothing against that visible Church-membership be pleads for.

Answer. If that visible Church-membership he pleads for, arise from the covenant of grace in Christ (as hitherto hath been the plea) nor can they show any other) then they are not visible Church-members who have not an estate in that covenant which is the cause of it: For take away the cause and • he effect ceaseth, and then the visible Church-membership of existing infants of present believers is overthrown, since the cause of it appears not. And if they are not to be accounted by act of faith to belong to God in respect of promise of grace in Christ, and the Minister is to dispense the seals by a judgment of faith, as Mr M. holds in his Sermon, pag. 47, in his Defense, pag. 111. then there being no act of faith concerning existing infants of present believers, they are not to be baptized.

Answ. If Mr. M. had put in these words of mine, By any act or science of faith, I should have granted the same might be said of visible professors grown men, which I had said of infants. But this no whit hur • s our Tene • t or practice who do not baptize grown persons because by no act of faith, or science we know them to be in the covenant of grace in Christ, but because by an act of faith we know Christ hath appointed Disciples appearing such by heir profession of faith, to be baptized by us, and by an act of science or experience by sense, we know them to be such whom we baptize. Concerning whom though we cannot account them elect and in the covenant by an act of science, or faith without a particular revelation, yet we may by an act of certain knowledge mixed of science and prudence from sense of their visible profession know them to be serious, sober, understanding and free professors of Christianity, and by an act of faith from Christ's institution of bapttizing professing disciples, know we ought to baptize them, and upon their profession out of charity, which believeth all things, hopeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.7. judge them by an act of opinion elect, and in the covenant of grace in Christ. None of all which can be said of existing infants of present believrs, and therefore we ought to pass no judgment on them in this thing, but suspend our judgmen • t, and act of baptizing concerning ourselves with that comfortable hope which we have from indefinite promises.

Next Mr M. takes upon him to excuse some speeches of Mr. Cottons, against which I excepted in my Examen, pag▪ 42.4 • . one was, That the covenant of grace is given to every godly man in his seed. Concerning which Mr M. tells me, That he takes M. Cottons meaning to be, that look as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the other godly Jews were to their seed in respect of the covenant, that is every godly man to his seed now, except only in such things wherein these Patriarchs were of Christ, in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and types their seed, godly parents may plead it as much for their seed now as, they could then, and what ever in • onveniences or absurdity you can seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton, will equally reach to them also. As for example▪ suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed, you will demand if he plead it to his seed universally, that's false, add so of the rest of your inferences, look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give, and as satisfyingly.

Answ. Mr Ms paraphrase of Mr. Cottons words, is such as no Rule of Crammar will warrant, the words being so express, It (the covenant of grace) was given to Christ, and in Christ to every godly man, Gen. 17.7. And in every godly man to his seed: where the same covenant of grace, not an uncertain promise of anything whatsoever, is said to be given to every godly man's seed, which is said to be given to Christ, and to every godly man, and in every godly man, using the same pronounce which was used concerning Christ: no • is it said, that it might be pleaded by every godly man, but it was given, which in plain construction is mean • of the same grant which was made to Christ, and to a godly man. 2. Nor perhaps would Mr Cotton have owned this explication of his words. 3. If he had, they had not been true, for every▪ godly Gentile now cannot plead the same for his seed now, which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and some other Is • aelites could then, (because God made such peculiar promises to them, particularly to Abraham, G • n 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. in respect of their seed) • s he hath made to any be • ieving Genti • e now. For much of that he promised then was out of respect, to the future coming of Christ from them, which being accomplished, the reason of those promises, and of circumcision and other rites ceaseth. And yet the promises were not then so universally to them and their seed, but that God took himself not engaged to be the God of many of them, nor ar • Gentile-believers seed now Abraham's seed till they believe as he did, and therefore in explic • tion of Mr. M. there can be no good sa • i • faction so as to verify Mr Cottons words.

The other speech of Mr Cotton, that

Ans. The words in the plainest sense they bare, had that sense which Mr. M. counts unjustifiable, nor can they be construed in such an indefinite manner as Mr. M. conceives, the good promised being no less than standing before God for ever : which how ever it allude to Ionadabs promise, yet is not to be understood in the sense made to him, nor in any other sense now than that of eternal salvation, that I know, and by his declaration should belong to some of every godly man's seed determinately. So that what ever his scope were, his words were likely to be a stumbling-block to many who are too much taken with his dictates, and the place in which I examined them leading me to it, and both Mr. Cottons letter to me, acquainting me with his Dialogue of the grounds of Infant-baptism, of which the supposed interest in the covenant is the chief, and the desire I have to make learned men more cautelous in venting such passages as may occasion error, knowing how Luther's unwary speeches were the seed of Antinomianism, and other learned men's writings have misled, most Divines adhering pertinaciously to leading men, provoking me thereto, I did and still do think it was necessary I should say what I said about those speeches.

Mr. M. tells me, pag, 116, You do but lose time and waste paper in endeavoring to confute what was never asserted by me, viz. That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their natural seed that the infants of believers are so within the covenant of grace as to be elected, and to have all the spiritual privileges of the covenant belong to them. But this he suspects to fasten on him against my own light : from which I cleared myself, Apolog. Sect. 9. He then interprets his own words of infants being within the covenant of grace as visible professors are quà visible (which speech is shown false before) they are to be accounted to belong to God as well as their parents, viz. by a visible profession they are made free according to Abraham's Copy, viz. in a visible privilege for their posterity But he leaves out those passages which I alleged, saying, The covenant of s • lvation is come • to his house, that in the first conclusion it's said, The covenant is the same, which he means of saving graces, and then saith, and children belong to IT, which can demonstrate no other than the same covenant, that is made a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham. To which I might add, that in his Sermon, page 40. he saith The text not only showing that they are within the covenant, but also that a right to baptism is the consequence of being within the covenant, which covenant is made by him the covenant of salvation, pag. 16 and in his Defense pag. 88. We are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made., and hence infers the salvation of infants; of believers dying in infancy, which were frivolous if he did not conceive, Gen. 17.7. to promise salvation to believers infants: and page 98. counts it absurd that in a covenant of grace temporal blessings should be ratified by the seal of it. So that either M. M. heeded not his own speeches, or confounded things much different, or said and unsaid the same thing, if that were not his meaning which I conceived. And I must still profess that his setting down first distinctly the identity of the covenant consisting in saving graces, and then affirming Infants of believers to belong to it, and not understanding it of the same Covenant, hath the show of juggling tending to deceive not to instruct the Reader. There are more speeches produced by me to show, that if he did speak consonantly to other Writers and sayings, he meant as I interpreted his words, two of which he chooseth to vindicate, one the proposition of the Directory; ( The promise is made to belivers and their seed, ) which how frivolously it is interpreted by Mr. G. and Mr. M. is showed in my Apol. Sect. 9. in my Addition to my Apol. to Mr. Bailee, Sect. 3. To which I add, that in the Assemblies Confession of Faith it is said, ch. 7. art 3 that in the covenant of grace God promiseth to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his holy Spirit, ch. 14. art. 2. The principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of Grace, ch. 17. art. 2. The perseverance of the Saints depends upon the nature of the covenant of grace. The other speech he would clear, is thus by me expressed▪ Baptism seals only the promise of saving grace, remission of sins, &c. So in the Directory of Baptism, That it is the seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: and after, And that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it In the Rules of direction in the Ordinance Octob. 20. 1645. That the Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ. And therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants, in vain are they baptized, the seal is put to a blank, as some use to speak. To this saith Mr. M.

Answer. To the words in my Examen (the seal is put to a blank ) was added, as some speak, which I did to intimate that it was Paedobaptists phraseology, not mine, and that they counted this an absurdity, not that I did so. So that my consequence was, it being counted frequently in their writings an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank, that is, that baptism should be administered to them that had not the promise, and it seals only the promise of saving grace, if the promise of saving grace belong not to the infants baptized, then in vain are they baptized according to Paedobaptists Hypothesis, for the seal of the promise is put to them to whom it is confessed the promise is not made. Mr. M himself in his Sermon, pag. 43. Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost, of union with Christ, of adoption, of forgiveness of sins, of regeneration, of everlasting life, all which things are signified and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptism. The covenant then sealed is the covenant of these saving graces, which if it belong not to infants baptized, but another outward covenant, in vain are they baptized, for they have not the covenant which baptism seals. And that this is the sense of other Writers, appears by the words of Ampsing. Diolog. eontra Anabapt. p. 195. Dico ergo: Omnibus fidelibus baptismum competere cum ipsorum semine tam mulieribus quam viris tam infantibus quam adulti • : horum omnium enim se Deum fore declarat. Deus, his remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine; his mentis renovatio • ē per spiritum sanctum; his vitā aeternam promittit ac regnum coelorum: quare quo{que} ipsis obsignabitur hac Dei gratia. Ames. Bellarm. enervat. tom. 3. l. 1. c. 4. ch. 9. Protest. Circu • cisio à primâ su • institution habuit promissionem illam annexam quâ nulla est major: Ero Deus tuus & seminis tui post te. Gen. 17. quam Christus ita interpretor, Matth. 22. ut vitam aeternam illa doceat contineri, & Paulus Ephes. 2.12. Ostendit spem vivam ex illâ pendere. I will add the words of Calvin, Epist. 229. which are instead of many oath • s, both because of the great eminency of the man, being accounted almost an Oracle by many of my Antagonists, and because they are full to the present purpose: they are thus in English.

Which words do plainly express the covenant of salvation which is made by God with believers, is common to the sons, that so it is meant, Gen. 17.7, that with God they are afore baptism reckoned in the place and degree of sons and heirs of God, who adopteth them not yet born, that unless the truth of the outward sign (that is according to Mr. Ms. adoption, regeneration, remission of sins, &c.) did agree to them, it were profanation to call infants of believers to the participation of the sign, and Anabaptists should rightly keep them from Baptism. Therefore Calvin thought the covenant of saving grace Gen. 17.7. made by God to believers infan • s (which Mr. M. disclaism) and otherwise infant-baptism is profanation, and it is rightly opposed. Yea, the shifts that are used to free their doctrine of infants interest in the covenant, and the sealing of it from the difficulty of verefying it against the exceptions before alleged, do all seem to suppose the covenant in which infants have interest, is the covenant of saving grace. As when Mr. Baxter's plain Scripture, &c. pag. 223. will have Baptism seal only the conditional promise Mr. Philip's vind. pag. 37. expresseth the sealing by offering. Mr. Davenport's Confess. of Faith, p 39. maketh the benefits of the covenant not to be offered in the Sacraments, but to be exhibited only to true believers. Mr. Cotton's grounds of Bapt. pag. 70, The covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all, but only offereth it, and seals what it offereth. Dr Homes, that the administration of the covenant of grace, belongs to believers children though not the efficacy. Dr. Twisse, that Infants are in the covenant of grace in the judgment of charity, and that baptism seals regeneration, &c. not conferred, but to be conferred. Dr. Th Goodwin, that they are to be judged in the covenant of grace by parcels though not all in the lump, yet all make the promise, I will be the God of thy seed, applied to infants of believers • contain the promise of saving grace, and therefore I had great reason to conceive Mr. M. so meant his second conclusion. As for the two cases he puts, I neither grant all the Infants of the Jews, nor visible Christian professors adult had all saving graces who were circumcised or rightly baptized by the Apostles, nor do I say they were sealed with the seal of the covenant, it's the Pedobaptists expression not mine, except where I use the term to express their mind▪ nor do I count it an absurdity to say the seal was and is to be put to a blank, that is, that those should be baptized to whom the promise of saving grace is not made, when I speak after mine own mind. But in the place of my Examen pag. 46. in which I alleged that as an absurdity, that the seal should be put to a blank, it was not because I took it so to be, but because the Paedobaptists so count it, as Mr. Calvin's words before recited show.

