Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.

SECT. XIX. Mr. Blakes exceptions against my Speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant, and initial seal, are refelled. (Book 19)

MR. Blake asserts a reality of connexion between the Covenant and initi∣al seal, and first he meddles with my Examen, and then with my Anti-pae∣dobaptism. To my objection that the Proposition is not true, that all that were federate in Abrahams family, were to be signed, for neither Males afore the eighth day, nor females were to be circumcised, besides his avouching Ma∣ster Marshall•• answer as sufficient, which is reviewed before, he saith, Is there no connexion between them, because he that receives into Covenant and ap∣points the seal, hath prescribed a time when it shall be applyed?

To which I say, it proves that there is not a connexion between being fede∣rate, and to be signed, to make this Proposition true, All that are federate are to be signed, barely in that they are federate. For they are federate the first, se∣cond, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh day, as well as the eighth, yet not to be signed, whereas if there was such a connexion between them according to Gods will, that the one being put, the other is to be put, they would be to be signed as soon as ever they are federate. And if it be Gods will that they should be signed, but not till the appointed time after, I might say that though infants were federate, yet they were not to be signed with baptism till Gods ap∣pointed time, which is not till they be disciples, and so infant baptism is not proved from their being in Covenant, the Major Proposition, All that are in Covenant are to be signed, being true only with this limitation, in the ap∣pointed time, which is not for baptism till they be Disciples. And whereas in answer to my objection, that if infants have right to the seal by being in co∣venant, then they have right to the Lords Supper, he answers.

1. That in baptism there is no more of necessity than to be passive. This is false, for baptism is enjoined as a duty, and such as is to have repentance and faith antecedent Mark chap. 16.16. Acts the 2. chap. 38. Acts chap. 8. verse 37.

2. He grants that infants have true title to the Lords Supper, jus ad rem, not jus in re, a right to it, yet by reason of infancy have their actual interest suspended.

But 1. still Mr. Blake speaks of the Lords Supper, and of baptism, as of privile∣ges meerly, whereas the Scripture speaks of each as a duty as well as a privi∣lege.

2. By the same distinction an answer is given to him concerning infants baptism, that though they have the right to it, yet by reason of infancy, the actual interest of it is to be suspended, they being no more able to profess the faith, till they be grown to some riper age then a Cradle King to rule a King∣dome.

So that Mr. Blakes answers yield more exceptions against Mr. Ms. argument, confirm it not at al, but shew how we may grant his Major, and yet so limit it that it will be too short of proving baptism of federate persons in infan∣cy:

and these passages of Master Blake appear to be Cavils and not An∣••wers.

He next sets upon the fifth section of the first part of my Review, and excepts,

1. That I shew not where to find Mr. Baillees words. But if he had looked into my Letter mentioned, he had found them quickly in the third section.

2. That I denyed the Metaphor of a seal to be rightly made, the genus of a rite, as of baptism, to which he replies in his flirting fashion. We shall expect another letter to shew Saint Pauls definition, Rom. 4.11. to be alike light (who runs upon the same errour, if an errour) when he saies that Circumcision is a sign and seal, there is the genus and the differentia lies in these words to di∣stinguish it from other signs, and seals of the righteousness of faith. The na∣ture of a Sacrament stands in a figure, and the whole efficacy of it in the use. And how else then should the nature and use of it be held out?

