A Defense of Infant Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 (1 of 4)

A Defense of Infant Baptism · Treatise · Part 3 (1 of 4)

p. 89PART III.

NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed the ſtrength of my cauſe, the evidence which the Scripture gives Defence of the third part of Sermon. Reply to Sect 1. Of the connexion betweene the Covenant, and Seale.for Infant-Baptiſme: which before I proceed in the examination of, I briefly propound to the Readers conſideration, that you have this advantage to make your worke have a ſpecious probabilitie, in that the queſtion is concerning Infants, concerning whom there is much ſilence in the Scripture, and ſhould any man argue againſt the juſtification of Infants, by the Theologicall doctrine that is to bee found cleare in the Scripture, how ſpecious a plea might he make, eſpecially if his diſputation ſhould bee carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions againſt arguments, but not poſitively affirming any thing? But notwithſtanding, by the helpe of God, I hope clearely to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions.

My firſt Argument was, the Infants of beleeving parents are faederati, therefore they muſt be ſignati, they are within the Covenant p. 90of Grace, therefore are to partake of the Seale of the Covenant.

This Argument, becauſe I knew the tearmes of the propoſitions and the reaſons of the conſequents would not be cleare at the firſt propounding, I therefore made no further proſecution of untill firſt I had cleared five concluſions The conſequence of the argument made good.from which it receives not onelyonly its light, but ſtrength, and from which it ought not to bee ſeparated, becauſe in them I both prove a Covenant and ſigne initiall, this, firſt you aſſault ſingly, and denying both the propoſitions you try your ſtrength in this Section againſt the conſequence, and affirme that they who deny the conſequence doe it juſtly, becauſe (ſay you) if they who are faederati muſt be ſignati, it muſt bee ſo either by reaſon of ſome neceſſary connexion betweene the tearmes, or by reaſon of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace: but for neither of theſe cauſes; firſt, there is no neceſſary conſequence that God gives a promiſe, ergo he muſt give a ſeale, or a ſpeciall ſigne, Joſhuah had none for his promiſe of bringing Iſrael into Canaan; Phinehas none for his, for the Prieſthood to continue in his family; nor ſecondly, by any declaration of Gods will, Adam, and all the reſt to Abraham had none, yea, and in Abrahams time Melchiſedeck, Lot, Job; and for Abrahams family there was no ſuch univerſall order or declaration of Gods will, for children under eight dayes old, and all the females had no ſuch command, and therefore to have ſealed them, would have beene will-worſhip, and ſo you conclude here and in many other places of your booke, that it is not being foederati in Covenant which gives title to the ſeale, but onelyonly the declaration of Gods will to have it ſo.

To which I anſwer clearely, and firſt in generall. That concerning the truth of this conſequence, the difference betweene Reply. The conſequence proved by Mr. Tombes owne principle.you and me is not ſo much as you would make the world beleeve, wee differ indeed in the interpretation of the word faederati, about what is meant by being in Covenant. I aſſert, that many are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace, and in ſome ſenſe to bee Covenanters though they be not partakers inwardly of the ſaving graces of the Covenant, for the Covenant of grace containes not onelyonly ſaving grace, but the adminiſtration of it alſo in outward Ordinances, and Church priviledges, and that according to Gods owne word many are Covenanters with p. 91him, or in ſome ſenſe under the Covenant of grace, who are partakers onelyonly of the outward adminiſtrations and Church priviledges; you allow none to be under the Covenant of grace in any true Goſpel ſenſe, but onelyonly ſuch as are inwardly beleevers, juſtified, ſanctified, and partakers of the ſaving graces of the Covenant. Whether of us are in the right, ſhall (God willing) be tryed out in this diſpute; but as to the truth of the conſequence, That all who are in the Covenant of grace, ought therefore to be partakers of th… ſeale: you acknowledge more then once, or twice, or ten times; for though you every where diſpute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of Infants, yet rotundis verbis, you profeſſe that if you knew an Infant to bee regenerate, you would baptize it. And when I ſaid, Such as have the inward grace, ought not to bee denyed the outward ſigne: You anſwer, There is none of the Antipaedobaptiſts but will grant that propoſition to bee true, pag. 142. And the preſent ſtate of a perſon is that which gives right to baptiſme, pag. 158. It's granted that (ſuch Infants) ſuch as are inwardly ſanctified are diſciples, and may not be debarred from baptiſme; mark, Infants diſciples; and is not this in plain Engliſh, That ſuch as are Covenanters, ought not to be denyed the initiall ſeale of the covenant; Now then, if I can prove that not onelyonly ſuch as are inwardly regenerate, but others alſo, whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant, and that an externall viſible right (in facie viſibilis Eccleſiae) may be made out for any perſon or perſons, to be by us owned & received as Covenanters with God, you your ſelfe grant that the ſeale may be applyed to them; and whether this bee ſo, or not, ſhall (God willing) afterwards fully appeare.

Secondly, I anſwer more particularly; 1. I grant with you that there is no neceſſary dependance between a promiſe and a ſeale, the addition of a ſeale to a promiſe is of free grace, as well as the promiſe it ſelf; & if God had never given any Sacrament or ſeal of his Covenant, wee ſhould have had no cauſe to complaine of him, he well deſerves to be believed upon his bare word. Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Propoſition was true in all p. 92ages of the Church; All Covenanters muſt bee ſealed, I carryed it no higher then Abrahams time, when God firſt added this new mercy to his Church, vouchſafing a ſeal to the Covenant: And 3. from Abrahams time and ſo forward, I ſay it was Gods will, that ſuch as are in Covenant ſhould bee ſealed with the initiall ſeale of the Covenant, ſuppoſing them onelyonly capable of the ſeale, and no ſpeciall barre put in againſt them by God himſelfe, which is apparent in the very firſt inſtitution of an initiall ſeale, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, 14. Where the very ground why God would have them ſealed is becauſe of the Covenant, 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 to thee and thy ſeed after thee: thou ſhalt keepe my Covenant therefore; and this is my Covenant which yee ſhall keep, every man childe among you ſhall bee circumciſed; and afterward in the 14. the ſeale is, by a Metonymia called the Covenant, for that it's apparent not onelyonly that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumciſed, but that they ſhould therefore be circumciſed becauſe of the Covenant, or in token of the Covenant betweene God and them; and he that rejected or neglected the ſeale, is ſaid not onelyonly to breake Gods commandement, but his covenant: ſo that becauſe the initiall Seale was added to the Covenant, and ſuch as received it, received it as an evidence of the Covenant, or becauſe they were in Covenant: I therefore concluded, that by Gods own will, ſuch as enter into Covenant ought to receive the ſeal, ſuppoſing ſtill that they were capable of it. So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods command, and the Covenant of grace too, are well conſiſtent together; for the command is the cauſe of the exiſtence of the duty; but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it. 4. Whereas you alledge concerning Melchiſedeck, Lot, Job; we find no ſuch thing that they either received this ſeale of circumciſion, Anſw. to Melchiſedeck, Job. and …et.or were tyed to it. I reply, it's very hard for you to prove that Melchiſedeck was then alive; and had he been alive, he was of an higher Order, and above that Paedagogie. Or in what age of the world Job lived, though hee bee thought to be of the poſterity of Eſau, and ſo might have p. 93a right to it (even in your ſenſe) as deſcending lineally from Abraham; however this is a meere negative Argument in matter of fact, which your ſelf know to bee of no validity; Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith. I am not bound to beleeve this or that, unleſſe it be found in the Scriptures; but they are not good in matter of fact; this or that fact is not recorded in the Scripture, therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done, is no good conſequence; A non ſcripto ad non factum non valet conſequentia. No Scripture ſaith they were circumciſed, (though very good Authors thinke that Lot and Iob were circumciſed,) nor doth any Scripture ſay they were not circumciſed.