SECT. XXXI, Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments, being seals of the covenant, and the several sealings of them.

BUt Mr. M. desires me a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal, and he te • s me, that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in itself, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen; Jesus Christ became a Minister of the Circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, and so to everyone who is admitted to partake of baptism according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer the Sacrament, there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel, that they are all true in Christ, and that whoever partakes of Christ, shall partake of all these saving promises, this is sealed absolutely in Bapiism.

Answer. Mr M. would have me to consider the nature of a Sacrament, in what sense it is a seal, and I am very willing so to do, as knowing that as Mr. M. imagines that I am mislead for want of considering thereof, so I am sure Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists are both mistaken, and do abuse others in this point, by reason of their inconsideratenass, or superficial consideration of this thing. The word Sacrament is a Latin word in profane Authors signifying an oath made by a Soldier to his General; in Ecclesiastic Writers it is applied to all the mysteries of religion, and it is used most by the African Writers, Tertullian, Augustine &c. as the word Mystery is by the Greeks, Chrysostom Cyril, &c. Chamier Paustrat. Cath tom, 4. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 14. Saepe jam dictum latissimam fuisse olim Saramenti significationem: sero tandem contractam in angustos istos terminos quos hodie vix migrat: quod diligenter attendendum. Certe sacramenti definitionem nullam est invenire ante Augustinum, qui suo exemplo posteris praiit, deinde Augustini definitione, &c. Whence I infer, that as the term Sacrament, so the definition of a Sacrament is but a novelty, and possibly the great contentions about the number of the Sacraments, some making seven, some three, most Protestants two only, would be lessened, if moderate learned men had the handling of it. I confess that sundry Texts of Scripture do plainly show the two rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be the chief rites of the Church, as 1 Cor. 10, 1, 2, 3, 4. & 12, 13. Eph. 4, 5. Mark 16.16. 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. & 11.23, &c. Yet that the Scripture either calls these Sacraments, or sets down one general nature of them in a certain definition of them, cannot be demonstrated. They are certain rites appointed for certain uses according to certain rules; but such a nature or essence genericall as distinguisheth them from all other rites, as laying on of hands, &c. denied to be Sacraments I find not in Scripture. Divines elder and later, have framed their definitions according to their own conceits. After Augustine's time that definition was commonly received in Schools, That a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace : yet the Ancients did rent such speeches as occasioned the opinion commonly received in Schools afore the reformation by Luther and Zwingli, that they did confer gratiam ex opere operato, give grace by the • a • e outward use of them. Zwingli denying them to be anymore than signs, the Lutherans denying that they give grace by the bare use of them without the concurrence of faith, to which the Lutherans ascribe all the efficacy; the Papists object the baptizing of infants who did not believe, used by them all: whereupon the opposers of infant-baptism, falsely termed Anabaptists, proved infant-baptism inconsistent with their own doctrine. I will set down Mr. Bedford's words in his Epistle to Mr. Baxter, printed in the Friendly Accommodation between them, pag. 352. The Anabaptists took occasion from that position of Luther, No Faith no Baptism. Coetaneous with him was Zwingli and others, who to overthrow the real presence, insisted upon it • hat Sacraments were but signs for representation; and when that doctrine was once broached▪ the Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it. To answer whom the Lutherans maintain, that by baptism, or before they are made believers, as the words of the Lutherans in the Conference at Mont • elgard, cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect. 15, p. 143. show, Osiander epist. Histor. Eccl. Cent. 26. l. 2. c. 68. pag· 449. Cum autem baptismus • it lavacrum regenerationis (teste Paulo) sentimus nos Deum dare fidem infantibus vel ante baptismum ad preces parentum & Ecclesiae, vel in ipso actu baptismi & regenerationis, quae si • e fide esse non potest. And to this opinion did many in England warp, when the face of the Church of England became ceremonious, and tended to symbolizing with the Lutheran Protestants, or with the more moderate not Jesuited Papists in the time of the late Prelates potency, as may be seen by the passages cited by me in Examen part. 3 • ▪ Sect. 15. pag. 143. and by the printed writings of Dr. Davenant, Dr. Ward, Mr, Thomas Bedford, which have been refuted by Mr. Gataker and Mr. Baxter, nor is it likely but still the same mind is in Mr. Bedford, notwithstanding the late Synectism, or rather clawing of one another which hath been between him and Mr. Baxter in their painted Frindly Accommodation. In which Mr. Cranfords Epistle hath these words to Mr. Bedford, Brother you know my mind, that I conceive the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine, de nudis signis, as is • leare in the Ecclesiastical Stories of old, and most arguings of Anabaptists. Which shows they fear Infants Baptism will not be maintained without this doctrine of giving by Baptism to the elect at least initial seminal regerating grace real or relative. But Mr. Baxter thinks otherrwise, that that doctrine will increase Anabaptism, Leaving them to their several fancies, I proceed.

Mr. Calvin, and w • th him many others▪ take another course to avoid extremes, neither making Baptism a naked sign, which is imputed to Zwingli, nor ascribing to it the giving of grace by the work wrought, with the Papists, nor holding such initial seminal regeneration or seed of Faith at Baptism, given at least to the elect, as Lutherans and others (which perhaps will be found as much as the Papists ascribe to it) but ascribing to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, not only signification, but also obsignation, and so making this the general nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace, which they say is made to infants of believers, though they want not faith at or before Baptism; and from this promise they desire a title to the baptism of Infants of believers, as is shown out of Calvin above. But 1. there is much ambiguity in their determinations about the covenant of grace what it is, and what it contains, and in what sense it belongs • o infants of believers as such, and what believers infants it belongs • o, and how baptism seals it. So that in their speeches there is much equivocation, and frequent saying and unsaying, as chiefly about the promise, Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee : which is one way expounded in their Commentaries on Rom. 9.7, 8, and elsewhere, as meant of saving graces, and applied only to the elect and true believers in their disputes against Arminius: But elsewhere expounded of every Gentile visible professor of faith in Christ, and his natural seed, as if thereby the outward privileges of visible Church membership, and initial seal were promised and applied to all infants of believers, whether elect or not in their disputes against Anabaptists, as may be perceived by this and other writings published by me. 2. The objection still holds, How can baptism seal to an infant? Every seal is a sign, though every sign be not a seal; but baptism is no sign to an infant, since it signifies nothing to it at the time of baptism, because the infant hath not understanding to perceive the use of it; and when the infant comes to understanding there's no print of baptism to represent anything to the person baptized some years before. If the person know anything of it, it is by report, which is no visible sign, but audible to the baptized. 3. A a seal is an assuring sign to the eye of what is promised to the ear: but baptism assures nothing to an infant without faith, therefore it seals nothing without faith▪ And thus in Mr Perkins his Exposition of the fifth principle of his Catechism. Heretofore we were taught, A Sacrament is a sign to represent, a seal to confirm, an instrument to convey Christ and all his benefits to them that do believe in him. Faith therefore was a necessary prerequisite in the person to whom the Sacrament was a seal of the Covenant of grace, which infants wanting it is no seal to them, and consequently no Sacrament, as Mr. Gataker argues in another case, Discep. de bapt. inf. vi & effic. pag. 192. • f it be a seal of the essence of a Sacrament.

The main if not the only Texts whence they • etch this Doctrine of making the nature of Sacraments to be Seals of the covenant of grace▪ are Rom. 4.11. Gen. 17.7, 10, 11. In the former it is said, Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised ; and in the other Circumcision is termed the Covenant ▪ and token of the Covenant. Whence [the seal of the Covenant of grace] is either made the definition of a Sacrament in general, or at least the genus of it, and in the writings of Paedobaptists ••• ls of the Covenant and Sacraments are used as terms of the same signification. I • the Confession of faith of the Assembly, chap. 27. art. 1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace, and they cite but two texts for it, Rom. 4.11. Gen. 17.7.10 Yea, in the Ordinance of Parliament Octob. 20▪ 1645. about Rules concerning examining persons to be admited to the Lord's Supper, this is one principle which everyone who is admitted to the Lord's Supper, is required to give account of, that Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ : so that in effect it is made as one of the first Credenda, or articles of faith necessary for all to know. On the contrary, I have seen a little book in English of one Mr. Jackson, in which are nineteen arguments to prove circumcision no seal of the covenant of grace. For my part, as I express myself in my Examen, pag. 117. I should not st • ck to yield that the rites of the New Testament called Sacraments, may be called seals of the covenant of grace, being • ightly expounded in this sense, that they sh • w forth Christ's death, and thereby to the true believer, the benefits of the covenant of grace are assured: yet considering how Writers make this the very Genus in the definition of them, and of their nature and essence, and thence infer duties and draw arguments to determine cases of conscience about the use of Sacraments as they are called, and make it a necessary point to be acknowledged by all, I reject it, and except against this use of that term for these reasons.

First, Because this use of that term is not in or from the holy Scripture, That term Seal of the covenant of grace, is not expressly in the holy Scripture, I suppose will not be denied: if it be, let it be shown where. Though the term Seal, and the true Token of the Covenant, be ascribed to circumcision, Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.11. yet is not the term Seal of the Covenant of grace, applied to any Sacrament, no not to circumcision. Nor is the term Seal of the righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11. of the same sense with the term Seal of the covenant of grace. For the Seal of the covenant of grace in the ordinary acception, is as much as an assuring sign or mean of the grace of the covenant to be bestowed, Rom. 4.11. it is said, that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the righteousness of Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised, and therefore it was rather a seal of certification of what he had, than a prediction or promise what he should have. Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake, pag. 104. saith truly, That circumcision was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith, even a justifying faith already in being, Rom. 4.11, 12. The New England Elders in their Answer to the third and fourth of the nine positions, pag. 65. say truly thus, The scope of the Apostle in that place, Rom. 4 11, is not to def • ne a Sacrament, nor to show what is the adequate subject of the Sacrament, but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God, not by works but by faith (thus) As Abraham the Father of the faitfull was justified before God, so must his seed be, that in all believers whether Jews or Gentiles, circumcised or uncircumcised, for therefore Abraham received circumcision which belonged to the Jews, to confirm the righteousness which he had before, even whilst he was uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of both. And to speak truth, to conceive that circumcision there is made the seal of the covenant of grace, that is, that God would be the God of Abraham and his seed for the future, sanctifying, justifying, saving him and them, • is indeed to evacuate the force of the Apostles argument, which is, that righteousness is not appropriated to the Laws by the Law, but common to the Gentiles with them by faith, because Abraham's circumcision sealed to him the righteousness of faith, which he had before he was circumcised. Nor do I see that which Camier. Paust. Cath. tom. 4. l. 2. c. 10. Sect. 47. saith, doth prove that circumcision Rom. 4.11. is meant of a Seal of a promise, because Gen. 17. in the institution it was termed a token of the covenant, for the Apostle, Rom. 4 11. mentions not what God appointed circumcision to be to every circumcised person, but what peculiar use Abrahrms circumcision had to him and all believers though uncircumcised. And though it is true, that righteousness of faith supposeth a word of God, or a promise or covenant of grace, yet Ro 4.11. the citcumcision there mentioned is said to seal not a promise of something future, but something past and already had many years before, Gen. 15.6.