To which I answer, Paul doth not give a definition, Rom. 4.11. of circum∣cision, much less doth he define a Sacrament in general. Every Definition is reciprocal with the thing defined, but Mr. Bl. I presume will not say; every cir∣cumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, and every seal of the righte∣ousness of faith is circumcision. Besides individuals are not wont to be de∣fined, but what is there said is said of the singular circumcision of Abraham, and no other. The title given to Abrahams circumcision doth but shew what the use of it was to him, not what was the constant nature, and use of it on and to others. Which appears from the particularizing circumstances so ex∣actly noted by the Apostle, to wit, the times of his justification and circum∣cision, which do shew that it was appropriated to Abrahams circumcision, on his own body, what he there said of Circumcision. There is no more reason to make this the definition of Circumcision [the seal of the righteousness of faith] then to make that [1 Tim 6.10. the root of all evil] the definition of the love of money, or that [Heb. 6.16. the end of all strife] the definition of an oath, or that [v. 19. the anchor of the soul firm and stable] the definition of hope, or that [Heb. 11.1. the evidence of things not seen] the definition of faith A seal cannot be the genus of it, being a Metaphor, for a Metaphor shews not what it is, but what it is like. Circumcision is an action as it is from the agent, as in the subject a passion. The relation that comes to it is not from its nature, but by institution, and is the end of it, rather than the genus, rather for what it is, than what it is. A seal is an artificial body compound of a sub∣stance and figure, which cannot be said of Circumcision. What Mr. Bl. saith, that the nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure, cannot be true of such a fi∣gure as is in a Seal, for so baptism, the Passeover, the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament sith they do not make any figure on the body, nor of figure of speech, for so a Sacrament should not be a visible sign, but an audible. I grant the use of it is to resemble by a visible sign some other thing, as the breaking bread, Christs body broken, and in that sense it may be called a figure as Augustine called the bread the figure of Christs body. But the use belongs to the diffe∣rence to distinguish it from the same action or passion used to another purpose, not to the genus. And yet sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith, cannot be the difference to distinguish a Sacrament from the preaching of the Gospel, for the preaching of the Gospel by word or writing is a sign or seal of the righ∣teousness

of faith. What is said Rom. 4.11. that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, is not all one with this [a seal of the Covenant of grace] For it is added [which he had yet, being un∣circumcised] and therefore was a sign not of a promise or covenant, concerning a thing to be done, but of a thing accomplished or already done. I see not how Rom. 4.11. either the general nature of a Sacrament, or the special nature of circumcision may be said to be defined. Nor do I conceive it true which Mr. Bl. saith, the whole efficacy of a Sacrament is in the use: I suppose baptism, and the Lords Supper have their efficacy in comforting, moving to holiness, love, &c. after the use. The nature and use of a Sacrament may be otherwise held out then Mr. Bl. doth, which I now omit. It is sufficient at present to shew the emptiness of Mr. Bls. dictates. And for my rejecting of the common use of the terms of seals of the Covenant, and initial seals as Synonymous to sa∣craments and baptism, especially in disputes wherein proper terms should be u∣sed, I have given sufficient reason from the abuses of Paedobaptists inferring errours from a late devised term, and imposing on mens consciences: yet I pro∣fess, if baptism were granted to be a seal or initial seal, that I think that it would not follow, that it hath that relation to the Covenant; that infants in Cove∣nant must not be denied it, but that it is a frivolous argument, infants are in covenant, therefore they must have the initial seal of the Covenant: for which if I had no other reason, yet that one of Mr. Bl. that though a person be in Covenant, and have right to the seal, yet he is not to have it till the appointed time, it were sufficient to justifie my censure.

Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech, that to have the promise, and to be a dis∣ciple or believer, are not all one, for he conceives to have a promise in Scrip∣ture phrase is to possesse it, as those Jews after the flesh did possess, Rom. 9.4▪ And how to possesse a promise without faith, he doth not yet understand.

Whereto I reply, that I find the term [promise] used in Scripture sometimes metonymically for the thing promised,, as Luke ••4.49. when Christ saith, I send the promise of the Father upon you, he means the Holy Ghost promised, and it is true in this sense, to have a promise is to possesse it. But in proper ac∣ception the term [promise] notes the act of the person promising, as Gal. 3.16. to Abraham and his seed were the promises made, or spoken. So likewise v. 17, 18. And in this sense he hath a promise, who hath not possession of the thing promised, and thus we usually say, I have not yet such an office, reve∣nue, estate, &c. but I have a promise of it. In which sense I took it, and so it is true, that in this sense, a man may have the promise, and not be a belie∣ver or disciple as yet. And thus I conceive it taken in all the three places in the new Testament 2 Cor. 7.1. 1 Tim. 4.8. Heb. 7.6. and in this sense a person may have a promise afore he is a believer.

Mr. Blake further excepts against me:

That 1. I make these terms all one, to have a promise, and to be a child of the promise.

2. That I make a child of the promise, Rom. 9.8. to be all one with to be an elect person, as Isaac and Jacob, v. 10, 11, 12. were children of the promise, to whom the promise was made before they were born.