As to that you ſay of Infants under eight dayes old, and of all the females in Abrahams family. I anſwer to that of Infants, And to Infants under eight dayes old.there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himſelf, whether for any typicall reaſon, or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergoe ſo ſharp a paine as was to bee indured in Circumciſion, before the ſeventh and criticall day was paſt, or whether for any other cauſe, I diſpute not; it is ſufficient, God forbad them to have the ſeale till they were eight dayes old. For the women, they were not Women not capable of Circumciſion.ſubjectum capax circumciſionis, there was in them a naturall impediment againſt it, therfore could not be injoyned them: and ſuppoſe ſome men among them, or ſome who turned proſelytes to them had not had a praeputium (as ſome ſort of Eunuchs) this Ordinance had not reached them; whether the wiſdome of God purpoſely choſe a ſigne that Women might not be capable of receiving it, for ſome typicall uſe, as ſome conjecture: I cannot tell, it is ſufficient that they were not capable of it, & were exempted from it by God himſelfe: ſo that if you pleaſe to ſtate the generall Propoſition, as you needs muſt, That all who ſince Abrahams time are foederati, or covenanters with God, muſt by Gods own appointment receive the ſeale of admiſſion into covenant, unleſſe they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by a particular diſpenſation: This propoſition will indure all the ſhock of your arguments, and remain unmovable.

p. 94Next you reply to my anſwer concerning Women among Women circumciſed in the men, vindicated.the Jews, I ſaid they were circumciſed in the males: this you caſt away with ſcorne, affirming it to be an eaſie anſwer, becauſe it's eaſie to bee anſwered. Indeed Sir, you anſwer it as eaſily as he who undertooke to anſwer Bellarmine in one word, and ſaid, Bellarmine thou lyeſt: ſo you, it is an inſufficient anſwer to take away the exception againſt the propoſition, and that you might have a little matter to worke upon, you goe to another part of my Sermon, and thence you fetch the word virtually, with which you make your ſelfe merry putting my propoſition into ſeverall ſhapes and formes; and in one form (you ſay) it concludes not the thing in queſtion; in another, it hath 4 termes; in another, the major is falſe. Wheras my plaine meaning was, and is, that the women being uncapable of it in their own perſon, becauſe of their ſex, wherein was a naturall impediment, as to this Sacrament, God impoſed it onelyonly upon the Males, and yet the women were not eſteemed as uncircumciſed, being (as Divines uſe to expreſſe in this point) viris annexae & in iis cenſerentur qui familiarum capita debebant eſſe; and whether this will not be juſtified, we ſhall preſently inquire. But firſt give me leave to obſerve by the way how you pinch me with a point of law, That no man can be ſaid virtually to have that by his Proxie or Atturney, which he might not actually receive himſelf in his own perſon. I queſtion whether this be good law, but I am confident it is bad Divinity; ſure we ſin'd virtually in Adam, yet we could not actually, though that ſin of Adam be ours by imputation. The ſun is virtually hot, yet Philoſophers ſay it's not actually. And the Jews of old offered to God ſuch things by the hands of the Prieſts who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own perſons: yea, and received ſuch things by the hand of the high Prieſt (who bare their names in the moſt holy place) which they might not receive in their owne perſons immediately: and the Saints now in this world do virtually, and quoad effectum juris, receive ſome ſuch priviledges in Chriſt their Advocate, who in their right, is at Godſ right hand, which here they are not capable of receiving p. 95immediately in their own perſons. I alſo obiter deſire you to remember this expreſſion of yours, That it had beene a ſinne for a child to have been circumciſed after the eighth day was paſt. And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered elſewhere; viz. That circumciſion might bee adminiſtred oftner then once; ſurely thoſe other times muſt be after the firſt eighth day.

The other fault you note in my argument, is, That I conclude of a ſigne of the Covenant indefinitely, and not of Baptiſme onelyonly; whereas the Lords Supper is alſo a ſigne of the Covenant; which yet you thinke I will ſay is not to bee delivered to them, becauſe not appointed for them: I anſwer, I clearely in my Sermon ſhewed this Propoſition onelyonly to be meant of the initiall ſign, and not of the other; and I am confident your ſelf, who durſt baptize an Infant known to you to be regenerate, durſt not yet give the other Sacrament to it▪ becauſe more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament, then is required to make them capable of Baptiſme: a regenerate Infant you thinke is capable of this: but beſides regeneration, I am ſure you will grant, That an examination of a mans ſelfe, and an ability to diſcern… the Lords body, is required to make one capable of that.

Now let us ſee how you avoid my proofes, That the Women were circumciſed in the men. My firſt was, That the whole houſe of Iſrael are in the Scripture ſaid to be circumciſed. You anſwer, That by the whole houſe of Iſrael muſt not be meant all, but the major part, or the moſt confiderable part. But Sir, doe you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can Circumciſed not put for the major or nobler part.be ſatisfied with this anſwer, when (you know well enough) that the Circumciſion is put for the Church and people of God, in oppoſition to the uncircumciſed that is, al the reſt of the world who are not the people of God. When Peter was to go to the Circumciſion, & Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Goſpel; does not circumciſion include the Women Jews, as much as the men, in oppoſition to the Gentiles; as well as the word Gentiles includes the women Gentiles as well as the men, to whom Gal. 2. 8.Gal 2:8Paul was ſent? Gal. 2. 8. 9. Surely it muſt needs be granted, that not onelyonly the major, or nobler part, but the whole p. 96Nation of the Jewes, both men and women are there meant by Circumciſion, which could not have been, if in ſome ſenſe they were not to bee accounted Circumciſed.

Secondly, I argued thus, No uncircumciſed perſon might eate the Paſſeover: Ergo, Their women might not have eaten it, if in ſome ſenſe they had not been circumciſed. Your anſwer is, This is to bee limited pro ſubjecta materia, none that ought to be circumciſed might eate the Paſſeover, unleſſe they were circumciſed. But this anſwer is altogether inſufficient. For, 1. Where is this diſtinction of yours found, or founded in the Word of God? other diſtinctions about eating the Reply.Paſſeover, are clearely found, the cleane might eate it, the unclean might not eat it, the circumciſed might, the uncircumciſed might not: but of your limitation there is altum ſilentium.

2. I demand further, where is there any command or inſtitution for women to eate the Paſſeover, (more then No warrant for women to eate the Paſſeover, unleſſe they were to bee eſteemed circumciſed.for Women now to eate the Lords Supper,) unleſſe it bee founded upon Circumciſion? yet in practice we know they did eate it; and if they eate it not as ci…cumciſed perſons, tell me by what right they did it. If you ſay they were included in the houſhold, Exod. 12. 3, 4. Every houſhold was to eate the Paſchall Lambe, and there was no exception of women. I reply, firſt, grant but the ſame conſequence, that when wee read ſo frequently in the new Teſtament, that whole houſholds were baptized, & no exception of children, that therefore all the children in thoſe houſholds were baptized, and this controverſie is quickly ended But I adde further, it is not ſaid that the whole houſhold ſhall eate it, for all uncircumciſed perſons were forbidden to eat it, & none but circumciſed perſons had any warrant to eat it. Yea further, ſuppoſe ſome words in the inſtitution ſhould reach the Iewiſh women, yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles, who ſhould prove Proſelytes to them? for Exod. 12. 48, 49. there is order taken for the male ſtranger, Let all his males be circumciſed, and then let him come neare and keep it; but there is not any word that takes order for the ſtrangers females. I hope by this time it appears that your exceptions againſt the conſequence p. 97of my Argument have no weight, they are foederati; therefore they are to be ſignati.