But were it granted, that ci • cumcision there sealed the promise to come, to wit, that part of the covenant, Gen. 17.4. Thou shalt be a father of many Nations, and that v 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee, or that Gen. 15.5. So shall thy seed be, mentioned Rom. 4.17, 18. and so did assure a future estate to others as well as an estate already ob • ained to Abraham, yet this is ascribed in that place to no ones circumcision but Abraham's. For 1. The occasion and scope of the passage show it is meant of Abraham's circumcision, it being alleged to prove, that Gentiles were to be justified by faith though uncircumcised, because Abraham was justified by faith afore circumcision, and his circumcision after did but seal (not convey) the righteousness of faith we had before. 2. The expression [ He received ] standing in opposition to [ yet being uncircumcised ] shows that the receiving of the seal of circumcision was in his own person. 3. The end of receiving it sh • wes it more plainly: for it was, That he might be the father of them that believe. But this was the end only of Abraham's personal circumcision: Neither Ishmael's, nor Isaac's, nor any others personal circumcision were, that Abraham might be the father of them that believe, but only Abraham's. 4. The time exactly noted of his believing, and imputation of right • ousness to him, distinguished from the time of his receiving circumcision show plainly that it was the same person who had the one and the other, and the receiving it not as a command to execute it upon others, but as a sign and seal to himself, and all believers whether circumcised or uncircumcised, evidently show it is spoken Rom 4.11. of Abraham's personal circumcision and of no others.

As for Gen. 17.10 11. it is true Circumcision is termed the Covenant, and a token of the Covenant : But it is not said of that promise only, v▪ 7. nor of that promise in the Gospel sense, and therefore it cannot there be proved to be a token or seal of the Covenant of grace; but it followeth that Rom. 4.11. Gen. 17, 7.10, are impertinently alleged by the Assembly to prove this proposition, Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace. Yea the end of circumcision was conceived generally by the Jews, and so used to bind men to observe the Law of Moses for righteousness. And thus they taught who are mentioned Acts 15.1.

and the Apostle Gal. 5.2, 3, saith, Behold I Paul say to you, That if any of you be circumeised Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. So that circumcision in the ordinary use may seem to have been a seal of the Law rather than of the Gospel or covenant of grace; and if your baptism be of the same nature with circumcision, it is so far from being a rite of the Gospel, that it rather binds us to observe the Law. But fourthly, were it granted that it was in the use of it according to the institutton a seal of the covenant of grace, how doth it follow from thence, that this is the nature of every Sacrament? Whence will it be evinced that that is the Genus of every Sacrament which is not so much as once attributed to them. The Passover is counted a Sacrament, and we find that it signified the Passover over the Israelites houses, and sparing their first born, and that it typified Christ, 1 Cor▪ 5.7. But this doth not prove that it was a seal of the covenant of grace anymore than Jon • hs being in the Whales belly, which was a type of Christ's burial, was a seal of the covenant of grace. I grant we are said to be baptized into Christ's death, to be buried by baptism into death, Rom 6 3▪ 4▪ to be buried with him in Baptism, and therein to be raised up through the faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead, Col. 2.12, and that they who are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. And the Cup is called the New Testament in his blood, 1 Cor. 12.25. And therefore I should yelld to call both th • se ordinances signs memorative of Christ's death in the first place, and by consequence seals of the New Testament and its benefit • s, specially the Cup in the Lord's Supper. But this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments, much less of all Sacraments. Nor doth it any whit justify the determining of doubts of conscience, and so binding duties on men's consciences concerning mere positive rites without any institution of Christ, or Apostolical example, merely from this devised term, The Seal of the Covenant, and mal • ing it so necessary to be acknowledged, that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, as it were a necessary Article of Faith.

2. This term Seal of the Covenant, applied to these Sacraments, as being of their nature is, so far as my reading and memory reach, but a novel term, not used till the 16. Century, & in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans, at least not frequently. I grant the Ancients say, Men are sealed by baptism, and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism. And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration. But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace, but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism. The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith, as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance, and the Sacrament of Faith, in respect of the profession of Faith, as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19. observes when he saith, And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times, or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others, it is called the seal of faith, sealing of faith, of repentance, by Tertul. in his book of Repentance, and this sealing was not to assure a promise, but to strengthen and keep their faith or virtues. Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle, pag. 44, 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a pardoning of sins, but a seal of virtues ; and where Nazianzen calls • t a Seal, he expresseth it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a seal as keeping and noting dominion. No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace, applied either to Sacraments in general, or to baptism in special.

3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture, or the writings of the Ancients, yet it is against Logic to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus, and so to make it of its essence. For it is a rule in Logic, Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis, Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num. 126. Ita Aristot, Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect. 4. Keckerm. Syst. Logic. lib. 1. sect. cap. 8. Aristotle saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Every translated speech is doubtful till reduced to proper, for it may have divers senses. Besides, metaphors, or borrowed speeches, may be many, as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge, as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism, or a pawn, earnest, as well as a seal Chamier. Paust. Cath. tom. 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals, but nevertheless tending to the same, which we also do most willingly use. And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge, and from that metaphor infer, that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge, we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal follows the covenant. Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude, which cannot show what a Sacrament is, but what it is like; and therefore all metaphors are unfit to show the quid •• tative conceit of a thing, nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms, of which there is not in this case. Now to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant, is to define it by a metaphor, neither Baptism nor the Lord's Supper are Seals in proper acceptation, they make no visible figure or impression on the body, therefore to use the term thus is an abuse, much more when positions and duties are urged on men's consciences from it. I will subjoin Mr. Baxter's words in his Apology against Mr Blake, Sect. 64. pag, 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism, do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals; as being a thing not to be proved from the word; (for all Rom. 4.) But I am not of their mind, yet I think it is a Metaphor, and to make it the subject of tedious disputations, and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphorical notion, is the way not to edify, but to lose ourselves.

Lastly, were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients, and fit enough to express the general nature of Sacraments, yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied. For what is it to seal and not to confer grace, but only to assure? And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a moral instrument. But that is not done to infants, who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning, therefore this term [ Seal of the covenant ] beyond. [ sign of grace ] doth not take away the objection of Papists, Lutherans, or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism, it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants. And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous. These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed, and of the sealing, there being little agreement among Paedobaptists, whether the inward or outward covenant, the absolute or conditional be sealed, whether the sealing be absolute or conditional, to the Major, Minor, or Conclusion. I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First, whose words are commended by Mr. Pry ••• in his Suspension suspended, pag. 19, &c. • e saith, In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant itself, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen, and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it.

But 1. there's no Scripture that saith so: That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent: For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others, that were not true, he circumcised none, but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth, he was of the circumcision, that is, a Jew not a Gentile. Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true; but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God, that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministering the truth of God in his preaching, or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold. 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptness of itself, or by institution to seal this position, that the covenant of grace and all the promises of it are Yea and Amen. 3. Yet were it so, this sealing is not to Infants, who have no intelligence thereof, and so no confirmation thereof by baptism. 4. Nor doth this sealing anymore pertain to the children of believers, than unbelievers, it is but of the truth of the covenant in itself, not of any persons interest in it. 5. This is as well sealed by the baptism of others, yea by the baptism of any one deceased, most of all by Christ's baptism, as by each persons own baptism. 6. This sealing may be not only to them that are baptized, but to them that deny baptism, yea to Infidels, yea to Devils, who may and do believe the truth of the covenant itself, and all the promises of it to be Yea and Amen, and have it sealed as well to them by the baptism of a person as to the baptized, and better than to an infant. But perhaps Mr M. helps the matter in the second or third.

Answer. The spiritual condition is faith, so Ames Bell. enerv. tom. 3. l. 1. • . 1. q. 4. th. 11. Sacramenta non sunt testimonia completa & absoluta, nisi credentibus. Sacraments are not complete and absolute testimonies but to the believing. Now if the Sacraments seal only conditionally, they seal only this proposition, that he that believeth shall be justified, saved, &c. But this is all one with sealing the truth of the covenant in itself: nor doth this seal the baptized persons interest in the covenant anymore than the unbaptizeds; no more to the infants of believers than of unbelievers, not at all to any till they believe, and so to no infants ordinarily, and if then the baptizing of them must be derived from this interest and sealing of the covenant, either none are to be baptized till they do believe, or all alike are to be baptized. Besides, if Sacraments be but conditional signs, or testimonies incomplete, and conditional till persons believe, then they are but conditional incomplete Sacraments till a person believes, since to be a sign & seal is of the nature of a Sacrament; and if so, then infants have not a complete Sacrament or absolute, but an incomplete and conditional baptism, and consequently though the baptizer begin to baptize the infants, yet he cannot say he doth baptize them, but must wait till they be believers, and then he may say he baptizeth them, and gives them a complete Sacrament, and is bound to baptize them when they come to years whom he did wash in infancy, or else he mocks them, which is the mind of Christ indeed, that he that believeth should be baptized, and no other, Mark 16.16. Besides, whether there be any conditional sealing may be a uqestion. Mr. Baxter Apology against Mr Blake, Sect. 77. pag. 140. speaks of it as a strange thing useless and vain. But this I shall leave till I examine Mr. Baxter's exceptions against me about the condirional covenant and sealing, only I take notice of his words Sect. 79. pag. 141, A conditional seal is not a seal till the condition be performed, and infers, that if baptism be a conditional seal, it is no seal, and consequently no sacrament to an infant until he doth perform the condition.

Answer. It is true, God required that his covenant should be kept, which is expressed to be, That every man child among the Hebrews should be circumcised, Gen, 17.9, 10. but this was the duty of the parents, not of the infants, who were to be circumcised not to circumcise. And it is true, That all circumcised persons were by the eircumcision obliged to keep the Law. And if circumcision sealed this, its sealing of this was the sealing of a command not a promise of God, for they are not obliged to keep God's promise (that is the work of God alone) but his precept, so that this sealing is not of the covenant of grace at all: yea by this sealing obliging to keep the whole Law, the covenant of works is sealed rather than the covenant of grace, as the Apostles speech shows, Gal. 5▪2, 3, 4, And this sealing belongs to all infants and elder persons, for all are tied to perform the condition of the covenant, that is to repent and believe. And if hence be derived a title to baptism, either all are to be baptized because all are obliged to the condition of repentance and faith, or none are to be baptized but penitent & believing persons. To speak the plain truth, the right use of baptism is first to seal to God, testifying our repentance and faith by it, afore God seals to us by it any benefit of the covenant of grace. To conclude, Mr. M. hath not yet acquitted himself from putting a seal to a blank, which Mr Calvin counts a profanation of the Sacrament when he baptizeth an infant, who hath neither a promise of spiritual grace from God, nor doth perform the condition of the covenant, nor understand by baptism anything of the covenant, nor profess any accptance of the covenant, nor is or can be known to have any part in the covenant of grace, nor is there indeed anything but vanity in this discourse of Mr. M. or the Paedobaptists doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant of grace, and the interest of believers infants therein.