But Mr. Blake saith, That to have a promise, and to be a child of promise, are two different things in Scripture; yet shews not the difference between them.

In that expression Rom. 9.8. the child of the promise (according to the usuall Hebraisms, Child of light, Child of wrath, Son of perdition, which note the person who is the subject or object of those several terms attributed) is a per∣son of whom, or for whom, the promise is made, and so it is all one with [to have the promise.]

But saith M. Bl. if the child of the promise were all one with to be elect, then (according to me) all the Jews according to the flesh were elect persons; they had the promises, yea those that were actors in Christs death Acts 2.39. which he must needs yield to be an absurdity.

To which I reply, I do not conceive how this is true according to me, that if children of the promise be all elect, all the Jews according to the flesh were elect persons. Sure I no where make all the Jews according to the flesh children of the promise.

Yea the text Rom. 9.8. is so express against it, that the children of the flesh, are denied to be children of Gods, that is, children of the promise, which the words shew to be equipollent. Yea it is the express determination, v. 6. that all that are of Israel, to wit, by natural generation, are not Israel, to whom the promise was made; nor all children (that is, of God, and of the pro∣mise) who are the seed of Abraham, v. 7. But that no other were children of the promise, though the seed natural of Abraham and Isaac: but elect persons, the Apostle doth not onely assert, but prove it in Esau and Jacob, v. 10, 11, 12, 13. It is true, Rom. 9.4. it is said the promises were the Israelites: but what∣ever the promises there meant were, whether of spiritual or corporal good things, yet it follows not that of every Israelite were the promises any more than that of every Israelite, v. 5. was Christ according to the flesh. Nor Acts 2.39. is it said that all the Jews according to the flesh had the promises. But that the promise was to them, their children and all afar off, whom God should call: the promise is attributed to none but the called of God. The generality of Anti-Arminian Protestants make children of the promise to be all one with the elect, Rom. 9.8. some I allege in my Exam. part. 3. sect. 4. some more in my Praecursor, and more I meet with in my reading. It is not true which Mr. Bl. saith, that Isaac being born by promise, all his posterity originally were of the same birth, for the Apostle concludes the contrary of Esau, Rom. 9.10, 11, 12. The text Gal. 4.28. is rightly brought to shew that all Jews according to the flesh, are not the children of the promise, but as Mr. Dioson, we, that is believing Christians, who were born after the spirit, and presented by them that were born after the flesh, v. 29. that is, by the unbelieving Jew, who stuck to the legal covenant. Nor need we say, that all the visible Churches of Galatia were born after the spirit, but onely that the true believers in them were so. Nor is there a word of any privileges inferiour to justification, as the series of the text shews, and many learned Protestants cleerly express. That which Master Blake saith, he will maintain, that every one in Covenant is a belie∣ver, a disciple, that believers are same formally, such as in act assent to Go∣spel revelations; some virtually, such as have the privileges of professing belie∣vers, that infants in Covenant are virtually believers, in that they are honou∣red with the privileges of believers, and that this distinction the Scripture warrants, are all vain dictates, there being not one Scripture that ever calls any a believer from a privilege, but from the act of assent or profession of faith, nor

is there the least colour for it out of Scripture to call infants in covenant be∣lievers without their own act of assent or profession of faith, and therefore I let pass these speeches of M. Bl. as idle unproved talk, of which his book is full.

Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech, some not yet born, some not yet called are in the covenant, have the promise of grace made to them. I have read (saith he) of a covenant entered with those that at the instant time of the making of the Covenant were present, and with those that were not present, Deut. 29.15. with men of years, and them with their little ones, Deut. 29.11. But I read not of a covenant actually made with any unborn.