Next come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent which I manifeſted in thoſe five Concluſions opened in my Reply to Sect. 2.Sermon: The firſt whereof is this, That the Covenant of Grace, for ſubſtance, hath alwayes been one and the ſame, both to The Covenant of grace always one and the ſame.the Jewes and Gentiles. This firſt concluſion you grant; and therefore there were no need to have ſtayed the Reader any further about it; were it not that ſome of your exceptions doe almoſt recall your grant: If it bee in ſubſtance the ſame, though you ſhould reckon up a thouſand accidentall and locall differences, it were nothing to the purpoſe: but the firſt doth almoſt recall it; wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. as if it did onelyonly containe the Covenant of Grace in Chriſt; whereas it is apparent (ſay you) out of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant, conſiſting of temporall benefits, the multiplying of Abrahams ſeed, poſſeſſion of Canaan, the birth of Iſaac, beſides the ſpirituall bleſſings. To which I reply, I meant ſo indeed, and ſo I plainly expreſſed my ſelfe, that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham, and the Covenant made with us, lies onelyonly in the manner of the adminiſtration of the Covenant, and not in the The Covenant with Abraham no more mixt for ſubſtance then the Covenant with us.Covenant it ſelfe. The Covenant it ſelf in the ſubſtance of it holds out the ſame mercies, both ſpirituall and temporall, to them, and to us: Godlineſſe having all the promiſes both of this life, and that which is to come; and that they, and we have our right to all theſe promiſes upon the ſelfe ſame condition: earthly things indeed were to them promiſed more diſtinctly and fully, heavenly things more generally and ſpringly then they are now to us; and on the contrary, ſpirituall things are more fully and clearely promiſed to us then to them; and earthly promiſes more generally and ſparingly: And that theſe temporall benefits which you mention, viz. multiplying of Abrahams ſeed, the birth of Iſaac, and poſſeſſion of Canaan were all of them adminiſtrations of the Covenant of grace, they were p. 98figures, ſignes, and types of ſpirituall things to be enjoyed both by them and us. Theſe things I not onelyonly aſſerted, but proved in my Sermon. If you think otherwiſe of theſe earthly bleſſings, I deſire you to explain your meaning in your next. If you mean no more then this that all theſe temporall bleſſings were promiſed and given as flowing from the promiſe of Chriſt, and were ſubſervient to it, or were but types and ſhadowes of it, you meane no more then what wee all grant, who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the ſubſtance of it then there is in that made with us: and that the difference lies onelyonly in the manner of adminiſtration. But I confeſſe I ſuſpect you have a further meaning, not onelyonly becauſe you here mention the temporall bleſſings before the ſpirituall, and call the land of Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham, but eſpecially that expreſſion which you owne from Cameron, that Circumciſion did primarily ſeale the temporall promiſe, and ſignified ſanctification but ſecondarily; what your meaning is in this expreſſion, I cannot tell, it hath an untoward looke, as if the meaning were, that God did primarily and chiefely, in a Covenant of Grace founded in Chriſt (wherein himſelfe promiſes to bee their portion) intend in the ſeale of it to ratifie temporall bleſſings which onelyonly concernes vitam animalem; now that the Seale (I ſay) of this Covenant ſhould primarily, and chiefly give evidence to ſuch a porton which a people may enjoy, with whom God Circumciſion ſea…ed the ſpirituall part of the Covenant.never made a Covenant to be their God, is ſo groſſe a thing to imagine of God, and ſo expreſſely contrary to the word, that untill you owne it, I will not impute it to you, although I know the Anabaptiſts in Germany ſhame not to ſay, that the Covenant made with Abraham was a meere carnall thing, and had nothing to doe with eternall life. As for that expreſſion of the learned Cameron that Circumciſion did primarily ſeale the earthly promiſe, &c. if by primarily hee meant immediatly, though not chiefly, that it ſealed theſe things firſt in order, as they were types of ſpirituall things, it may then paſſe …um gran… ſalis, but if by primarily be intended principally, that Circumciſion did chiefly ſeale earthly bleſſings, the opinion is p. 99too unſavory to be received: and whereas he, (and you with him) ſay that Circumciſion did thus primarily ſeale the earthly part of the Covenant, I deſire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumciſion a Seale of Canaan; wee have expreſſe Scripture that it ſealed the righteouſneſſe of faith, whereby he was juſtified, but I no where read that i… ſealed the Land of Canaan. Whereas you ſay, though the promiſes were types of ſpirituall and heavenly things, yet the things promiſed were but carnall and earthly, as the ſacrifices were but carnall things, though ſhadowes of ſpirituall: I reply, all this is true, but this belongs to the adminiſtration of the Covenant (as was ſaid before) but makes it never a whit the more a mixt Covenant for the ſubſtance of it; the Covenant then was more adminiſtred by carnall things then it is now, and yet the adminiſtration of the Covenant even now alſo hath ſome carnall promiſes, and priviledges as well as then, as the externall ordinances of the Goſpell, Baptiſme and the Lords Supper; and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace, the promiſe of this life, and of that which is to come: and ſo you may, if you will, call ours alſo a mixt Covenant, conſiſting both of temporall and ſpirituall bleſſings; and as among them ſome who were in Covenant did partake onelyonly of the temporall part, and never were partakers of the ſpirituall, others of them were partakers of the ſpirituall part alſo; even ſo now, ſome partake of the externall and carnall part onelyonly, whilſt others partake of both: this you muſt grant to be true, unleſſe you will maintaine that none are now members of the viſible Church, but onelyonly Elect and true beleevers.

Secondly, you except againſt mee that when I ſaid the manner of adminiſtration of this Covenant was firſt by types, ſhadowes, and ſacrifices, &c. it had beene convenient to have named Circumciſion, that it might not be conceived to belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant: I reply, firſt, this is a very ſmall quarrell, I added, &c. which ſupplies both Circumciſion and other things. Secondly, you know the Covenant of grace was adminiſtred by ſacrifices and other types before Circumciſion was inſtituted.

p. 100Thirdly, whereas I ſaid there were ſome Proſelytes in the Jewiſh Church who were but ſelfe-juſticiaries, carnall and formall profeſſors, who are yet in the Scripture called Abrahams ſeed, you anſwer I call them ſo without the warrant of Scripture, as you conceive: to which I reply, my words were that there was another Proſelytes were Abrahams ſeed.ſort of Abrahams ſeed who were onelyonly circumciſed in the fleſh, and not in the heart, who though they were borne of Abrahams ſeed, or profeſſed Abrahams faith, and ſo were Iewes facti, though not nati, yet they never made Abrahams God their portion, but reſted in ſomewhat which was not Chriſt, &c. and ſo were to periſh with the uncircumciſed. This you doe not here deny to bee true, onelyonly you would have me ſhew where the Proſelytes were called Abrahams ſeed; I reply, had I mentioned no proſelytes at all, but onelyonly ſaid there were ſome in the Church of the Iewes, who were viſible members, and partakers of outward Church-priviledges, and yet were not inwardly godly, nor partakers of the ſpirituall part, and that theſe were called Abrahams ſeed as well as others, it had been enough for my purpoſe. I named not Proſelytes to adde any ſtrength to the argument; and becauſe they are called Gods people, I feared not to call them Abrahams children by profeſſion, and never expected to have met with a quarrell for calling them who joyned to the Church of Iſrael by that common name whereby the Church members were called, viz. the ſeede of Abraham or the children of Iſrael: and could no place of Scripture be produced where proſelytes are expreſly called by this name, the matter were not tanti. But if it were a thing of any moment, it would be no hard matter to produce evidence ſufficient to prove that proſelytes were called Iſraelites and the ſeed of Abraham, as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared, Act. 13. 26. compared with Verſe 43. but I forbeare. You go on and accuſe me, that herein I joyne with Arminius, who ſaith, there is a ſeed of Abraham mentioned, Rom. 4. 9. 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who ſeeke juſtification and ſalvation This is not to joyn with Arminius.by the workes of the Law, and that hee makes this the ground of wreſting that Scripture, and that Mr. Bayne upon Epheſ. 1. ſayes that the ſeed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never ſo taken: I reply, you give an high charge, but a weake p. 101proofe; I ſaid there was a ſort of proſelytes who were the ſeed of Abraham by profeſſion onelyonly, or outward cleaving to the Covenant, who though they profeſſed Abrahams faith, yet did not place their happineſſe in Chriſt, or make choyce of Abrahams God for their all-ſufficient portion. Sir, is this to joyne with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans? 1. How doe you prove that Arminius meanes the words which you cite, of Jewiſh Proſelytes? Nulli filii carnis cenſentur in ſemine, ſaith Arminius; doth hee meane that no proſelytes were the ſeed of Abraham according to the fleſh? if ſo, I beleeve acute Mr. Bayne would Mr. Bayne of of my judgement, That civill juſticiaties were called Abrahams ſeed.have been more wary then to have oppoſed him in that point. Nay Mr. Bayne in the very ſelfe ſame page which you quote, having ſet downe Arminius his two concluſions. (1. The children of the promiſe are reckoned for the ſeed. 2. The children of the fleſh are not reckoned for the ſeed;) paſſes his judgement upon them in theſe words, Page 140. The Concluſions are true, but not pertinent to this ſenſe, for the children of the fleſh here, are thoſe onelyonly who in courſe of nature came from Abraham. But you very wiſely mention neither of theſe Concluſions of Arminius, you thought it more for your advantage to faſten upon ſome other propoſition laid downe by Arminius, and as you ſet it downe it runs thus: There is a ſeed of Abraham, qui per opera legis juſtitiam & ſalutem conſequuntur; I was much amuſed at the words. I know Arminius ſaith, Deus ex promiſſe ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti, but he meanes it not of the workes of the Law; and therefore I wondered to ſee opera legis in your propoſition; but the word which puzled me moſt, was conſequuntur. Sir, let me intreat you to correct your booke, there is no ſuch word as conſequuntur in Arminius his expoſition, and it doth not agree with your own expoſition, for conſequuntur juſtitiam, is by you tranſlated; Follow after righteouſneſſe. I have peruſed Arminius, (with whom you ſay I joyn) and Mr. Bayne, from whom you ſay I ſay I differ, and I ſhall give an account of both to the reader.