SECT. XXXII. The exceptions in my Examen, part 4. Sect. 5. against Mr Ms speeches about the covenant and conditional sealing, are made good against Mr. M. and Mr. Blake.

BUt that we may the better discern the vanity of Paedobaptists conceits about the seal and covenant, I shall inquire a little more into this point, in which I find much jangling and uncertainty among them. To which I conceive myself the more engaged, because some words of mine in my Examen, part 4. Sect. 5. gave some overture to Mr M. and after to Mr Bl. and Mr B. to except much against me about this point. Two things which I said in that passage, it seems, are not relished▪ one, that I said that God seals not to everyone that is baptized, but only to true believers; the other, that making God's promise in the covenant of grace conditional in this sense, that persons after agnize the covenant, and that to speak of it so as if it were common to the elect and reprobates, and conditional in this sense, as if God left it to men's liberty to whom he had sealed, to agn • ze or recognize that sealing, or to free themselves if they please, and so nullify all; yet so, as to afford them a while the favor and privilege of being in covenant with him, • s symbolizing with Arminians. To this Mr M. replied but little, yet what he saith in his Defense, pag. 236, I shall briefly answer. First, saith he, Was not Circumcision God's sign and seal, which by his own appointment was applied to all the Jews and proselytes, and their children?

Ans. Circumcision was appointed by God to be applied to all the Jews, & proselytes and their children being males of eight days old, and was by his institution a sign of the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. Abraham's own circumcision in his own person, was, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircum • ised, but that God did by Circumcision seal • o everyone the righteousness of faith who was rightly circumcised, I find not, nor if I did, should I think it were anything to prove that God seals the righteousness of faith to everyone that is baptized rightly, since I do not take circumcision and baptism to be all one, or to have the same use, or that baptism seals in the same manner as circumcision. Mr. M. adds, Did it engage God absolutely to everyone of them to write his law in their hearts, &c. Answer. No. And are not the Sacraments Signa conditionalia, conditional signs and Seals?

Answer. I conceive baptism, according to Christ's institution, to be a sign of the faith of the baptized, and so it is a sign absolute, and not conditional, and because the object of that faith is Christ dead and risen again, whereby we are justified, and baptism as fitted to mind the baptized of Christ's death, but all and resurrection, Rom. 6.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.12. it is in its nature, that is in its right use▪ apt to seal▪ that is to assure justification and salvation, 1 Pet. 3.21. and so may be termed in its nature a seal aptitudinall, but yet it seals actually to none but those who truly believe, which it doth absolutely in respect of justification, and coditionally in respect of glorification, which is not yet attained, nor to be attained but upon conditition of perseverance: yet it doth not seal that as an uncertain thing because conditional, for even the condition also is assured by virtue of the death of Christ confirming the covenant of grace, or the New Testament in his blood. But when I say these things are actually assured by baptism, I do not conceive they are actually sealed by God, not to the true believer without the inward testimony or seal of the spirit, without which God never sealed actually by his word or Sacraments these promises of the covenant of grace or the persons interest in them, although both the word of God, the oath of God, the death of Christ, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are in themselves, or in their nature aptitudinall seals, that is, apt signs to assure them. The like I say of the Lord's Supper, both which are alike signs and seals, neither to an infant without extraordinary operation. Mr M. adds,

And did any orthodox Divines before yourself, charge this to be Arminianism, to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions? I confess it is Arminianism to say anything is conditional to God, this I never asserted • , but that the Gospel is both preached, and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith, will pass for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and gone.

Answer. I never charged this to be Arminianism, That the Gospel runs upon conditions, that it is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith, according to the explication given. What I count symbolizing with the Arminians, I have before declared, to wit, God's conditional sealing and covenant common to elect and reprobates, as Mr M. in his Sermon seemed to conceive. To what I said that I did not well understand that God required of the Jews infants to seal in their infancy, I reply saith Mr M. But I hope you understand, that the infants were sealed in their infancy, and by this they received not only a privilege to be accounted as belonging to God's family, but it also obliged them to the several duties of the covenant, as they grew up to be capable of performing them.

Answer. I understand the Jews were circumcised in their infancy, but that God did seal to every circumcised infant, either the truth of the promises, or his interest in them, or that they did in infancy seal to God, I do not yet understand. For though they had the privilege mentioned, yet not by virtue of God's sealing to them, and though they were obliged to the duties mentioned, yet not by virtue of their sealing to God.

But Mr. Bl. and Mr, B. are more earnest in this point, and in opposition to what I said in my Examen, part 4. Sect. 5. in his Answer to my Letter Mr. Bl. ch. 15. asserts, Sect. 1.

And pag. 222. he chargeth me with two errors in Apology, and saith of them, I conceive these dangerous errors of Mr T. about the nature of the Covenant and Seals in general, are the root of his error about baptism, or at least much strengthen it, and there he takes upon him to refute them. Since that time Mr. Bl hath renewed his exceptions, Vindic grat. ch. 7. to which as touching upon Mr B. about the thing sealed, and manner of sealing, Mr B. hath replied in his Apology against Mr. Blake's Exceptions, Sect. 60, &c. pag. 115. Because of Mr Bs censure I have received the passages in Mr Blake's answer to my Letter, ch. 15. & in my Postscript Sect. 21. and leaving Mr. B. (who is no competent judge of my Writings, by reason of his prejudice against me and the cause I maintain) and others to conceive of my books as they please, I am not ashamed to profess, 1. That I discern no such true worth in Mr Blake's mentioned passages which open the nature of the covenant, but rather sundry that darken it, the showing of which now would be but a digression. 2. That there is not one of the three positions set down by Mr Blake, which doth contradict anything I said in my Examen, part 4. Sect 5. For I said not the Sacraments are Seals absolute, not conditional; but that God seals not upon condition persons agnize the covenant, as Mr M. said in his Sermon, pag. 49, nor did I deny, that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of i • , is common to elect and reprobate, but that God's covenant of grace, or as I said before, his promise in the covenant of grace, is common to the elect and reprobates, and this was it which I termed symbolizing with Arminians, not that which Mr. Blake sets down. 3. That I do not find that I have need to make any further reply to Mr. Blake therein, nor to the six arguments he brings, Vindic. Foed. ch. 7. to prove Sacraments sealing conditionally. And for the flings Mr Blake hath at some spe • ches of mine, I shall briefly return answer. Those words of mine, I like not to call the Sacrament a conditional Seal, for that which seals doth assure, and supposeth the condition▪ In my apprehension, that which is called conditional sealing, is not sealing, but offering or propounding, or representing: but about this I will not contend, Mr. Bl. leaving out the later words, thus oppose • h, Then our Lawyers have a long time decived us, who have given us presidents (as they call them) for obligations under seal, to run in these words; The condition of this obligation is such, and after an indication of the condition, to conclude and close up all: then this present obligation to be void and of none effect, or else to stand in full force and virtue: Seals we see leave the condition to me doubtful. Whereto I reply.

Neither I nor the Lawyers do deceive Mr Blake, but he deceives himself, the words of the president do intimate that the validity of the obligation is conditional, and is left doubtful, not that the seal is conditional, which doth absolutely assure or testify the obligation: or, as the Lawyers speak, the act and deed of him that seals, which is not future, but present, and so not conditional. Mr Baxter Apol. against Mr Blake Sect. 77. I never heard of nor knew a conditional sealing in the world, though I have oft heard of the effects of obligation and collation of right to be conditional, which are not only separate from the terminus proximus of sealing, but also are directly the effects of the covenant, promise, testament, &c. only, and but remotely of the seals, inasmuch as that seal is a full owning of the testament of conveyance: yet such a thing as a conditional sealing may be imagined. In a word, a conditional engagement, or obligation, is one thing, and frequent; a conditional seal, or sealing, is another thing but unknown. There are other things at me as calumniating Mr. M. concerning his words, as symbolizing with the Arminians, which I shall acqui • myself from in answering Mr B. and that Mr Bs questionist and myself are both of one pitch both for knowledge and ignorance, and stand equally affected to Mr. Bl. both in respect of his person and opinions ; which intimate as if he were persuaded I were that questionist, whom I profess to be unknown to me, and were disaffected to Mr. Blake's person, though I knew not wherein I have shown any disaffection to him, and for my knowledge or ignorance be it more or less, I hope it will appear in the conclusion, that God hath given me so much knowledge as to show the vanity of Mr Blake's and Mr Bs pleas for Infant-baptism. And for his flirt or scoff at the wide standing open of the door in my night Sacraments, I think my actions justifiable in celebrating the Lord's Supper at night as Christ did, with such notes as the Apostle made thereon in calling it the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11.20. and relating it so distinctly, v. 23, 25. My admitting none but bap •• zed persons after profession of faith, is justified by Mr Blake's own words, though somewhat misrepresenting my tenent, Vindic. Foed. ch. 23. nor do I admit any one other profession to baptism than was done in the first times by men who had the Spirit of God to guide them; and if any be baptized in the night, it's justifiable by Paul's action, Acts 16.33. His flings also which he hath, Vindic. Foed. ch. 17. p. 126. show the same Satirical vein, when he saith, I establish a new conditional covenant against the New Testament light, which I shall show I establish in that sense, I do it according to plain New Testament light, and censures these words, the not teaching one another spoken of, Heb. 8, 11. is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law, Apol. pag. 154. said somewhat Magisterially after my manner, whereas neither could I well dilate then being straitened in time, and the exposition of that place there was but on the by, and enough was said by me in those words answerably to the occasion, and I conceived understanding men would gather the reason of my interpretation from those few words, which is, that the new covenant being there declared cōtradistinct to that in Horeb, as the writing the laws in the heart is mentioned to distinguish it from the writing in stone, so the teaching is mentioned to distinguish it f • ō that obscure teaching which was under the Law, which I said not magisterially, nor anything else, as Mr. Bl. miscensures me. This is enough, if not too much to answer these flirts of Mr. Bl.

Fourthly, I add, That I find sundry passages in Mr. Bl. which seem to me to speak to the same purpose with my words, as Answer to my Letter, pag. 99. that Baptism assures actually when men do believe, pag. 102. out of Mr. Ball, They that be truly in covenant obtained the highest blessings, p. 106. This covenant of Jeremiah's is no more than that promise, Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou mayst love the Lord, &c. And his words Vindic. Foed. ch. 7. pag. 46. That the Sacrament doth actually seal to believers and penitent ones, are answered by Mr B. Apol. against Mr Bl. sect. 10. thus, I perceive Mr. T. and you are more of a mind than I was aware off.

SECT. XXXIII. That it is no error as Mr Baxter calls it, but a Truth, That the Covenant of grace is made only to the elect.

BUt that I may acquit myself of Mr. Bs charge of errors in these points, I shall answer first what he saith about my fifth imagined error, because as Mr. B. saith, Appendix to his Aphorisms, pag. 66. It is in vain to inquire whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally, till you first know well what it is that they seal. And here I think it needful to set down Mr Bs words against Mr, Bl. in his Apol. p. 103. Sect. 52. Arg. 17.