Answ. My expression [are in Covenant] I confess that I remember not used in the Scripture, yet it is usual in the writings of Paedobaptists, who usually say, infants are in the Covenant of grace with their parents. The Assemblies larger Catechism avoucheth infants of parents, professing faith in Christ with∣in the Covenant. Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 8.15, &c. And this expression of theirs I knew not how to conceive they meant otherwise then thus, Infants have Gods promise of grace made to them, or for them, as in the Directory, the promise is made to believers and their seed. For infants said to be in the cove∣nant must be so by some act either their own, or the administrators, or Gods. Not by any act of their own, for they do nothing to that effect; not by the ad∣ministrator of baptisms act, for he doth nothing but baptize, and if his act be bringing into Covenant then bringing into covenant is all one with baptizing, and if an infidels child be baptized it is in Covenant. Besides Paedobaptists as∣sert they are within the Covenant afore they are baptized, as the Directory saith, they are foederally holy before baptism It remains then that it is by Gods promise. Now surely Gods promise to Abraham, and his seed Gen. 17.7. which is usually made the promise whereby infants of believers are in covenant, was many thousand years since, 430. years before the law, Gal. 3.16.17. Therefore even according to the usual language of Paedobaptists infants of be∣lievers are in Covenant afore they are born: which Mr. Bl. had no cause to carp at (as he doth) but that it is almost all his art, especially when I had to prevent it, so distinctly added to shew my meaning [have the promise of grace made to them] If Mr. Bl. have any other way whereby infants are in the co∣venant, as the parents vow, or profession, or suretie for them, according to it; I suppose, infants may be said to be in covenant afore they are born, sith such vows, profession and promises may be made for them afore they are born Let's consider what M. B saith. He tels us, he reads not of a covenant actually made with any unborn. And as I conceive by his Appendix to his Vindic. foederis, as an addition to his first chapter, his reason is, because he conceives that it is of the general nature of a covenant properly so called, that there be a mutual contract and agreement, which I shall examine when I consider Mr. Cobbers part. 1. c. 3. sect. 9. of his Iust Vindic. For present, if this be true, neither can a Covenant be actually made with an infant born, sith an infant born can no more contract, or agree, or consent, then one unborn. Nevertheless I conceive, there is a covenant actually made with persons unborn Gen. 9.12. where God saith, This is the token of the Covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature, that is, with you, for perpetual generations: which doth express a covenant actually made with every living creature of all flesh for perpetual generations, therefore for thousands of persons unborn. Yea

where he saith, he readeth of a Covenant entered into with those that were not present, Deut. 29.15. he reads of a covenant made with persons unborn, as Piscator, Ainsworth, Iackson, Grotius, the New Annot. The notes out of the Arch-bishop of Yorks Library, &c. do conceive, and reason proves it: sith that covenant was made only with Israel, not with any other people then exi∣stent, but there was none of all Israel then born, which was not there that day, as appears from v. 10. therfore those that were not there with them that day, can be no other then persons unborn, and so Mr. Blake saith not true, that he hath not read of a covenant actually made with any unborn. But were it granted that by them that were not present were meant persons existent then, there is no reason why a covenant may not as well be said to be actually made with the unborn as with the absent, who do not express any actual consent or agreement. Surely if it be true that the Covenant of grace was made with Christ afore the world for all the elect, or in the beginning of time, Gen. 3.15. or at his death or resurrection, as many Divines speak, and sundry texts seem to intimate, Gal. 3.16. 1 Cor. 11.25. Tit. 1.2. 2 Tim. 1.9. Joh. 6.38, 39, 40. Iohn 10.15, 17, 18, 29, 30. Iob. 17.9, 10, 20, 24. Isa. 53.11, 12. Psal. 2.7, 8. Heb. 1.5, 6. Heb. 10.7, 15, 16. Heb. 8.6. Heb. 13.20. it must of necessity be made with many persons unborn. But Mr. Blake adds.

Mr. Tombs seems here to make the Covenant and election to be one and the same, as by this passage, so by that which follows; but these Scripture still distinguishes.

To which I say, it is true that I make the elect and those that are in the Co∣venant of grace one and the same, but neither in that passage or any other, do I make the covenant and election to be one and the same, as Mr. Blake mistakes me.

He saith further; We find promises and prophecies, as to the taking into Covenant in time to come, Ezek. 20.37. but not any such respective to ele∣ction.

To which I say, the prophecy of taking into Covenant, Ierem. 31.33, 34. is respective to election, or else God promises to write his Laws in their hearts, and not to remember their sins who are not elect.

He goes on. All the promises of call of the Gentiles is to bring them into the privileges of glory, formerly proper to the Jews. To be in covenant was their great privilege: And this is not conferred on the Gentiles before all time, but done in time, Isaiah 42.6. when he brings them light, then he brings them into Covenant.