Firſt for Arminius, his words are theſe, Filii carnis Apoſtolo hoc loco ſunt, qui per opera legis juſtitiam & ſalutem conſectantur, p. 102not conſequuntur: ſo that the queſtion between Arminius and Mr. Bayne, is, whether in that place, namely, in the 9 to the Romans, the Apoſtle by children of the fleſh, doe meane ſuch as ſeek righteouſneſſe by the Law? Hoc in loco, ſaith Arminitor, the phraſe is to bee ſo interpreted in this place; No, ſaith Mr. Bayne, it is not to bee taken ſo in this place, though it may be taken ſo in other places: I ſhall ſet down Mr. Baynes his own words, that the Reader may ſee how groſſely you have abuſed me; For though (ſaith Mr. Bayne) children of the fleſh in ſome other Scripture, doth note Bayne in Epheſ. p. 138. cap. 1. 5.out juſticiaries, ſeeking ſalvation in the Law, yet here the literall meaning is to be taken, a child of the fleſh, being ſuch a one as deſcendeth from Abraham according to the fleſh. Good Reader obſerve, 1. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Romans; and therefore did not at all meddle with the queſtion between Arminius and Mr. Bayne.

2. I am cleared by Mr. Bayne himſelf, whom Mr. Tombes produced againſt me. 3. The words which cleare me, are within ſix lines of thoſe words which Mr. Tombes cites againſt me: whether Mr. Tombes be guilty of negligence or falſhood, I leave to your judgement. 4. The errours of Arminius are many in the place cited, and I joyne not with him in any one of them. Firſt, I doe not conceive that by [Word] Rom. 9. 6. the Jews meant the legall Covenant, but the word of promiſe, or elſe the Apoſtle had not anſwered directly, v. the 9. Secondly, by the word [Seed] was meant the children of the promiſe, the elect, Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bayne, nay Arminius confeſſes; onelyonly Arminius ſaith that they were elected upon Gods forefight of their faith; an Opinion wch I deteſt, as being injurious to the free & effectuall grace of God. I need not inſtance in any other errours, only draw this Corollary, if God did fulfil this promiſe made to the ſeed of Abraham, though God did reject ſo many of his ſeed (that had the token of the Covenant in their fleſh) not onelyonly from ſalvation, but from the partaking of outward priviledges, from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer: then God may reject many of the ſeed of beleeve…s now under the Goſpel, though baptized, p. 103not onelyonly from ſalvation, but from all Church-priviledges beſides baptiſme, and yet make good his promiſe ſealed in baptiſme, in which he engageth himſelfe to be the God of beleeving Chriſtians and their ſeed.

Fourthly, Mr. Tombes ſpeaks of Abrahams ſeed by celling, and ſaith that promiſe, [I will be the God of thy ſeed] was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles, pag. 43. Now Mr. Tombes will not ſay that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling, the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling, are the ſeed of Abraham onelyonly by profeſſion ſay I, becauſe they are of the ſame profeſſion with the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham, who are inwardly called. If Mr. Tombes ſay that it is better to term them ſeed by calling, then ſeed by profeſſion; if it bee but an outward call, where lyes the difference?

Fifthly, Mr. Bayne and Arminius are agreed, that by the ſeed of Abraham, Rom. 9. 8. is meant the elect onelyonly, Omnes filii promiſſionis cenſentur in ſemine, nulli filii carnis cenſentur in ſentine, ſaith Arminius.

Sixthly, the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and Arminius, is, that this elect ſeed was elected upon Gods foreſight of their faith, as Arminius would have it; but I joyne with Mr. Bayne in deteſting this opinion, as injurious to the free and effectuall grace of God: and Mr. Bayne joynes with me, in confeſſing that in ſome places of Scripture they who ſeek to bee juſtified by the Law, are termed children of the fleſh. To conclude this of Arminius, I Mr. Tombes joynes with Servetus.wonder you ſhould ſeek to caſt an odi… upon my expreſſion (as you do here and ſeverall other times) by ſaying it's a joyning with Arminius, when you know well enough that you joyne not onelyonly in an expreſſion or two, but in this your very doctrine of oppoſing Paedo-baptiſme, with that monſter Servenus, and other like him.

Laſtly, you are much more ſtumbled and offended that Mr. Blake ſhould ſay, There yet remaines in the Church a diſtinction Mr. Blake vindicated.of Abrahams ſeed, ſome borne after the fleſh, ſome after the ſpirit; and that both theſe have a Church intereſt, or a … bright to Church priviledges; and that …ee for this alledged p. 104Gal. 4. 29. even ſo it is now, &c. I reply, for my part I as much wonder at your calling theſe paſſages very groſſe, for though it bee granted, 1. That the Apoſtle ſhews Iſhmael to be intended as a type of civill juſticiaries who ſought righteouſneſſe by the law. Yea, and 2. that theſe perſecuted the true Church, who ſought juſtification by Chriſt. And 3. That they are caſt out from being heires, never to partake of the ſpirituall priviledges of the Covenant; yet becauſe it is apparent that even theſe (who Paul ſaid were typified by the ſon of Hagar) had a viſible ſtanding in the Jewiſh Church, and were partakers of outward Church priviledges, and were the ſame of whom Paul ſpeaks, Rom. 10. 3. Who being ignorant of Gods righteouſneſſe, and going about to eſtabliſh their own righteouſneſſe, have not ſubmitted themſelves unto the righteouſneſſe of God. And that in the ſame place Paul himſelf ſaith, even ſo it is now, (even in the Church of Gallatia it was ſo) and Paul by this Doctrine laboured to make them better.) I ſee not why Mr. Blake might not uſe this as an argument, that ſome have a viſible Church memberſhip, and ought to partake of outward Church priviledges, notwithſtanding they will not have the inheritance of children, unleſſe they repent. The thing which I conceive offends you in his expreſſion is, that hee thinkes there is a fleſhly ſeed of Abraham: but I know no reaſon of ſtumbling at that phraſe, ſince by fleſh is there intended any thing which is our own, whatever we put confidence in, and leane upon, as that which may commend us to God; whether our birth, or parts, our underſtanding, or morall vertue, yea, or our Religious duties, and performanc…s, all are but fleſh; and this St. Paul plainly ſignifies, Phil. 3. 3 &c. We are Phil. 3. interpreted.Phil 3the Circumciſion which worſhip God in the ſpirit, and put no confidence in the fleſh, and in the verſe following he tells you what he meant by fleſh, viz. his birthright, his circumciſion, What meant by ſeed of the fleſh.his unblameable converſation, &c. And might not Mr. Blake ſafely ſay, there is ſtill a ſeed of theſe who are viſible members?

My ſecond concluſion was to this effect, Ever ſince God p. 105Reply to Sect. 3.gathered a diſtinct number out of the world, to be his Kingdome, Infants taken into Covenant with their parents.Citie, Houſehold, in oppoſition to the reſt of the world, which is the Kingdome, Citie and Houſehold of Satan; Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him, to bee accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devills.

So much weight lies upon this Concluſion, and it ſo neerely concernes you to make at leaſt a ſhew of overthrowing it, that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits, and artifices to ſhake the ſtrength of it, by ſcornefull ſpeeches, by clouding and darkning what was expreſſed plainely, by framing ſenſes, and confuting what was never aſſerted nor intended, by Bringing in at the by, opinions of other men, and diſputing againſt them, by alledging the Teſtimonies of ſome eminently learned men, when they are nothing to the purpoſe in hand, and by ſeeking to elude the ſtrength of my arguments: In all theſe I ſhall attend you, and endeavour to cleare what you would ſeeme to have obſcure, briefly to paſſe over what is impertinent, and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cauſe in hand.

Firſt, you tell me this concluſion is a b…kin, that may bee put on either leg, right or left, expreſt ſo ambiguouſly that you know not in what ſenſe to take it.