From whence I infer, 1, That Mr. B. had not cause to blame me for not disdaining Mr Blake's meaning when he understands him no better, 2, Nor to magnify his writing so much, in which he finds so many flaws. 3. Nor to rest so much upon an imagined ground of men's right to baptism by God's promise or covenant grant which the che • fest assertors of Paedobaptism cannot well tell what it is. 4. That by Mr Bs judgment there is no such outward covenant of God, as Mr Bl. and other Paedobaptists infer infant-baptism from▪ and for the inward covenant, or covenant of saving grace, Mr M. Mr G. and others, disclaim it as made to all the infants of believers. Let us view what Mr B. saith about the covenant sealed by baptism and its sealing. In his Confut. of my six imagined errors plain Scripture proof, &c. pag. 223, he thus speaks, Error • . Mr T. holdeth that the Covenant whereof Baptism is the seal, is the absolute covenant of grace made only to the elect. Confutation. Many more mistakes he utters in the way to this about the Covenant. This he publicly pleaded for in his Dispute, and alleged Dr. Twisse as affirming the covenant of grace to be absolute. To which I then answered, 1. That to thrust in men's names and words, when in disputation we are enquiring what the Scripture saith, was unseasonable and diverting. 2. That Dr. Twisse doth constantly in all his writings affirm, That the promises of remission of sin and salvation are conditional, though the promise of the grace [I will take the hard heart out of their bodies &c] is absolute. This I dare affirm as having read six of Dr Twisse his books again and again. And then he adds somewhat of Dr. Twisse, which I leave to others to answer as they shall see cause.

Answer. That Baptism is the seal of the covenant is not my expression, except when I speak in answer to Paedobaptists according to their mind, and in what seal and manner I allow it, I have said before. What I said of Dr Twisse in the disputation, was neither unseasonable nor diverting, nor untrue. The dispute was (so far as I can gather from my memory and the notes I have of the dispute) whe • her the words Deut. 29.13. did prove that God did make the covenant • here with all that are said to enter into covenant, which I • enied, and Mr. B. endeavored to prove from the words [ and that he may be to thee a God ] and from Deut. 30.6▪ where he promiseth to circumcise the heart of them and of their seed ; which I proved could not be, since the covenant of grace is made only to the elect, and it is absolute in that promise, I will write my laws in their hearts, which is the same with circumcising the heart, and so could not be meant of all that entered into covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12 (which Mr B. since acknowledge • h in his letter to Mr. Bedford when he saith thus, The Text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant estate but in their adult, Deut. 30.) but of the elect only, and in respect of that promise the covenant of grace is absolute, which I thought seasonable, no way diverting from the business to confirm by Dr. Twisse his authority, whose tenent Mr B. confesseth was, That the promise of the first grace [I will take the hard heart out of their bodies, &c.] is absolute. And to show that I did Dr. Twisse no wrong, I shall allege some words of his which I find in his Animadversions on Corvinus his Defense of Arminius against Tilenus, p. 235 Negamus Deum pacisci foedus gra • iae cum omnibus & singulis: dicimus hoc fieri solum cum electis: that is, We deny that God makes the covenant of peace with all and each, we say it to be made only with the elect. pag. 346. At foedus gratiae absolutum est; quod & nube testimoniorm divinorum comprobatum damus : that is, But the covenant of grace is absolute, which also we prove by a cloud of testimonies. But Mr. B. having given Dr Twisse a lash, on the by falls thus on me.

But Mr. T. his answer to me was, That the promise of saving grace is not conditional, and that though some parts of the covenant be conditional, yet it is all together that is called the covenant, the leading promise being not conditional, therefore the covenant is not conditional, and that it was a gross palpable error of me to say, That the promise of saving benefits was made to infants that were not • lest.

Answer. My answer is the same now that it was then, and having upon occasion of this charge, reviewed the notes of the dispute, which though very imperfect, I have yet by me, I find not but that in the greatest part of the dispute, I answered Mr. B. rightly, though he have most shamefully and unbrotherlike misrepresented me to the world, and made a noise in the world as if he had driven me to gross absurdities, which having acquitted myself from in my Pr • cursor, Sect. 17. he replies nothing to that Section, which I take to be a tacit confession of his unworthy abusing of me, And I do think it necessary to tell the world, that I find so little of brotherly love to me, or common ingenuity in his insolent carriages towards me at the Dispute, and his relations of me and of the Dispute in print, that I think I should have found better dealing from a Jesuit than from him. And though I take him to be a godly man, and an excellent Preacher and Writer in practical points, yet I find him to be but a superficial Disputer, and a slight interpreter of Scripture. But to the point.

Four things Mr. B. it seems mislikes in my answer, 1. That I said, That the promise of saving grace is not conditional. To declare myself more fully, it is requisite I should show what promise of saving grace I make not conditional. There is the saving grace of redemption, regeneration, justification, remission of sins, adoption, glorification. The condition imagined as presupposed to the promise of saving grace, that is, to the fulfilling of it, is either the well using natural abilities, as foregoing the promise of conversion and regeneration; or faith and repentance as foregoing justification, remission of sins, adoption, glorification. The promise of saving grace may be said to be conditional in respect of these later saving graces, and the conditions mentioned, yet in respect of the promisers intention and act in the event, certain, necessary, and infallibly to be performed by the person to whom the promise is made, and in this sense I grant the promise of saving graces conditional, that is, that God hath promised to none the saving graces of justification, remission of sins, adoption, but on condition of true repentance and faith; nor glorification but on condition of perseverance therein: yet that these conditions are not uncertain in the event, or left to the persons to whom the promise is made, to do by themselves, but by God's intention and actings certainly to be accomplished; or it may be said to be conditional, that is, • o as that the condition of any of these graces is made the well using natural abilities, or that the conditions of these later saving graces are uncertain in the event notwithstanding the promisers intention and acting, and thus I deny the promise of saving grace to be conditional. More briefly, I deny the promise of regeneration and conversion, to presuppose some well using our natural abilities, or that justification, remission of sins, adoption, glorification, are promised upon condition of our repentance, faith, obedience, perseverance, left by God to be performed by us, and not promised as certain in the event, which is the Arminian sense, yet deny that the promise of justification, remission of sins, is absolute, so as that God promiseth that an elect person shall be justified, or have remission of sins without a fore faith, which is charged on the Antinomians.

The second thing which Mr. B. mislikes in my Answer is, That though some parts of the Covenant be conditional, yet it is all together that is called the Covenant. But this speech if it be liable to exception, Mr. B. must except against the holy Ghost, who doth expressly call all together the covenant, Heb. 8.10. saying, This is the Covenant which I will make, and having recited all together, he adds, v. 13. in that he saith a new covenant. And the like is Heb. 10.16.

The third thing misliked in my answer is, And the leading promise being no • conditional, therefore the covenant is not conditional ▪ But there is no just cause of excepting against this, since • t is usual, and that according to a Logic Rule to determinate from the more famous part, or chief part, as a visible Church is called Holy, or of Saints, even in Scripture, 1 Cor. 1.2. from the better part, a field of corn where is much tare. Do not Paedobaptists usually call the covenant Gen. 17. the eovenant of grace, though there be other promises than of saving grace, and what promise is made of saving grace there▪ is made under the covert of words expressing other things. And to show that there is reason for what I said, I urge, 1. That the promise of writing the Laws of God in the heart, Heb. 8.10▪ is not only the leading promise, but also it is the comprehensive promise, including or inferring all the rest, for therefore God will be a God to them, be merciful to their unrighteousness, because he will write his Laws in their heart; to those and those only he promiseth the later to whom he promised the former. Yea, it seemeth to be the principal thing God aimed at in the new Covenant, to assure that he would not write his laws in stone as he did before, but write them in their heart. 2. That where Zacharias mentions God's holy Covenant, and the oath he sware unto Abraham, Luke • .72, 73. he puts it to be in this (which I take to be absolute) that he would give to us, that being delivered from the hand of our enemies, without fear we should serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life, v. 73, 74 75.

The fourth thing misliked in my answer is, that I said, That it was a gross palpable error of Mr. B. to say that the promise of saving benefits was made to Infants that were not elect. If I understand Mr. M. he counted it a gross error, when he disclaimed this asser • ion, That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their natural seed. Defense of his Sermon, pag. 116. and Mr. G. when in his Vindic. P •• dob p. 12. he said of this conclusion, that infants are taken into covenant with their parents in respect of saving graces, You know the conclusion in that sense is so manifestly against Protestants principles and experience, that no Protestant can hold it But Mr. B. it's like will not be convinced by men's sayings, let us try what we can do by Arguments

1. The promise of saving benefits is made only to those to whom saving benefits are bestowed: But to elect infants only they are bestowed. Ergo. The Major is manifest to them that acknowledge God to be true and faithful, it being manifest falsehood and unfaithfulness to promise and not to perform. But it is certain by experience and Scripture that God saves none but the Elect. Therefore it is a gross and palpable error as charging God with lying to say, that his promise of saving benefits is made to infants not elect.

12. This is proved directly from the Apostles words, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. which also strengthens the former argument, where he concludes that the promises of God must be understood as made to them only to whom they were performed, otherwise the word of God should fall, which he abhors as blasphemy. But I argue further thus.

To them only is the promise of saving benefits made, who are children of that promise, that God would be a God to them in respect of saving benefits, for to be the children of the promise there is manifestly meant of those to whom the promise of being God is meant, Gen. 17.7. as is proved before, Sect. 28, 29. which the Apostle in that chapter understands of saving benefits, which I think will not be denied; if it were, it might be proved from v. 8, &c. But the elect only are children of the promise, this is proved before, Sect. 28, 29, and might be proved from v. 11. Ergo.

3. I further argue from the same place; If any other than the elect infants had the promise of saving benefits made to them; then all the natural seed of Abraham, for no infants besides the elect, had more promises of saving benefits than they: But they all had not the promise of saving benefits made to them, the Apostle determines, that the promise was to Ishmael not Esau, but only to Isaac and Jacob, That the purpose of God according to election might stand, or be of him that calleth, whom he will for the seed, v. 11. Therefore the promise of saving benefits is made only to elect infants.

To the Allegation of this text, I find something said by Mr. B. in his plain Scripture proof. &. Part. 2. chap. 1. 1. There is no strong appearance of contradiction in this to what we have taught. For I willingly acknowledge, that they are not therefore the children of God, because they are the seed of Abraham, or others that were godly, but because they are the children of the promise.

But Mr. B. c • ean mistakes the Apostles speech, for he conceives that all the natural seed of Abraham were yielded to be the children of God, but not because children of the flesh, bu • because children of the promise, as if he granted the thing, but denied the reason, whereas the Apostle denies the thing itself, affirming, that all the seed of Abraham, were not the children of God, Rom. 9.7, 8, and contradisting the children of the promise to the children of the flesh, which were non-sense if they were the same, and no distinction or opposition between them. As if a man say, not all natives but free-men are Citizens, he supposeth all natives are not freemen, and denies all natives who are not free-men, to be Citizens

Mr B. adds, I pray you observe, 1. That which the Apostle here pleadeth, is, That salvation was not by the Covenant tied to all Abraham's seed. To which I reply, This grants what I would evi • ce, that the promise of saving benefits was not to all Abraham's seed, but only to the elect of them. But yet sa • th Mr. B. he denieth not but Church-membership did for the time past belong to the generality of them. Now it is not the certain salvation, but the Church-membership of Infants that we are disputing for (in regard of the individuals

Answer. Though it be the Church-membership of infants which Paedobaptists dispute for, and not the certain salvation, yet they would infer their Church-membership from that Covenant which was a Covenant of salvation as it was Evangelical. And this Mr. B. must yield, who in the words forecited against Mr. Bl. denies an outward covenant giving right to the Seals, and asserts, A right to Baptism as it is a benefit given directly by God from his promise, or covenant Apol. against Mr Bl. p. 80▪ which is no other than of saving grace, by which if salvation be not tied to all Abraham's seed, then that covenant is not the ground of their Church-membership, and right to the initial seal, and consequently not to our infants, for take away the Cause, the effect is removed, & so this text is directly against infant-baptism and Church membership. Mr. B. adds,

2. The Apostle disputeth not against the salvation or Church-membership of everyone of Abraham's seed; (for many of his seed were after this saved) but against the salvation of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim. But now Anabaptists dispute against the Church-membership visible of any infants.