To which I say, The Jews privileges were some of them (as those Rom. 9.4, 5.) such as God never promised to the Gentiles to bring them to, he never promised to make any entire nation little ones, servants, &c. to be his visible Church.

But God promised to the Gentiles the saving privileges of justification, a∣doption, regeneration, eternal life, Ephes. 3.5, 6. and this was onely to true believers or elect persons, verse. 11, 12. And these were in Covenant in respect of Gods act of promise before they were in being, in which sense alone infants may be said to be in the covenant of grace; but in respect of the con∣ferring of the things promised and the possession of them by faith, so neither they then were in Covenant Ephes. 2.12. nor are infants now.

He adds, That text Rom. 11.26, 27, is too notoriously abused; a prophe∣cy of their future call into covenant, is made a proof that they are already in covenant, upon that account we may make the resurrection (if not past, as the antient Hereticks Hymen••us and Phile••us affirmed, 2 Tim. 2.18. yet) at least present. There is like promise of the resurrection of the dead, as there is of the call of the Jews into Covenant, and resembled to the resurrection, as Ezek. 37. so also Rom. 11.15. If by vertue of the text alleged they be alrea∣dy in covenant, by virtue of like Texts the dead are already raised.

Answ. Had Mr. Bl. either heeded my words, or been willing to give them any fair interpretation, he had forborn this censure, in which he doth too noto∣riously abuse me. I said, the Jews, Rom. 11.26, 27. not yet born, or not yet called are in the Covenant, have the promise of grace made to them, which later words I put in on purpose to shew in what sense I said they were in cove∣nant, to wit, in that they had the promise of grace made to them (in which sense I took the Paedobaptists to mean, that infants are in the covenant of grace, nor do I yet know how they can mean otherwise) and this is proved plainly from Rom. 11.26, 27. That God hath promised to save all Israel, to turn away un∣godliness from Iacob, and saith, this is his covenant unto them, when he shall take away their sins. I say not they are in covenant in respect of the things pro∣mised as already possessed, but that they are in covenant in respect of Gods act of promise, they have promise of that which they shall have when they are called, as I often express my self: which being rightly understood, the cavil of Mr. Bl. vanisheth of it self, for though the resurrection be not past, because of a promise of it, yet the term Covenant being the same with a promise they may be said to be in Covenant in respect of a promise made to them, who yet enjoy not the thing promised. Which is confirmed even from the common al∣legation of Paedobaptists, who say, that by virtue of the promise, Gen. 17.7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, infants of believers are in the covenant, which can be true only in respect of the promise made, which is as much before they are born as after.

To this Mr. Bl. answers, 1. That this can be an argument barely ad ho∣minem; seeing though we affirm, yet he denies any such Covenant. I re∣ply:

1. That it is true that I deny that Gen. 17.7. there is a covenant made to believers and their seed, but I deny not the Covenant to be to Abraham and his seed, nor do I deny elect infants to be therein comprehended, and that a∣fore they are born.

2. If it be only an argument barely ad hominem, yet it is sufficient, till the tenet on which it proceeds be disclaimed by them, which Mr. Bl. hath not yet the heart to do.

But he answers, 2. I say, as they were in being, so they were also in cove∣nant, not actually, but potentially, which is nothing to Master Tombes his purpose.

I reply. To be potentially in Covenant may be meant either in respect of possession of the things promised, and so I grant they were in covenant onely potentially, or in respect of the making of the Covenant, and so they were in covenant actually, that is, the promise was made to them, and this is enough for my purpose to prove a person may be in covenant unborn, in which sense

onely infants are in covenant, and therefore if infants thus being in covenant make them visible Church-members, and give right to their baptism, by the same reason unborn or uncalled infidels have right to baptism.

