can make his infant a visible Church-member and baptizable for his children are uncleane But it is not possible for a baptizer to know the parent to be a real believer before God without special revelation and therefore without it he cannot be certain he doth his duty according to Mr. Bs. suppositions yea he may be certain he doth not his duty For he may be certain he cannot observe the rule of baptizing onely the infants of those that are real believers before God it being certain some in the visible Church are hypocrites and he is not to baptize the infants of such if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle they being unclean that is no visible church-Church-members nor baptizable and therefore he may be certain in baptizing promiscuously infants of visible professors that he doth not his duty if Mr. Bs. exposition be good but sins against the Apostles determination in baptizing those that are not baptizable by the Apostles determination as Mr. B. expounds him and if he be intelligent against his own light but cannot be certain he doth his duty because he cannot know which are baptizable those infants being onely baptizable according to the Apostles resolution as expounded by Mr. B. who are the children of believers not onely so accounted in the judgement of charity but also really such before God which he cannot know without special revelation SECT XII That Mr. B. unjustly chargeth me to be a Sect-Master TO his virulent and most unrighteous speech of me page 188. that he hath as good evidence that I am a Sect-Master as that I am a Christian I have replied before sect 4. And now I say further that my conscience acquits me from the guilt of making any Sect and my proceedings at first with my brethren in the Ministery manifested in my Examen and Apology in my applying my self to the Assemby and Mr. M. do fully clear my aime to have been Reformation with peace and concurrence in the work of Christ with them which course Mr. B. approves pag. 246. and if my writings had been fairely examined it is very probable they had not bin printed What I did I was necessitated to by their sleighting the thing aed determining contrary to my positions in a Magisterial manner notwithstanding my writings whereby it became poenal to hold my tenet which enforced me to print And yet neither then did I meddle with the practise till Mr. Baillee awakened me by telling me my infant-baptisme must be null by my principles Nor have I baptized save one nearely related to me but where I was chosen a preacher where I conceived my self bound to baptize by Christs rule Mat. 28. 19. those disciples to whom I preached nor did I joine any in communion till I saw that those that did their duty in being baptized were rejected and made odious with Ministers and people whereby they are necessitated to join in communion by themselves And if any others do not joine with them it is partly because notwithstanding I am for my own particular much inclined to unite in the communion those that differ in judgement about infant-baptisme according to my judgement expressed in my Apology sect 12. and Mr. Jesseys determinations in his book intitled A store-house of provision to further resolution in sundry cases of conscience yet because it is manifest from Acts 2. 41 46. 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3. 12. 13. persons were baptized afore they brake bread together and Justin. Martyr Apolog 2. ad Antoninum hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is This food is with us called the Eucharist or thanksgiving of which it is not allowed for any other to partake but him that believeth those things to be true which are taught by us and is washed with that washing which is for the forgivenesse of sins and unto new birth and that lives so as Christ hath delivered which passage is alleadged by Mr. B. page 156. though maimedly And Augustin tom 7. de pecc mer. et remiss lib. 1. cap. 20. Adsacramentum mensae Domini nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit And Lumb sent l. 4. dist 8. Hoc coeleste manna non nisi renatis praestari debet And the generality of Popish and Protestant Divines hold so Mr. B. page 342. We have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament to admit any member into the Church without baptisme and therefore the taking any without baptisme to the Lords Supper will but strengthen men in their opinion that their infant-sprinkling is sufficient and partly because by Mr. Bs. book and other meanes men are so possessed with the restoring of baptisme as if it were an error schisme a practise accursed by God that consciencious timorous men do of themselves shunne us and others furiously oppose us therefore I see a necessity of desisting from that enterprise yet resolved to join with other Christians of different judgement in what agreement communion I can with a good conscience in prayer preaching disciplin c. And I speak unfeignedly notwithstanding all the injuries done me by Mr. M. Mr. Geree Mr. Baillee and now beyond all the rest by Mr. B. yet my heart is towards them to promote with them the work of Christ according to the solemn Covenant I think Mr. B. others are not ignorant that I have as absolutely and diligently opposed if not so happily the