Truely Sir, you take a courſe to make it ſeeme ſo: I knew Reply.a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler, whoſe remarkable facultie was, ſo to expound a Text, as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation; even thus have you dealt with a plaine Concluſion, you bring firſt, three ſorts of ſenſes, then you ſubdivide them, and under each of them bring ſeverall Imaginable ſenſes, foure or five under one head, five or ſix under another head, and then blame me that I have not diſtinctly ſet down… in which of theſe ſenſes, Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant, whether in reſpect of Election, or of a promiſe of grace in Chriſt, whether potentially, or actually, whether they are ſo to bee accounted by an act of ſcience, or faith, or opinion, and that grounded on a rule of haritie, or prudence, or probable hopes for the future; thus you expreſſe your skill in multiplication p. 106of ſenſes: But I reply, that hee that runs may reade my ſenſe, and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to faſten a ſenſe upon it, which I never thought upon, might confidently have concluded that I meant of a viſible priviledge in facie viſibilis Eceleſiae, or have their ſhare in the faedus externum, which my words plainely enough held forth when I ſpake of Gods ſeparating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome, Citie, Houſehold in appoſition to the reſt of the world which is the Devills Kingdome: and afterwards in the ſame Concluſion, God having left all the reſt of the world to bee viſibly the Devills Kingdome (although among them many belong to his inviſible kingdome as being of the number of his elect) he will not permit the Devill to come and lay viſible claime to the off-ſpring of thoſe who are begotten of the children of the moſt High, is not this plaine enough? that as all they who by externall vocation, and profeſſion joyne to the Church of God, (though few of thoſe many ſo called are elected) have a viſible right to bee eſteemed members of the Church & Kingdom of God, (which is a viſible Corporation, diſtinct, and oppoſite to the reſt of the world, w^ch is viſibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign;) So God would have their children, even while they are children, to enjoy the ſame priviledge with them: what Delian Diver is there any need of, to fetch up the meaning of this? But that you may no longer complaint of not underſtanding my ſenſe, I ſay plainly, The Covenant The ſence of this ſecond propoſition cleared.of grace is ſometime taken ſtrictly, ſometime largely; as it is conſidered ſtrictly, it is a Covenant in which the ſpirituall benefits of juſtification, regeneration, perſeverance, and glorification are freely promiſed in Chriſt. Secondly, as the Covenant of grace is taken largely, it comp…hendss all Evangelicall adminiſtrations which doe wholly depend Men may bee under the Covenant ſeverall wayes, ſome ſpiritually, and ſome under the adminiſtration onelyonly.upon the free and gratious appointment of God, and this adminiſtration is fulfilled according to the counſell of Gods will; ſometimes it was adminiſtred by his appointment in type… ſhadowes, and other legall Ordinances; this Covenant of adminiſtration, God ſaid, Z…ary 11. 10. h… did … with the people of the Jews, and at the death of Chriſt p. 107hee did wholly evacuate and aboliſh, and in ſtead thereof brought in the adminiſtration which wee live under, where alſo hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant, and called the Gentiles, and graffed them in ram…rum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off, as your ſelfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expreſſe it. Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently ſaid to bee in covenant with God, or to be members of his Church and family; ſome are myſticall members by inward grace, the inward grace of the Covenant being beſtowed upon them, being made new creatures, &c. others are members in regard of the externall and viſible aeconomy; accordingly among the Jewes ſome were ſaid to bee Abrahams ſeed according to the promiſe, and not onelyonly after the fleſh, who had the Circumciſion of the heart as well as that which was outward, others were Jewes in propatulo, Jewes onelyonly in foro viſibilis ecoleſia: and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall adminiſtration in the Chriſtian Church, ſome are in Chriſt by myſticall …, ſo as to bee regenerate, &c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are ſaid to bee in Chriſt by viſible and externall profeſſion, as branches which beare no fruite, Iohn 15. 2. and theſe alſo are called branches of the Vine, though ſuch branches, as for unfruitfulneſſe ſhall at laſt bee cut off and caſt away; and often times tells us many are called, but few are choſen: Unto both theſe do belong great priviledges, though the priviledg… of the one be ſaving, & the other not, as ſhall by and by appeare.

Furthermore, according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Chriſt, there are alſo different S…ales belonging unto the Covenant; ſome peculiar and proper onelyonly unto thoſe who are in Covenant ſpiritually, a quo…d ſubſtantiam et grati… fae…ris, as the teſtimony and Seale of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 1. 2…. Epheſ. 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all, who are in the viſible body and branches of Chriſt the Vine in any relation, and ſo in Covenant quoad …, till by ſcandalous … which are … with that very outward dignitie p. 108and profeſſion they cut themſelves off from that relation, and ſuch are the viſible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profeſſion among Chriſtians, as the Jewiſh Seales were to thoſe who were Jewes externally.

When therefore I ſay, they are viſibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents, I meane looke what right a viſible pr…feſſor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the viſible Church, qu… viſible profeſſo…, that right hath his child ſo to bee eſteemed: now all know the ſpirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to viſible profeſſors as viſible, but onelyonly to ſuch among them who are inwardly ſuch as their externall profeſſion holds out, but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are viſible profeſſors, as to be reputed the ſonnes of God, Gen. 6. 1. the ſonnes of God ſaw Great priviviledges belong to them who are under the externall Covenant. Gen. 6. 1. Deut. 14. 1. Gal. 3. 26.Gen 6:1Deut 14:1Gal 3:26the daughters of men, Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God; and Paul, writing to a viſible Church, Gal. 3. 26. ſaith, yea are all the children of God by faith in Chriſt Jeſus, (yet I ſuppoſe you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly ſo) ſo likewiſe to bee reputed children of the kingdome, Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome ſhall bee caſt out, the children of the Covenant, Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers, and many other of their priviledges which belong to them, who are Iſraelite… in this ſenſe, viz. being by ſuch a ſeparation and vocation the profeſſed people of God (though they were not all heires of the ſpirituall part of the Covenant) Saint Paul reckons up in ſeverall places, as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth Rom. 9 4.Rom 9:4the adoption, even to the body of that people (not a ſpirituall adoption, but the honour of being ſeparated and reputed to bee the children of God, Deut. 14. 1.) and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the ſervice of God, and the promiſes; yet of theſe Paul ſaith, they were not all children of Abraham, when he ſpeaks of the ſpirituall ſeed. So likewiſe Rom. 3. 1. afte… Paul had ſhewed Rom. …. Rom. 3. 1.Rom 3:1that nothing but faith and inward holineſſe gave right to the ſpirituall part of the Covenant, and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes, who were onelyonly Jewes in propatulo, p. 109Jewes outwardly, were nothing to juſtification before God, hee then propounds this queſtion, Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew, or what profit is there of Circumciſion? what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a viſible profeſſor, a viſible member of the Jewiſh Church? hee anſwers, the advantage is great many wayes, and inſtances in this one particular, that the Oracles of God were depoſited to them, the cuſtody and diſpenſation of his Ordinances, which they might uſe as their owne treaſure, and thereby learne to know and feare him, (therefore it is called their Law, John 8. 17. It is alſo written in your Law) when the reſt of the nations all that while were without God in the world, and received John 8. 17. Deut. 33. 4.John 8:17Deut 33:4the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill, according to that of the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 147. 10, 20 He ſhewed his word to Iacob, his ſtatutes and his judgments to Iſrael, hee hath not dealt ſo with any nation, and as for his judgements they have not knowne them: So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance Pſal. 147. 20.Ps 147:20of the Congregation of Iacob. And although it bee true that theſe viſible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuſe of them while they reſt in Cortice, in the outward thing it ſelfe, and labour not after the ſpirituall part, yet the priviledges themſelves are very great. It is no ſmall mercy to have a memberſhip or viſible ſtanding in that ſocietie where ſalvation is ordinary, this our bleſſed Saviour told the woman of Samaria, Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes, this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had John 4. 22.John 4:22above the Samaritans, that ſalvation was to bee found in their way, and God in his wiſedome hath ſo ordained it to have his viſible Church made up of ſuch, I meane ſo, as to have ſome of them inwardly holy, and others of them by externall profeſſion onelyonly, for this reaſon among many others, that there might bee ſome who ſhould from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances diſpenſed in his Church, as well as others, who ſhould be built up, that the Paſtors which hee ſets up to feed his flocke, ſhould not onelyonly bee nurſing fathers to build up, but alſo fathers to beget ſonnes and daughters to him: and though all are bound p. 110de jure to bee inwardly holy, who joyne to the Church, yet would hee have his Church admit thoſe who profeſſe their willingneſſe to bee his, that hee by his diſcipline might make them inwardly ſuch as they externally profeſſe themſelves and as yet are not in truth, as into a Schoole are admitted not onelyonly ſuch as are actually learned, but ſuch as are dedicated to be learned, not onelyonly quia docti, ſed ut ſint docti: and who ever will deny this, that there are ſome rightly admitted by the Church to viſible memberſhip, who onelyonly partake of the viſible priviledges, muſt deny, that any are viſible members who are not inwardly converted, which I thinke you will doe, but leſt you or any other ſhould, I ſhall at the preſent back it onelyonly with that ſpeech of the Apoſtle, Rom. 11. where Paul ſpeakes of ſome branches graſſed into the Olive, and An externall right to the Covenant proved. Rom. 11.Rom 11afterwards broken off, not onelyonly the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off, but the Gentiles alſo; the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome, and were made partakers of the roote and fatneſſe of the Olive, even they alſo may bee broken off if they beleeve not, and God will no more ſpare theſe branches then hee did the other; now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the inviſible Church, from partaking of the ſpirituall roote and fatneſſe of the Olive, from this neither Jew This proved from Mr. Tombes owne principles.nor Gentile are ever broken off, it were Arminianiſme to the purpoſe to affirme the contrary, it muſt therefore bee meant onelyonly of a viſible ſtanding and externall participation of Church-priviledges; and if you thinke otherwayes, that none of old were, nor now are viſible members of the Church, or had right to externall Church priviledges, unleſſe they were inwardly ſanctified; I beſeech you in your next, to cleare this, and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may ſee it with you, and in ſtead of leading your Reader into a ma…e by framing multitudes of ſenſes & the like, produce ſome ſolid arguments to ſhew, and prove that no other but true beleevers, may in fore viſibi… Eccl… ſiae, bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God. But I ſuppoſe in this particular, you will hardly deny a lawfulneſſe of admitting men into a viſible communion p. 111upon a viſible profeſſion, and that rightly, even by a judgement of faith, though their inward holineſſe be unknown to us; for ſo much you grant, pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Miniſter as Gods Steward may diſpence the ſeale of the Covenant of grace, and not ſtay from applying the ſeale to him, who makes an outward profeſſion, becauſe wee have not a Spirit of diſcerning, to know them to bee reall beleevers; then it undeniably follows, That ſome may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God, and Covenant of grace, beſide reall beleevers, which is as much as I need, to make my ſenſe and meaning in this Propoſition to paſſe for currant. And truly Sir, whoever will grant that a Miniſter in applying the ſeale, muſt doe it de fide, in faith, being aſſured he applyes it according to rule; muſt either grant ſuch a right as I plead for, that many have right to bee viſible members, and bee partakers of the externall adminiſtration of Ordinances, though they be not inwardly ſanctified; or elſe hee muſt by revelation be able to ſee and know the inward converſion of every one hee applyes the ſeale unto; for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon, for the ſtate of this or that man. And for my own part, when once you have diſproved this, that there is ſuch a viſible memberſhip and right to externall adminiſtrations as I have here infiſted upon, I ſhall not onelyonly forbeare baptizing Infants, but the adminiſtration of the externall ſeale to any, what profeſſion ſoever they make, untill I may bee de fide aſſured, that they are inwardly regenerate.

