Page 159
SECT. III. His Conclusions concerning this Covenant.
PAge 48. he addes some Conclusions. First, an Implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the Visible Church.
Secondly, (which is much the same) an Implicite Covenant in some Cases may be fully sufficient.
Thirdly, it is much agreeing to the Compleatnesse of the rule, (what rule I would know) and for the better being of the Church, that there be an explicite Covenant. He gives reasons of this Conclusion;
For thereby the judgement of the Members comes to be inform∣ed, and convinced of their Duty more fully.
I Would ask, whether a new Duty added by this Covenant, or an old Duty which arose out of Baptism? If a new, I cannot judge of the fitnesse without I knew the particulars, but am assured, that whatsoever is added to the Covenant in bap∣tism, although it may have possible Allowance in Acts of Reli∣gion to some particular men upon some particular Occasions, yet in general to presse such a Thing upon all Christians, is not tollerable; If it be no addition to that Covenant, the only re∣freshing of that Covenant to the memory of a Christian is abun∣dantly enough. This likewise answers his 2d Argument, page 49. They are (saith he) thereby kept from Cavilling and Start∣ing aside from the Tenure and Terms of the Covenant which they have professed and acknowledged before the Lord, and so many Witnesses. I answer, as before, If the Terms be additions to what was in Baptism, he ought not in general to prescribe them to all Christians. If they are not Additions, then that Covenant is the strongest he can make which was made in Baptism. The same answer may be applied to his third reason; For (saith he)