Answer. If the Church-membership visible of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim of Abraham be asserted (as it is by Mr. B. ) from that covenant which the Apostle denies to belong to the whole seed or posterity conjunctim (which Mr B. grants) he disputeth for the Anabaptists against the imagined visible Church-membership of all infants of true believers.

Answer. Mr. B. in his pass • ge shows, he neither understood the Apostles scope nor answer, but according to his overly manner of handling Texts, perverts both. I grant that from the Apostles words it followeth, That men are not therefore saved because they are Abraham's seed, and consequently not because they are the carnal seed of any other. But it is manifest, and acknowledged by all Interpreters almost I m • et with, that the Apostles scope is to answer an objection as the words v. 6. show, That if the Jews were rejected the word of God to Israel and Abraham's seed falls; which shows, that the objectors did not conceive God by covenant tied to save all Abraham's seed, and Israel, because he had by covenant tied himself to be a God to Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. and therefore Paul did not rightly suggest, Rom. 9 1, 2, 3. as if they should be rejected. The clearing of • he consistency of these two things, the truth of God's promise, Gen. 17.7., and the Apostles intimation that the Jews should be cast away, was his scope, not that which Mr. B. imagines the Apostle mainly drives at, to show why the Jews are saved, for the Apostle supposeth that they should not be saved, and to maintain it, answers the objection. Whence also it may be perceived, that Mr. B. quite perverts the Apostles answer: For he makes it to be this, 1. That the Apostle doth not say, or mean, Abraham's seed should not be saved, whereas it's the very occasion of the objection, that he determined that a great part, or the body or people of the Jews, who were Abraham's seed, were then rejected, as his words show, Rom. 9.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 31▪ & 10, 1, 2, 3, 21. & 11.7.15.17.20, &c. and the Gentiles taken for God's people in their stead: the searching of which was the great quarrel the Jews had against Paul ▪ so that Mr B. makes Paul not to say that which he did teach, and plainly intimated in that very place. 2. That he only says, that Abraham's carnal seed were saved, not because they are his seed, but because they are children of the promise, which is both contrary to the Apostles suppositions, which is, that they are not saved, and that because they are not children of God, nor children of the promise, though children of the flesh, and impertinent to the removing of the objection concerning the rejection of the Jews, how it could stand with God's promise. For the answer as Mr. B. makes it, had no way justified God's truth, but strengthened the objection, if it were supposed they were children of the promise, whom yet Paul counted for castaways. Nor do the Apostles words say the children of the flesh are saved though not because they are Abraham's seed, but that they are not the children of God, who were only children of the flesh, not children of the promise, nor counted for the seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7. was made at all, as it was Evangelical. As for what Mr. B. alledgeth, That the Jews shall be again called, and so all Israel be saved, Rom. 11. and therefore the Apostle doth not say, or mean, that Abraham's seed should not be saved, it is inconsequent, si • h the Apostle might and did suppose the present should not be saved though hereafter the Jews shall; it follows on the contrary, he supposed the present Jews should be rejected, because he speaks of the calling and salvation of the Jews, was a thing future, yet not till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, in the mean time he saith, blindness happened to them in part. And what he saith, that God hath been pleased to make the promise to the faithful and their seed, he neither showeth where that promise is, nor do I know where to find it, nor where he promiseth to take them to be a people to him, and that he will be to them a God, and for what he alledgeth, that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed, and that God will be merciful to them, how little they make for the visible Church membership of G • ntile believers infants, will be shown in answering Chap. 21, 22,, of the first part of his Book. And for God's pronouncing them holy, he is fully answered, Antipoedob, part 1. Sect. 23 • &c. It follows in Mr. B.

Answer. There is little truth in this passage, Paul speaks, Rom. 9, 6. 7, 8, &c. against the being in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. of Abraham's and Isaac's natural seed, and therefore by consequence against the Church membership and Baptism of believers children by virtue of that covenant being made to them, and he excludes Esau before he was born, and therefore other than aged believers, and if Esau the son of Isaac, no Apostate, were out of the covenant, and declared so afore he was born, then had he died in infancy, he had not been saved, and so there is more than a Syllable in this Text against him, who should affirm, That all the infants of the faithful so dying, are certainly saved ; for this Text affirms some infants of the most holy believers, are not in covenant, and if not in covenant, not certainly saved, but certainly reprobate. The children of those who fall not away, have no such privilege, that they do certainly belong either to the invisible or visible Church. If there may be infant-children of believers who may be children of the flesh and not children of the promise, then the promise of saving benefits is not made to any other than the elect, for sure it is made to none other of other believers, if it be made only to the elect ones of Abraham and Isaac. I go on.

4. The promise which is in Christ Yea and Amen, is made only to the Elect, for it is not Yea and Amen to any other, since it is not ratified & accomplished to any other. But the promise of saving benefits is in Christ Yea and Amen, for so are as many promises as are in Christ, 2 Cor. 1.20. and such is the promise of saving benefits. Ergo.

5. Those promises which were made to Christ, were made only to the Elect, for whether Christ personal be meant the promises were made to him only for those whom he represents, and they are only the elect, or Christ's mystical body that is his Church they are the elect only: But the promise of saving benefits made to Christ, Gal. 3.16. Ergo.

6. The promise which is of the Covenant confirmed unto Christ, is only to the elect: But such is the promise of saving benefits, Gal 3.17. Ergo.

7. The promise which is of eternal life ▪ is made only to the elect: But such is the promise of saving benefits, Tit. 1.2. Ergo.

8. To whom the promise of saving benefits is made, are Heirs of the Promise : But they are only to the elect, for to the Heirs of promise God's counsel is shown to be immutable for their salvation, Heb. 6.17. But so it is only to the elect. Ergo.

9. Those promises by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature, are made only to the elect: But such are the promises of saving benefits, 2 Pet. 1.4. Ergo.

10. The promise of that Covenant is made only to the elect, of which Christ is surety, for Christ's sureti • hip engageth him to perform it, and he performs it only to the elect, therefore he is surety of the covenant only for the elect: But the promise of saving benefits is of that covenant of which Christ is surety, Heb. 7.22. Ergo.

11. That covenant which is confirmed by Christ's blood, is made only with the elect, for it was shed for them only. But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Matth 26 28. Ergo.

12. That covenant which is different from the first covenant in that it is not an occasion of complaint in that it was broken, and they continued not in it, is made only to the elect: But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Heb. 8.7, 8, 9. Ergo.

13. The covenant which engageth God to write his laws in the hearts of those to whom it is made, • s made only to the elect, for God doth this only to them: But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Heb. 8.10. & 10.16. Ergo.

14. The covenant of which Christ is Mediator, is made only to the elect. for he is mediator for them only, since he prays for them only, John 17.9, And he is Mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Heb. 9.15. But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace, Heb. 12.24 Ergo.

15. That covenant which is an everlasting Covenant, is made only to the elect, for the covenant with reprobates is not everlasting. But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Heb. 13.20. Ergo

16 That in which are given the sure mercies of David, is made only to the elect, for no other have them given to them: But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Isa. 55.3. Ergo.

17. That covenant which engageth God to give to them to whom it is made, deliverance from all enemies, and to serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of their life without fear, is made only to the elect, for to them only God performs it: But such is the covenant of grace, Luke 1.73, 74, 75. Ergo

That covenant which assures perseverance to them to whom it was made, is made only to the elect, for they only persevere: But such is the new covenant of grace, Isa. 54▪9, 10. Jer. 32▪40. Ergo.

19. If the covenant of grace be made with other than the elect, then it is the absolute or condi • ionall covenant, as Mr B. distinguisheth; but neither: Not the first, as Mr B. confess • h; nor the conditional, for it is made only with believers, and they are only the elect. I grant it is propounded, as Dr Twisse speaks, Animad. in Corinth. Defens. pag. 235▪ or as others say, offered or tendered to others, but made with the elect. Ergo.

If the covenant of grace be made to any other than to the elect, then with all, which seems to be Mr. Bs opinion, when he saith, Plain Scripture Proof, &c. pag: 316, The new Covenant is conditional and universal. But it is not made withal. That covenant which was made with all, had Adam for the common head, but the new covenant was not made with Adam as the common head, but with Christ who is given for a covenant of the people, Isai. 49.8. and therefore rhe promise was, that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head, Gen. 3.15. which Mr B most corruptly interprets, Of the whole seed of the woman, infants as well as others. Plain Scripture proof, &c. part. 1. Chap. 24. pag. 69, but it is true primarily or only of Christ, Heb. 2.14. But Christ is not a common head to all, but only to the elect, who are chosen in him, Eph. 1.3, 4. Ergo

I omit the Arguments which Doctor Twisse urgeth in his Animadversions on Corinus, pag. 346. Answer to M. Hoard, pag. 283.286. Doctor Kendall, Vindic. part 3. ch. 18▪ pag. 14, 15, and hasten to consider what Mr B. saith further against me.

Answer. 1. If any Antinomian or Antipaedobaptist hath been in this age a verier hot-spur than Mr B. let him be disciplined at Bedlem : For my part I know none that hath in his Writings shown so much heat (call it fury or zeal as you please) with so much confidence and peremptoriness, and so many mistakes against Antinomians, Antipaedobaptists, and others, as he ha • h don. And surely they want not considerate men that fear lest the esteem he • a • h gotten by his practical Writings, and for infant-baptism, and the Ministry, may occasion the swallowing down of some things he vents about univers • ll redemption, universal covenant of grace, uncertainty of perseverance, and salvation, the condition of justification, which with • ut more than a grain of salt will turn to A • miniani • m and Popery if received by such understandings as are not of good concoction. Nor do I know any man who under so great a show of se • king truth and peace in the Church, hath more hindered both. For tha • wh • ch he saith, That this opinion that the covenant of grace is only to elect, and is n • t conditional, is one of the pillars of Antinomianism. I have made some search into my books, and made use of my memory, and though I find that in the Synod at New Town in New England, August 30, 1637, this is made the 81 Error of the Antinomians, That where faith is held forth by the Ministry as the condition of the • ovenant of grace on man's part, as also evidencing justification by sanctification and the activity of faith, in that Church there is not sufficien • bread And in other books they are charged wi • h error in holding the covenant of grace absolute, so as if by it men were exempted from duty, they were justified without faith, &c. Yet I never to my remembrance heard th • s charged with Antinomianism, that the covenant of grace is made only to the elect, but find it avouched by many of their best Antagonists; and the covenant of grace is held by able Anti-Arminians unconditionall in th • se two senses, 1. That God requires no condition from us to be performed by our power, but what he requires of us to do, he promiseth to works in those to whom he makes promise in that covenant. 2 That in the covenant of grace God requires no condition which is of an uncertain event, but to those to whom he makes his promises of righteousness, forgiveness, eternal life, he also by covenant assures repentance, faith, and perseverance: and therefore though some proposals of the covenant of grace be conditional, yet no promise as it stands in the entire covenant, is conditional: and therefore the covenant and all the promises to be termed absolute and conditional.