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 Church-priviledges 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. Whereas therefore you ſay you are at a ſtand to finde out what my meaning is, and know not what to p. 112deny, or what to grant: and again, pag. 45. You are at a ſtand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant, in reſpect of ſaving grates; or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances. I beſeech you ſtand no longer doubtfull of my meaning, I meane of them, as I meane of other viſible Profeſſors, they are taken into Covenant both ways reſpectively, according as they are elect, or not elect, all of them are in Covenant in reſpect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges, are in Covenant with reſpect to ſaving graces; and the ſame is to bee 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 Jewes and their children, or Proſelytes and their children. I endeavour in all this to ſpeak as clearly as I can poſſibly, not onelyonly becauſe you ſay you are oft at a ſtand to pick out my meaning; but becauſe this miſtake runs through your whole book, that none are to be reputed to have a viſible right to the Covenant of grace, but onelyonly ſuch as partake of the ſaving graces of it. Now I proceed with you.

When I ſay, That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family, and not to the devills. You anſwer, That you feare I uſe that expreſſion (of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome) to pleaſe the people. But Sir, why doe you judge my heart to intend amiſſe, in uſing an expreſſion which your ſelf cannot miſlike? I have more cauſe to think you uſe all theſe words (it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in ſome ſort to be accounted his, to belong to him, his Church and family, and not to the Devills. And againe, it is true in facie viſibilis Eccleſiae, the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods, &c.) onelyonly ad faciendum populum, to pleaſe the people, becauſe this is not Mr. Tombes leaves all Infants of beleevers to be under the viſible kingdom of the Devil actually.your judgement; for when you ſpeake your full meaning and ſenſe of this point, you profeſſe you know no more promiſe for them in reference to the Covenant, then to the children of Turkes: And even here you onelyonly grant them a nearer poſſibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children p. 113of Infidels have: therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it, but onelyonly in a poſſibility: ſo that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially, yet (by your doctrine) they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually▪ and all this charitable opinion which here you expreſſe toward them, dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk, if born among Chriſtians; eſpecially, if a Chriſtian will take it, and bring it up in Chriſtian Religion; and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profeſſion of Chriſt, ſince by your rule there is no promiſe, no externall Covenant? why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children, if Gods promiſe helpe not here? But ſay you, To make them actually members of the viſible Church, is to overthrow the difinitions of the viſible Church, that 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 Jewes did include their Infants, male (and female too, leſt you ſay that Circumciſion made them members:) I adde alſo, Baptiſme now (as well as Circumciſion of old) is a reall, though imp…i… Profeſſion of the Chriſtian Faith. But (ſay you) Infants are o…ly paſſive, and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated viſible Chriſtians. I anſwer, even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old, who yet in their dayes were viſible members. Yea (ſay you) further it will follow, That there may bee a viſible Church which conſiſts onelyonly of Infants of beleevers. I anſwer, no more now then in the time of the Jewiſh Church; it's poſſible, but very improbable, that all the men and Women ſhould dye and leave onelyonly … behind… them, and it's farre more probable that a Church … Anabaptiſts why may conſiſt onelyonly of Hypocrit… ▪ Againe, you affirme, We are not to account Infants to belong to God, either in reſpect of election or promiſe of grace, or preſen… … of in being in Chriſt, … …ſtate by any act of … with in a particul… revelation, becauſe there … declaration of God, that the Infants of priſ… … p. 114all or ſome, either are elected to life, or in the Covenant of grace in Chriſt, either in reſpect of preſent in-being, or future eſtate. To which I anſwer briefly, though all this bee granted, if meant of the ſpirituall part of the Covenant onelyonly, yet this makes nothing againſt that viſible memberſhip which I plead for. Yea, I re…ort the argument upon your ſelfe, and dare boldly affirme, that by this argument, no viſible Church, or all the viſible Profeſſors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in reſpect of election from eternity, or promiſe of grace, or preſent ſtate of in-being in Chriſt, &c. without a particular revelation, becauſe there is no declaration of God that the preſent viſible Profeſſors are indefinitely all, or ſome, either elected to life, or are in the Covenant of grace in Chriſt, either in reſpect of preſent in-being, or future eſtate: look by what diſtinction you will anſwer this, for viſible Profeſſors who are growne men, the ſame will ſerve for the Infants of beleevers.

In the next place, you make a digreſſion againſt an expreſſion of Mr. Cottons, which you thinke neceſſary to do, becauſe Mr. Cotton vi… dicated.you f…de many are apt to ſwallow the dictates of ſuch men as Mr. Cotton is, without examination; he affirmed, the Covenant of grace is given to Chriſt, and in Chriſt to every godly man, Gen. 17. 7. and in every godly man to his ſeed; God will have ſome of the ſeed of every godly man to ſtand before him for ever: againſt this you except many things, and according to your uſuall courſe, you frame many ſenſes, of the Covenants being given to every godly man and his ſeed; ſome whereof are ſo abſurd, as no charitable man can imagine ever came in Mr. Cottons thoughts, That every godly man ſhould be to his ſeed, as Chriſt to every godly man; which in truth (as you ſay) would be little leſſe then blaſphemy. But I ſhall give you this ſhort Reply, that I take Mr. Cottons meaning to be, that looke as Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, and other godly Jewes were to their ſeed, in reſpect of the Covenant; that is every godly man to his ſeed now; except onelyonly in ſuch things wherein thoſe Patriarchs were types of Chriſt, in all other things wher…in God promiſed to be the God of them and their p. 115ſeed, godly parents may plead it as much for their ſeed …, as they could then; and whatever inconvenience or abſurdity you 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'll demand if …ee plead it to his ſeed univerſally, that's falſe, and ſo of the reſt of your inferences, look what ſatisfying anſwer an Iſraelite would give you, the ſame would Mr. Cotton give, and at ſatisfyingly. As for what you ſay concerning Abraham, that by the ſeed of Abraham are meant onelyonly elect and beleevers; I have ſufficiently anſwered to it before, and ſhall have occaſion to meet with it again in its due place; therefore I now ſay no more of it; but the chief thing you grate upon againſt M. Cotton, is that expreſſion in the cloſe, That God will have ſome of every godly mans ſeed ſtand before him for ever. You aggravate this to the utmoſt, as a bold dictate, impoſing on Gods counſel and Covenant, the abſurdity and falſity wherof, you indeavour to manifeſt at large: to which I anſwer in two or three words, that ſuppoſing his meaning to be as you ſet it downe, That it is in reference to election and everlaſting life, that every godly man ſhall have ſome of his ſeed infallibly ſaved. I confeſſe the expreſſion is not to be juſtified; nor doe I thinke that that ſenſe ever came into the mind of ſo learned and judicious a man as Mr. Cotton is: for my part, I think he onelyonly alluded to that promiſe made to Jonad…s children, Jer. 35. tha… God would alwayes beare a mercifull reſpect unto the poſterity of his ſervants, according to that promiſe, Exod. 20. 5. I will ſhew mercy to thouſands of them that love mee and keepe my commandements. And that being his ſcope, (as I thinke it was) you need not have kept ſuch a ſtirre about it.