Mr. Bl. page 386. saith, he willingly closeth with me, where I say, that the judgement of charity is no rule to a Minister whom to baptize; nor do I dissent from what he saith, if his meaning be as the words seem, I as well know when any man is in covenant, as he knows when he is a believer: when any man doth avouch himself to be one of the people of God, as he knows when they professe to believe. I do confesse that by the same knowledge whereby any man is known, and so far as he is known to be a believer, he is known so far to be in covenant; he that avoucheth himself to be one of Gods people, and that professeth to believe is in appearance, and to be taken as in covenant, and a believer. But how doth Mr. Bl. know that this or that infant is in covenant and to be baptized? not by Gods promise, for there is no such promise of any Gentile believer, that all his infants, or any one in particular shall be his peo∣ple, either by regenerating grace, or outward ordinance: not by profession of believing or avouching himself to be one of the people of God, for no infant doth, or can without miracle do it; therefore it must be by a judgement of charity (which Mr. Bl. agrees with me to be no rule to a Minister whom to baptize) or no way. And consequently were it granted (which is not) that being in covenant in respect of Gods promise of being a God to some infants of believers did give a title to baptism, yet no Minister could upon this ground baptize this or that particular infant, nor any infant now existent, sith he nei∣ther doth nor can know without special revelation, that God hath made this promise or covenant to it.

What he addes, And it appears when it is brought home, this is all his ground of challenge of baptism of persons in covenant, because their interest in covenant is not manifest, is not right. For I assert first, that bare interest in the Covenant, that is, as I have often said, this thing, that God hath pro∣mised to be his God, doth not of it self intitle a person to baptism, sith God hath made this promise to thousands yet unborn, and of those that are born to thousands yet uncalled, perhaps Jews, yet professed unbelievers, whom no man can say rightly to have title to baptism. 2. That if it were granted this interest in the covenant did intitle to baptism, yet no Minister can by this rule justify his baptizing of an infant, sith he neither hath, nor can have, ordina∣rily, knowledge, that the infant he baptizeth hath this interest in the Cove∣nant.

What he saith of me, that I seem to make election and interest in covenant commensurate; All elect are interessed in covenant, and all interessed in Cove∣nant are elect; I do grant it, being understood of the covenant of Evangeli∣cal grace, of regeneration, justification, &c. in respect of Gods promise of it, and I have often shewed that both Paul, Rom. 9.8. and many of the soundest Protestant Divines say the same. But what he addes of me; And elect infants (as he hath more then once acknowledged) might be baptized in case their election were known, is Mr. Bls. mistake of me, who do no where say, that they may be baptized in case their election were made known, but that infants born might be baptized in case their regeneration, faith, sanctification were made known. Whereas a person not yet begotten, may be known to be elect,

but not to be regenerated, or made a believer. And by my tenet there is a bar against baptizing of infants, in that they want title to baptism; and if they have title, we want knowledge of it. As for Paedobaptists tenent I profess, I do not know what they count a bar against baptizing of infants according to their tenent, there being such uncertainty in their tenents, some holding all are to be baptized in case of danger of death, some all born in a Christian nation, some, all who are in families of persons professing the Christian faith, though the parents were infidels; some, onely the children of Church-members after the way they call Congregational; some judging of the interest in the cove∣nant by a judgement of charity; some by a judgement of certainty. What my tenet is, I have shewed already. Though I conceive that Christs words, Mat. 19.14. did import that the infants were elect, yet I do not say, that Christ was displeased with the disciples for being ignorant of their election and justifi∣cation, and for that reason not admitting them to be blessed by him, but for that knowing Christ was the great prophet, who was sent to bless, they did hin∣der those that were brought to be blessed from access to him.

As for Mr. Bls. question, who say that the covenant of grace without any other command is a command to baptize infants, I think Mr. Stephens said it when he made a convertibility between the word of promise, and the word of command; and whereas Mr. Bl. saith, if Christ had never given a command for it, neither old nor young ought to have been baptized, it is true; nor in my speech of his, and Mr. Stephens tenet did I mean when I said [without any other command] to exclude the institution of baptism, but it being supposed to be instituted by Christ, Paedobaptists do frequently prove a command to bap∣tise infants by vertue of being in covenant, without any particular command of baptizing them, or any other description that comprehends them, as Mr. Marshalls first argument in his Sermon, Mr. Bls. second argument, Vindic. foed. chap. 43. sect. 1. s••••w.

Mr. Geree calls denying infant-baptism, A defalking the Covenant, and Mr. Bl. himself maintains the third speech, that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in covenant, when he saith, p. 335. every disciple is in covenant, and everyone in covenant is a disciple And for his Arguments asserting that infants are of Christs disciples what I have met with either are answered already in the second part of this Review, or will be answered in this part (i•• God permit) my conceit being still more confirm∣ed by fuller examination of them, that they are very frivolous.