Answer. What Mr Blake asserted and took upon him to prove, did neither contradict what I said, nor vindicate Mr M. who said in his Sermon pag. 49.1. That God did seal to Infants presently, and put their name into the Deed. 2. That in the mean time until they come to years of discretion, Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant, Heb. 7.22. and the surety of all the covenanters, is pleased to be their surety. 3. That God accepts of such a seal on their parts as they are able to give in their infant age, expecting a future ratification on their part, when they are come to riper years. 4. That in the mean time he affords them the favor and privilege of being in covenant with him. 5. When they are grown men, they may refuse to stand to this covenant, and nullify all.

These things I count symbolizing with Arminians, to say that infants who may and do when they come to age, refuse to stand to this covenant, are for a while afforded by God the favor and privilege of being in covenant with him, even in that covenant of which Jesus Christ is their surety, and that for a while Jesus Christ is their surety which contains three points of Arminianism, 1. That God affords them the favor of being in covenant with him in that covenant of which Christ is surety, who are reprobates. 2. That Christ is their sure • y. 3. That they may be thus in covenant for a time only. To say that any is afforded the favor of being in covenant with God who may be so for a time, and that Christ is surety for such covenanters, is to hold that God makes this new covenant with other than the elect, and that Christ is surety for them, is to hold that the new covenant is made with all, and that it doth not assure effectual calling and perseverance, but is upon an uncertain condition left to man's will, which are condemned as the Arminians errors on the second and fifth Articles, by the Deputies of Gelderland Act Synod. Dordr. Judic. Theol. Prov. pag. 131. Of South-Holland pag. 141, 142. Of North-Holland▪ pag 154. Of Zealand, pag. 159. Of Virecht, pag. 162, 163, 171. Of Friesland, pag. 181, &c. Profess. Belg▪ pag. 30 • ▪ Dispute. G • ld. pag. 324. Transisul. pag. 371, and others.

And whereas Mr. Bl. Vindic Foed. pag. 39. chargeth me with misci • ing Corvinus, I confess I have not now his book by me, having lost it, yet such remaining notes as I have by me, do give me cause to think there is somewhat to that purpose in or near the place, and however it is carried on, Corvinus by the Deputies at the Synod of Dort, in his Defense of Arminius against Tilenus, and by Dr. Twisse in his Animad▪ pag. 346. and generally charged on the Arminians by other Authors forecited: And though I count Mr M. far from Arminianism, yet I again say, the speeches he used do symbolize with their language. Mr. B. adds,

He that will deny Reprobates to be so far within the covenant of grace, must not only deny Infant-baptism, but all Sacraments, till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be elect. And doubtless this interest in the covenant is • fruit of Christ's death.

Answer. I deny not but Reprobates may be in the covenant of grace in this sense, they may have it tendered to them by the preachers of the Gospel, they may accept of that tender with half an heart, they may think themselves to be in it, they may by baptism engage themselves to believe unto the death, they may be received into the Church, deemed to be really in the covenant of grace▪ But it is not true that God ever made the new covenant to or with them, or that Christ as a mediator brought them into the covenant of grace • or was surety of them, or that God afforded them for a time the favor of being in covenant with him. And though I deny not that it is a fruit of Christ's death, that whosoever believeth on him should live, yet that this is not obtained for the reprobate, but the elect; nor a part by itself, but together with this, that he should gather into one the Children of God that were scattered abroad, John 11, 52. And that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Heb. 9.15. Nor need I by these assertions of mine deny Baptism or the Lord's Supper to any man till I be able to discern him infallibly to be a man elect. For I have warrant to baptize him if he show by his profession that he is a Disciple of Christ, and though I knew infallibly he were one of those whom God would save, and had promised saving grace to him, and in that sense were in the covenant of grace, yet for the present not a D • sciple, I should justifiably refuse to baptize him. And this is a sufficient plea why we baptize not infants of believers, because they are not then Disciples, no not though it could be proved God had promised to be their God.

Mr. B. adds, Mr T. one day in the pulpit in pleading that the covenant belonged only to the elect, was pleased to bring me in as witnessing thereto, in the Append. of my Aphor. pag. 43. because I there say, that the absolute promise, or prophesy there mentioned is made only to the elect; when yet only the very scope of the place is to prove that it is not the absolute promise that is most fitly called the Covenant of grace.

Answer. My alleging Mr Bs words was right and pertinent: For they acknowledged the promise Heb. 8.10, to be absolute, and to the elect only, which was enough for my purpose, and this the Author of that Episte calls the new Covenant or Testament, and however, Mr Bs conceit is I have proved before the holy Ghost doth make it to be the Covenant of God, and therefore I deem it fitly be called the covenant of grace, choosing to speak as the Scripture speaks, rather than as Mr B. conceives sittest.

SECT. XXXIX. Mr Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or covenant is not it that i • sealed in Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

HE adds, But that this absolute Promise, or Covenant (if you will call it so) is not it that is sealed in Baptism and the Lord's Supper, I prove against Mr T. thus, clearly.

Answer. He should prove nothing against me though he should prove neither the absolute nor conditional promise to be sealed in baptism and the Lord's Supper. For though it be true, that in some sense I grant Baptism and the Lord's Supper to seal the covenant of grace, yet in the sense and to the purposes Paedobaptists use to say the covenant is sealed by them, I reject it, and can freely yield that the use uf Baptism and the Lord's Supper is not to seal God's Covenant either absolute or conditional to us, except by remote consequence, but to signify our duty of engaging ourselves to be Christ's Disciples in Baptism, and to remember his death in the Lord's Supper. But Mr Bs dispute in this is against himself, in that his arguments will overthrow his own assertion of infant-baptism, and against his fellow Paedobaptists, who make baptism to seal the promise of Regeneration from Titus 3.5, and the promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed from Gen. 17.7. which the Apostle Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. makes absolute, and appropriates to the elect. I need not cite again Paedobaptists speeches, making baptism the seal of Regeneration, and of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. having cited before, Sect. 30, sundry, to wit, the Assembly in the Directory, Mr M &c. In the Assembly at Westminster their confession of faith, chap. 28. Baptism is ordained by Jesus Christ to be to the baptized a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of Regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life. Artic. 27 of the Church of England. Baptism is a sign of Regeneration or Newness, whereby as by an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are graffed into the Church, the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed. In the French Confess. Artic, 35. By Baptism, as by a certain and stable seal, this promise is sealed, that Chri • t will be to us sanctification and justification. In Mr Gatakers two books against Dr Davenant, there are so many passages out of the chiefest Protestant Writers which do make baptism the sign and seal of Regeneration, and of the promise of it, that it would be tedious to transcribe them, I shall point at some pages wherein they may be found. Discept. de vi bapt. infant. pag. 23, 52, 110, 117, 1 • 8. Strict. in Daven. Ep. pag. 76, 77, 78. There is one passage which he cites often out of Vorstius, That the Gospel Preachers are wont to acknowledge one only general effect of Baptism, to wit, the sealing of a double saving grace promised in the Gospel concerning the remission together and the purging out of sins by the Blood and Spirit of Christ, which is by inward renovation, which is absolutely promised. Yea Mr Gataker, a man deservedly much valued by Mr B. Discept. de bapt. infant. saith, That Baptism doth equally if not primarily design internal renewing, regeneration, mortification, quickening, which in that sign are not only most clearly shadowed, but also painted, both the thing itself doth loudly speak, and the holy Scripture doth most expressly, Rom. 6.3, 6. Col. 2.11, 12. Tit 3.5. Eph. 5 25. And though all express not the sealing of regeneration alike by baptism, some placing it in the assuring to the conscience, some in the giving of title, some of regeneration already given, some of regeneration to be attained in time, yet all make i • the seal of that covenant wherein God promiseth it, and do commonly distinguish it from the Lord's Supper, which they make the seal of growth as they do baptism, of new-birth and entrance into the Church. So Mr M. in his Sermon, p. 43, 51. But let us hear what Mr B. opposeth,

Answer. According to my own judgment I use not to te • m Sacraments Seals of the Covenant, nor did I urge Mr Bs words otherwise than as an Argument ad homin • m, to prove from his own words, that infants have not baptism rightly according to his own grants. 1. because there is no restipulation on infants part, therefore there is no covenant properly so called between God and them, and so baptism of infants is not a seal of a covenant, and consequently according to the supposition of Paedobaptists, no Sacrament. 2▪ Baptism is saith Mr B. a mutual engaging sign or seal, as it is given it is God's seal, as i • is accepted it is our: But in infant-baptism there is no mutual engagement or signing. Infants promise nothing, nor sign or accept of anything, Ergo infant-baptism is not, according to Mr Bs own grants, right; nor are these objections avoided by saying the parents covenant for them: for neither is there any the least ground o • hint in Scripture that for baptismall covenanting the parents covenant should go for the child's covenant, nor do in the practice of baptizing the parents restipulate though they declare their faith, and if they should promise or engage for the child, they should sin, and so should and have those that have promised as sureties the infant should believe and obey Christ, which they have not been able to perform, but have taken on them Christ's prerogative, Heb. 7.22. Nor is the baptism of the infant his sign or seal, he being merely passive, as they say, and so doing no act, nor engaging thereby, and if the parent do engage for the child, the parent should be baptized for the child, if baptism be the baptized party his seal. But as I said, I do not call baptism a seal of the covenant, and therefore am not tied at all to answer this Argument, except to show the fuci • ity of it. For which end, 1. the mann • r of speech is liable to exception in the use of the term Proper Covenant ] which I imagine Mr. B. useth unskilfully for Properly so called. 2. There is no proof of the Major, from this, that Baptism or the Sacrament is a mutual engaging sign or seal. For that proves rather that baptism or the Sacrament itself is a proper covenant, than that, that which is sealed by the Sacraments is a proper Covenant. 3. Nor doth it follow, That if the very definition of a proper Covenant be, that it must be a mutual engagement, that which is sealed by the Sacraments must be a proper covenant, but only proves that upon supposition, that the covenant sealed to by the Sacraments, must be a proper covenant, that then it must be with restipulation or mutual engaging. 4. though Lawyers do determine that a covenant properly so called, is a mutual engagement, yet this proves not that which in Scripture is termed the covenant which they say baptism seals, is such. Yea, in all the places (that I know) where the covenant of grace is mentioned, there is no restipulation at all mentioned, neither Gen. 17. nor Jer. 31. nor Luke 1. nor Heb. 8 & 10. But where there is a restipulation, it is rather the covenant of the Law than of the Gospel. 5. That which is a mere prophesy or promise, is as properly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we translate Covenant, as a mutual engagement, as I shall show hereafter against Mr. Bl. 6. Nor do I know why that may not be a mutual engagement if the absolute promise were sealed to by the Sacrament as well as if the conditional. For if the engagement in the conditional covenant on God's part is, that if he believe he shall be justified; and on man's part, that he will believe: or rather in baptism he testifies, he doth believe. The absolute promise is to give faith: Is not God and Man in like manner engaged by baptism in sealing this as well as the other? 7. I know not how it can be truly said, That Baptism as given is God's seal, and as accepted Mans seal. For neither doth God give baptism to be accepted but his promise, nor is the baptized said to accept baptism, but the promise. Nor is there any act of God which may be called his Seal, but he covenants, and I presume they will not confound Covenant and Seal. 8. Nor doth the infant accept, or seal, or engage, and therefore in infant-baptism there is no covenant or seal. 9 By this description of Mr. B. there should be a mutual seal, and so a several seal, and not baptism God's and Mans seal too. For according to the manner of sealing Covenants which are mutual as the one party seals with his own seal, so the other party seals with his own distinct seal; and so if baptism be God's seal, the party bap • ized should have another seal to signify his engagement. 10. Mr. B. tells me, that Grotius de jure belli, and other Lawyers will inform me, that the very definition of a proper Covenant is, that it must be a mutual engagement. But he doth not tell me where it is in Grotius, nor in what other Lawyer. I have lightly looked over the • 1. Chapter of the second book of Grot. de jure belli ac pacis, which is, de promissis, and some other following, and find not that which Mr. B. saith, but find ch. 11. sect. 5. that he determines that of an infant is no promise, because the use of reason is required to a promise, and therefore in infant-baptism there is no restipulation or mutual engagement, and so no proper covenant by Mr B. his doctrine. But what ever other Lawyers say, I am mistaken if it be not usual with the Lawyers in conveyances to use this expression, That the seller is said to covenant to and with such a person, who makes no restipulation or reciprocal engagement. And both in the Scottish covenant, and in our solemn League and Covenant, I find covenanters engaged to do many things without any restipulation or reciprocal engagement, and therefore do not conceive it necessary to a covenant that it be a mutual engagement, or with restipulation. Mr. B. adds,