After your digreſſion to meet with Mr. Cotton, in ſtead of returning to my Sermon, you wander further out of your way; for after a ſhort diſcourſe of judging children to bee Mr. Tombes … deavours to … a ſenſe upon this Propoſition, never intended by … not owned by mee.within the Covenant (by opinion) according to a rule of prudence or charity (ſenſes which I meddle not with: and therfore need not ſtay the Reader in deſcanting upon them. My rule of judging their condition, being limited to the Rule of Gods revealed will in his word) you then proceed in p. 116an indeavour, wherein you doe but loſe time, and waſte paper for many pages together, endeavouring to confute what was never aſſerted by me; viz. That the Covenant of ſaving grace is made to beleevers and their naturall ſeed; that the Infants of beleevers are ſo within the Covenant of grace, as to be elected, and to have all the ſpirituall priviledges of the Covenant belonging to them; this you would needs have to be my meaning: and I almoſt ſuſpect you would faſten this ſenſe upon mee, againſt your owne light; for pag. 142. you doe as good as cleare mee of it; where you ſay, You ſuppoſe that I doe not hold, that the Infants of beleevers indifferently have actually the thing ſignified by baptiſme, union with Chriſt, adoption, pardon of ſinne, regeneration, &c. So that in all this diſcourſe, you doe but luctari cum larvis, according to your owne expreſſion, pag. 45. my plain meaning was as is before expreſſed; nor doe any of the expreſſions uſed by mee, and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to be my meaning, hold forth any ſuch thing; as, they are within the Covenant of grace, belonging to Chriſts body, kingdome, houſhold; therefore are to partake of the ſeale. True, as viſible profeſſors are, quà viſible. Againe, they are to bee accounted to belong to him as well as their parents. True, as well as their parents doe by a viſible profeſſion. Againe, they are made free according to Abrahams copy. True, according to the promiſe made to Abraham, I will bee a God to thee and thy ſeed; that looke as Abraham and his ſeed, the Proſelytes and their ſeed, upon their viſible owning of God and his Covenant, had this viſible priviledge for their poſterity, that they ſhould be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houſhold with their parents; ſo it is here.

One Argument more you bring (beſide laying of my words together) to prove that this muſt needs bee my ſenſe, becauſe you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Directory, which holds forth, That the promiſes are made to beleevers and their ſeed: and directs Miniſters to pray, That God would make Baptiſme to the Infant a ſeale of adoption, regeneration, and eternall life. And p. 117you conclude, that if there be not a promiſe of theſe ſaving graces What the Sacrament ſeales abſolutely, and what conditionally.to Infants, in vaine are they baptized, and the ſeale is put to a blank; To which I reply, my meaning is indeed according to the ſenſe of the Directory, and according to that direction, I doe pray that God would make baptiſme to bee a ſeale to the Infant of adoption, and the reſt of the ſaving graces of the Covenant; yet I utterly deny you conſequence, that unleſſe there bee abſolute promiſes of ſaving grace to Infants, the Seale is ſet to a blank, for give mee leave but to put the ſame caſe; firſt, for the Infants of the Jewes, was the ſeale put to a blanke with them, or had they all promiſes of ſaving graces? Secondly, let mee put the ſame caſe in growne men, who make an externall viſible profeſſion, and thereupon are admitted to baptiſme, can any man ſay, that all the ſaving graces of the Covenant, or the ſpirituall part of it, is promiſed to all viſible profeſſors? is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages, even in the beſt times, even in the Apoſtles times, multitudes were baptized, to whom God yet never gave ſaving graces, and therefore never promiſed them? for had hee made a promiſe, hee would have performed it. But I ſhall deſire you a little to conſider the nature of a Sacrament, in what ſenſe it is a ſeale, and then you neede ſtumble at this no longer; theſe three things are neceſſarily to be diſtinguiſhed, firſt, the truth of the thing ſignified in a Sacrament; and ſecondly, my intereſt in that thing; And thirdly, my obligation, to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament: I ſay therefore, that in every Sacrament, the truth of the Covenant in it ſelfe, and all the promiſes of it are ſealed to be Yea, and Amen; Jeſus Chriſt became a Miniſter of the circumciſion, to confirme the promiſes made unto the Fathers, & ſo to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptiſme, according to the rule which God hath given to his Church, to adminiſter that 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 Baptiſme, but as to the ſecond, which is intereſſe meum, or the receivers intereſt in that ſpirituall part of the duplicate page p. 116duplicate page p. 117p. 118Covenant, that is ſealed to no receiver abſolutely, but conditionally; in this particular, all Sacraments are but ſigna conditionalia, conditionall ſeales, ſealing the ſpirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver, upon condition that hee performe the ſpirituall condition of the Covenant: thus our Divines uſe to anſwer the Papiſts, thus Doctor Ames anſwers to Bellarmine, when Bellarmine diſputing againſt our doctrines that Sacraments are ſeales, alledges then they are falſely applyed oſtentimes; hee anſwers to Bellarmine, Sacraments are conditionall Seales, and therefore not ſeales to us but upon condition. Now for the third thing, the obligation which is put upon the receiver, a bond or the for him to performe, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament, this third I ſay is alſo abſolute, all Circumciſed and Baptized perſons did or doe ſtand abſolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part, and therefore all circumciſed perſons were by the circumciſion oblieged to keepe the Law, that is, that legall and typicall adminiſtration of the Covenant which was then in force, and Infants among the reſt were bound to this, though they had no underſtanding of the Covenant, or that adminiſtration of the Covenant, when this Seale was adminiſtred to them. Now then, ſince in Baptiſme there is firſt an abſolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it ſelfe, a conditionall ſeale of the receivers intereſt in the Covenant, and an abſolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part, is there any reaſon that you ſhould ſay, that the ſeale is put to a blank, where the ſpirituall part or ſaving grace is not partaked of? What you further ſay here, that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams perſon, and not every beleever, that it was a perſonall priviledge to Abraham, and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers, which thing you repeate very often, it ſhall bee conſidered in a more proper place. So that, you having thus wholly miſtaken my ſenſe, and undertaken to diſpute againſt a ſenſe which I never owned, I may therefore paſſe over your ſix arguments which you bring to confute this ſenſe which you have ſet downe: I joyne with p. 119you that it is an errour to ſay that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the ſaving graces of the Covenant, for although I finde abundance of promiſes in the Scripture, of Gods giving ſaving graces unto the poſteritie of his people, and that experience …eacheth us that God uſes to continue his Church in their poſteritie, and that Gods election lies more among their ſeed then among others, yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant ſo made at any time, that the ſpirituall part and grace of the Covenant ſhould bee conferred upon them all; it is ſufficient to mee that they may have a viſible ſtanding in the Church, partake of the outward priviledges of the Church, and bee trained up under that diſcipline, or adminiſtration of the Covenant which God uſes to make effectuall to ſalvation, in the meane time all of them to bee viſible members as well as their parents, and ſome of them inviſible as well as ſome of their parents. And therefore although in ſome of your fix reaſons there are divers expreſſions which I cannot ſwallow, yet I ſhall not here ſtay upon them, but examine them when you bring them elſewhere to diſpute againſt mee, as here you doe not; onelyonly give mee leave to touch upon the laſt of your fix arguments, becauſe in ſome ſenſe it militates How Chriſtianity may bee called a birthright.againſt my Theſis, Iſ this were true, ſay you, that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge, then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature, then Chriſtians are borne Chriſtians, not made Chriſtians; if the child of a Chriſtian be borne a Chriſtian, as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke; and if ſo, how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others? I anſwer, According to the ſenſe which I owne I maintaine this aſſertion to bee true, that the child of a Chriſtian is borne a Chriſtian, it is his birthright to bee ſo eſteemed; I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace, or a member of the viſible Church, our▪ I am ſure it was ſo, the child of a Iew was borne a Iew, and it was his birthright to bee an Iſraelite, a viſible member of the Church of Iſrael, and the Apoſtle Paul ſtuck not to uſe the word Iewes by nature, Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature, and not … of the …tiles, …ee there oppoſes the naturall priviledge of the p. 120members of the Church to the condition of the heathens, and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree, becauſe they were the viſible Church of God: Will you ſay of them alſo, how were they then the children of wrath by nature? I anſwer, doe but conſider the Apoſtles diſtinction, Rom. 2. laſt. betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facieviſibilis eccleſiae, a Jew without, and a Jew Rom. 2. ….Rom 2in abſcondito, a Jew within, and your objection is anſwered; in the firſt ſenſe, every child of a beleever is brone a Chriſtian, that is, hee is a member of the viſible Church; in the ſecond ſenſe, none can claime it as a birthright, men muſt be made Chriſtians in that ſenſe, and not borne Chriſtians; thus this, which is a weake objection of the Lutherans againſt the Calviniſts, is eaſily anſwered, to bee children of wrath by nature▪ and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant, being borne of beleeving parents, do no whit oppoſe one another; thus it was not onelyonly among the Jewes who had a viſible ſtanding under the Covenant of grace, and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath; but even thus it is unto this day among growne men, who are admitted to be Chriſtians in your way, ſome of them are ſancti, called and holy in the face of the viſible Church, and yet not ſo coram facie dei, whilſt others are ſo both in the ſpirit and in the letter. Your great errour and miſtake is, that you ſpeake not diſtinctly of the Covenant of grace, for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely underſtood for the whole diſpenſation of it in outward Ordinances as well as ſaving graces, you uſually take it ſtrictly for ſaving graces which belong onelyonly to the elect; You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward adminiſtration of the Covenant, under the notion of faedus externum, and the ſpirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inte…um; you ſtill reſtraine the Covenant to the ſpirituall part onelyonly, and would perſwade your Reader, that they who ſpeake of the Covenant of grace muſt meane it thus ſtrictly, and yet you bring not arguments to diſprove a true viſible memberſhip, upon a viſible profeſſion, whether the inward ſaving grace be known or not.

p. 121Now I returne with you to my Sermon, where your To Sect. 5. Compariſon betweene Chriſts kingdom and other kingdoms, vindicated.examen proceeds, I uſed for illuſtration ſake … compariſon from other Kingdomes, Corporations and Families; the children follow the condition of their parents, free m…n… children are borne free, the children of ſlaves are borne ſlaves, &c. and thus hath God ordained (ſaid I) that it ſhall bee in his Kingdome and Family, children follow the Covenant condition of their parents; this paſſage you ſlight, firſt in generall, as that which containes nothing but dictates; but par…ius-iſta-vitis, you may give your adverſary two in the ſeven at dictating, you who call my onelyonly uſing a compariſon or alluſion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place, Chriſtianitie ſay you is no mans birthright, this was but even juſt now the queſtion betwixt you and Mr. Blake, and you here without any proofe …et downe this peremptory concluſion (which was the very queſtion betwixt you) Chriſtianitis is no mans birthright, but the thing is true, call it what you pleaſe, and will not bee blowne away with a ſcornefull puffe: but ſay you, I do…very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations, as if perſons were to bee admitted into it by birth, whereas in this all is done by free election of grace, and according to Gods appointment. I reply, you carnally and ſinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular, for is it not evident that the Jewiſh Church was in this like civill corporations? were not children then admitted in by birthright, and yet was not grace then as free as it is now? had the Jewes by birth no ſeale of grace, and that by Covenant, becauſe God was the God of them and their ſeed, or was there no grace accompanying the Jewiſh Sacraments? I ſuppoſe you are not ſo Popiſh as to deny it. And further I pray you tell mee, was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace, as among us? are you of Arminius his mind, that Iacob and Eſa… (both circumciſed perſons) are not propoſed to us, Rom. 9. as ſuch who hold forth to us the ſoveraigntie of God in election and reprobation? Secondly, what meane you when you ſay, all is done in the Church according to the f… election of grace? Tis true, if you meane it of the Church inviſible, all is there done by the free election of grace, but wee are ſpeaking p. 122of the viſible Church: and I hope you will not ſay, all is there done by free election of grace, you will not ſay that none have any intereſt in the viſible priviledges, but onelyonly they who are elected. You adde, yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church, as in other kingdomes, is a ſeminary of dangerous ſuperſtitions and errors; Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath ſhewed that hence aroſe the frame of government by Patriarchs, Metropolitans, &c. and this is (ſay you) the reaſon of invocation of Saints, &c. I reply, true, for men to ſay thus it muſt be, or thus it may b…e in God… kingdome, becauſe it is ſo in other kingdomes, is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds ſpeaks of; but to mention ſome things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes, when God himſelfe hath made them ſo, it is obedience and not preſumption. Yea, it is a great ſinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing. Next when I ſay, if hee take a father into Covenant, hee takes the children in with him, if hee reject the parents, the children are eaſt out with them. You anſwer, if I meane this in reſpect of election and reprobation, it is not true, or in reſpect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation. I anſwer, you judge right, I meant it not of election or reprobation; nor that the ſaving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good, either to Infants or growne men, who are taken into Covenant▪ I meant it as before I expreſſed it, of taking in, into a viſible Church-ſtanding. But (ſay you) neither is that true, it is not true in reſpect of outward Ordinances, the father may bee baptized and not the child, and è contra, the father may, bee deprived, and the child may enjoy them, I anſwer, but this is the foreign, the thing that is in queſtion betwixt us, the contrary whereunto I undertake to juſtifie; Indeed de ſacto, the one may enjoy them, and the other hee deprived of them, a father may bee baptized, and his child die before it bee baptized▪ but our queſtion is de jure, whether a Parent, being a beleever, his child hath not right to Baptiſme, and other Church-priviledges, as it growes copable of them, at the …ew…s children had to Circumciſion, &c. De ſacto, it fell out ſometimes ſo among the Jewes, David, the …ather circumciſed, and not the child borne to him by Bathſheba, p. 123which dyed the ſeventh day, and was not Circumciſed, and many multitudes more in the ſame condition, but is this any thing againſt the right of Infants to be… Circumciſed?

Next (ſay you) In this point there i… … certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptiſts determination, becauſ… Mr. Rutherford ſaies, the children of Papiſts, and excommunicate Proteſtants which are barne with in our viſible Church, are baptized if their forefathers have been found in the faith, but others will deny it, and you cite Mr. Cotton in the Margin, wh… ſayes that if hath Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Cotton reconciled.the neareſt parents bee excommunicated, the child is not to bee baptized, becauſe the parents are to us as heathen…, and th…, ſay you, Paedobaptiſts as well as Anabaptiſts, like wates of the Sea, beat one againſt another: To which I anſwer, This peculiar controverſie betwixt ſome Paedobaptiſts, by … right the children are to bee baptized, whether by right of their neareſt parents only, or by the right of their remoter forefathers, who have been ſound in the faith, is very little helpefull to your cauſe, nor is it any very great controverſie betwixt thoſe parties whom you mention, for Mr. Cotton in the very words cited, doth almoſt, (if not altogether) reconcile it, while hee ſaith, when the neareſt parents are excommunicate, it may bee conſidered whether the child may not bee baptized either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profeſſion, or in the right of the Houſhold Governour, who promiſes to educate the child in the faith, … by proportion of the Law may bee gathered from Gen. 17. 12, 13. Here is little or no beating of one wave againſt another, but both of them beating Anabaptiſts; and I wiſh, that your anſwer did no more beace againſt the very reaſon of the holy Ghoſt, Gen. 17. 7. who makes this his Argument why hee would have the male children circumciſed, and thereby reckoned to bee in Covenant with him, becauſe their parents are in Covenant with him; this in mee you call a carnall imagination, take heed you daſh not againſt the Lord Jehovah himſelfe. Laſtly, whereas I adde thus i… w… in the time of the Iewes, both Jewes and Proſelytes, they and their children came thi… Covenant together, and when God rejected the parents out of the Covenant, the children were caſt out with them. To this you p. 124anſwer, indeed when par…nts were taken into Covenant, their children were circumciſed with them, but whether this make any thing for baptizing of Infants you ſhall con…ider in du… place, and there (God willing) I ſhall meet with you. But for the ſecond thing, that when the parents were caſt out of Covenant the Children were caſt out with them; this (ſay you) is not true, parents might bee Idolaters, Apoſtates, &c. yet their children were to bee circumciſed; I anſwer, firſt, Is it not evident in the Jewes at this day, that they and their children are caſt out together? and (I adde) if you would ſhew the falſitie of it, you ſhould have given ſome inſtance, not of parents, who remaine Gods people in externall profeſſion, not having received a Bill of divorcement, though their lives might poſſibly bee very wicked, but of ſome who were caſt off from being viſible profeſſors, and yet their Infants remaine in the viſible ſocietie of the Church, or of ſome who were viſibly thus taken in, and their Infants left out, but inſtead of this, you ſtill goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace, taking it onelyonly of the Covenant of ſaving grace, not including the externall way of adminiſtration with it.