2. If it were the absolute promise of the first grace that is sealed by the Sacraments, then the Sacraments must be given to no man, or to all men: but that is absurd, therefore so is the former. The consequent is manifest, because that absolute promise or prophesy is only of the elect, and that before regeneration. Now no man hath any sign given him, so much as probable by which to judge of the unregenerate elect, so that it must either be given to all or none.

Answer. The whole frame of this Argument depends on these mistakes, 1. That a person hath title to baptism by virtue of its interest in God's covenant of grace, and that accordingly a Minister is to baptize. 2. That a probable sign of such interest warrants the baptism of the party so interested, which I have often proved to be false, and that nothing but manifest discipleship certainly known to the baptizer, warrants him to do it. And indeed if we must baptize according to that rule of persons interest in the covenant, probably signified. Salvages in New England are to be baptized upon the probable signs they give of being wrought upon by a Sermon afore they know and profess the faith of Christ, and few or no infants are baptized, there being either no sign given to any man of their being in covenant, or at most but of very few of the baptized.

Mr. B. Ap. to his Aphor. p. 70. If a Minister adventure to administer it upon probability, then should he be guilty of proph • ning the ordinance.

3. Saith Mr B. Or we may argue thus: It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments. But it cannot be known (before the fulfilling, no not at all) to whom (particularly) that absolute promise doth belong; therefore that abs • lut promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments.

Answer. 1. By denying the Major. 2. By retorting the argument thus, It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments: But it cannot be known ordinarily in this to whom (particularly) the conditional promise of the covenant of grace belongs, for to none (particularly) besides the elect belongs the promise of justification, adoption and glorification. Therefore the conditional promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments.

Answer. The consequence of this argument may be denied, and the reason of it also: For according to the Apostle, Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised; Rom 4▪11. If then the sealing of the covenant of grace by baptism be the same with the sealing of the righteousness of faith by circumcision, Rom. 4.11 (which is the common tenent of many Paedobaptists, who from this Text draw a definition of Sacraments, though falsely, as is shown before) then the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed, is given before the first sealing. Yea, if the conditional covenant be sealed to believers now, justification which is the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed▪ is given before the first sealing. For a man is justified actually as soon as ever he believes, as I am confident Mr. B will grant: Bu • he is not regularly baptized till after his believing, therefore a believer is justified, and consequently the mercy promised in the first covenant which is sealed, is given before the first sealing, That all after grace is promised conditionally, is said by Mr. B. without proof, and how inconsistent it is with the promises of perseverance, how much it undermines the doctrine of the Saints perseverance, how it disables the godly to plead the promises, and takes away their comforts when they are sensible of their f • i • ings, if the after graces of recove • y after fall • s, and perseverance to the end, be promised condi • ionally, I need no • show it here, • i • h Dr. Owen hath done it amply in his Treatise of Perseverace, ch. 4▪ 5, &c. Dr. Kendall in his sancti sanciti, ch. 3. and wou • d be here a digressi • n▪

5. Saith Mr. B. The benefits of the Covenant of grace which are sealed by the Sacraments, are (by those of age) to be received by faith. But the benefits of the absolute promise of the first grace are not to be received by faith: Therefore this is not the covenant of grace so sealed. The Major is evident: Mr. T. saith, only believers must be baptized as disciples: The Minor is proved before. Faith is part of the thing promised, and we do not by faith receive our first faith, or our power to believe.

Answer. It is not I only, but Mr. B. himself, who speaks in effect what I say, Plain Script. pr • of, &c. pag. 299, • 00. of the first edition when he saith,

I acknowledge he puts in these words [ for the aged at all age ] by which he would prevent the inference from his own words against infants baptism, intimating that there are an institution and examples of infant baptism elsewhere. But this is but a vain caution, when his own proposition is, That in the institution & every example of baptism through all the Bible, the first grace (to wit Faith) is prerequisite as a condition, is undeniable. So that which he intimates in his caution, is contradictory to himself, and a palpable falsehood, there being no other institution or example of baptism to any but disciples or believers in all the Bible; and therefore baptism of infants who are not believers or disciples, is a manifest abuse, deviation from Christ and his Apostles appointment and practice, by Mr. B. his own words, and consequently will-worship and profanation of that ordinance. As for the present objection, I deny the Major if it be universal, though Mr. B. saith, it is evident, but proves it not, nor doth any concession prove i • . For though I grant persons are to be believers afore baptism, yet it doth not follow that the benefits of the covenant of grace, which is sealed by the Sacraments, are to be receive • d by fa • th, and not before. It is Mr. B. his mistake, that the promise to which there is sealing, must be fulfilled af • er and not before. The contrary is manifest in Abraham's circumcision, in baptism as I shown before, and in the Lord's Supper. For even in that very instant of Mr. B. Plain Script proof, &c. pag. 296. to prove the Sacrament to be a mutual engaging sign, when he saith, Receiving the Elements is • ur engaging sign, that we receive Jesus Christ to be our only Savior and Lord; as giving is God's si • n that he giveth us Christ : the sealing on the part of the receiver is to a thing fulfi • led, that he receives Christ, and of the giver that he gives him.

Answer. If Mr▪ B. mean by unquestionable Covenant, that which no learned man hath questioned, the Major is false, and must be revoked by Mr. B. if he will maintain the conditional covenant to be sealed to by the Sacrament, for that hath been questioned by learned men; who have denied the covenant of grace to be conditional, and they think this to be a very good proof, that the holy Scripture where it speaks of the new Covenant, mentions the promises without condition. If he mean unquestionable de jure, which ought not to have been questioned, and which though it seem dark and doubtful to some, yet is plainly propounded by God, and is in itself perspicuous; the Minor is false. As for what Divines say, it little moves, when the Scripture opposeth the new spirit and soft heart to a strong heart, as being in them before, and to which the new spirit, new heart of flesh, succeed. Ezek. 11.19. & • 6, 26▪ not to a less new or fleshly heart. And if elsewhere conditions be put and not there, the promises in those places are not proved conditional, though to me the coditions Deut. 30.1; 2, seem not to be of the promise, v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. I do not value Mr. B. his judgment so much as to be drawn by it any farther than his reasons carry me, which, I take it, are the same in his Appendix, with these in his mock-titled book which I have answered. I give Mr Baxter our new Doctor Sub • ilis, leave to quip me with my dullness in being grown such an old superannuated dotard, as that I could not understand Mr Blake, time was when I thought I could have understood as profound a Doctor, but now I am content not to understand such deep notions, I should say non-sense as these▪ Disciple all, covenant all, &c : I hope I shall have by Divine assistance, so much understanding as to demonstrate the frivolousness of those dictates in Mr Blake's and Mr Baxter's writings, whereby they have befooled the men of this age, and my Strange and wild doctrine, as Mr B. calls it, will supplant Mr B. his familiar and tame doctrine, without speaking like Mr Sal • marsh and the Antinomians, and my speech about Mr M, will be justified after the clearing myself from the fourth imagined error, to which I now hast.

SECT. XXXV. My speeeh about God's sealing to none but believers, is cleared from Mr Baxter's Objections.

Mr B. Plain Scripture, &c. pag 222. calls it my fourth error that I affirm in my Apolog. pag. 152, 153. That every right administration of Baptism is not God's sealing. Actually it sealeth not but when it is administered to a believer. It may be called a right act of the Administrator according to God's appointment, but not God's sealing, &c. And for confutation saith thus. It must be understood that our question is not about the internal seal of the spirit, but only the external seal of the Sacrament, which are two distinct things. The nature of this seal, and whether it seal conditionally or absolutely, I have fully opened in the Appendix of my Aphorisms of Justification, whither I must desire the Reader to turn and read it, • o save me the labor of doing it here.

Answer. That these imagined errors of mine about the nature of the Covenant and seals are not the root of my pretended error about baptism, is abundantly shown before; and it hath been often affirmed by me, that the reason of my opposing infant-baptism is, because it agrees not with the institution and e • amples of baptism (which Mr B: his words cited in the next Section before verify) in the holy Scripture, and the arguments from the Covenant and seal, and the pretended law of visible Church-membership, no way extant unrepealed, of which the Apostles practice shows they were ignorant, though many godly and learned men have embraced them, are merely an human invention▪ That there is no error of mine in what I hold about the covenant, much less dangeeous error, is already show; I shall now show the subtlety of Mr B : his arguings against my speech about God's sealing.

According to his direction I have read over his sayings in his Appendix in answer to the ninth Question, and what Mr Blake excepted against him, and his reply to Mr Blake in his Apology, Sect 60, &c. And the issue of my thoughts in this, 1. That there is nothing but jangling and uncertainty in their debates about the imaginary sealing by the Sacrament, it being not agreed what is sealed, the outward or inward covenant, what is the Syllogism, whose parts are to be sealed, or what part thereof is to be sealed, the Major, Minor, or Conclusion, nor how • t is sealed conditionally or absolutely, actually or aptitudinally, nor to whom the sealing is, whether to every communicant or only to penitent believers. And in my reading of other Authors • I find much uncertainty in their determinations about this pretended sealing, and the thing sealed, which I have briefly touched before. Mr. Humphrey in his Rejoinder to Dr. Drake, part. 1. Sect. 4, 6. part. 2. Sect. 4, 5. tells us, That in the nature of it the Sacrament is God's seal only, not metaphorically or tropically, but formally, not a seal of our faith but of God's assuring the tenor of it, not only man's particular interest absolutely, but conditionally to all, and that as well the threatening of condemnation in c • se of unbelief, as the promise of righteousness in case of Faith, the receiver of the Sacrament seals not by way of assuring, or conveying, but engagement • o the condition on his part yet not in esse, but in fieri agreeing to the terms of Christ pr • posed, expecting salvation if ever he have grace to perform his engagements, and yieldeth to be damned if not. 2. That the dig • adiations of Pae •