Popish Arminian Antinomian Familistical Socinian errors now broached as other men What I said in my Apology sect 20. I say still I seek unity with truth and I am certain that Mr. B. hath most injuriously accused me as unpeaceable whether it hath come from others suggestions or his own misconceits of me To that which is from pag. 189. to 169. is answered before SECT XIII That it is not a right way to judge of the truth of a doctrine by strange accidents though wonderous PAge 197. He drives on more furioso having recited my words concerning unsafenesse to judge of doctrine by such accidental strange things as Mrs. Dyers and Hutchinsons monstrous birthes in New England and alle adged an example of determining that God was against the marriage of Priests by the falling of a house and added we are to judge God may order accidents for stumbling blocks he flies out thus Will not this man rather fight against heaven and dispute against miracles then let go his error and then in his pathetick Rhetorick insinuates as if this speech of mine were weakening the credit of Gods testimony in wonderous providences not farre from the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost that I am fallen so farre as freely to sacrifice Gods glory to my fancies and then brings in exceptions against me in four things 1. That I call them onely strange accidents 2. Compare it to the falling of a house 3. That I disswade from judging of doctrine by such accidents 4. Yea rather would have men think that they are stumbling blocks that men should not receive
doth not shew my words are there all assertory of what I conceive infants cannot do in their own persons not a word of perswasion or disswasion to the parents or any other And for that which is added then it seemes you know not how a Father should engage his child by covenanting in his name and after you would have no parents to engage their children solemnly to God in Christ by Covenanting in their names there is not a word of it in that place 'T is true in my Sermon intituled Fermentum Pharisaeorum I gave a little touch against the use of sureties at baptisme according to the Doctrine of the catechisme in the common prayer-book that they did promise that they should believe c. which I conceived onely belongs to Christ as surety of the better Covenant Heb. 7. 22. But I never denied that the Elders of a Nation may engage solemnly the posterity even the unborne to take the Lord for their God but this I rather take to be an adjuration under a curse if they do not then a promise for them that they shall nor that a parent may engage his child by a promise of his own endeavour that he shall and that the child is engaged thereby but not by vertue of the Fathers promise but by vertue of the obligation of the thing promised the Fathers promise is an incitement to do it the rather but makes not the child bound to do it of it self but onely because the thing is a duty which he were bound to did the Father promise for him or not But I deny that this makes a visible church-Church-member or that in nature or law as his childs act according to the Gospel for his being admitted a visible Church-member Now Mr. B. hastily answering me jumbles things together and as one impatient of considering what I say chargeth me with what I avow not and then concludes scoffically And I pray you how well do you free your self from this charge Should I imitate him I should cry shamelesse foul dealing c. But I am resolved to examine his writing not to follow his fashion Pag. 179. He saies I did not distinguish of disciples or yield infants disciples in any sense If I acknowledge them disciples in any sense I should speak out To which I say I put in those words in my Sermon in that sense Christ appointed disciples to be baptized to intimate that I did not deny but infants might be disciples by the immediate secret work of Gods spirit though not in the ordinary mediate way of preaching the Gospel about which the rule Mat. 28. 19. is set As for Mr. Bs. sense of a disciple of Christ without learning Christs doctrine of a servant of God without service actively or passively a disciple remotely by the Fathers being a disciple it is nothing like the use of the word disciple in the New Testament or the terme servant of God as equipollent to a disciple and no marvel I should mistake Mr. B. who used termes in a sense I never met with in the New Testament and I still conceive to be a piece of new gibberish And when he saith he took servant and disciple according to their relative formal nature and not either with the accidental consideration of active or passive it is no marvel I should be at a stand what to answer him using termes in such an uncouth non-sense acception as I never met with before For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to battel And it seemes to me a grosser absurdity which Mr. B. hath in those words then any of those he chargeth me with to take disciple and servant in their relative formal nature without learning or service active or passive whereas Mr. B. himselfe page 92. where he saies the relation of a servant disciple souldier husbandman trades-man remaines when the act ceaseth for a time yet expressely saith the relation and so the denomination is from the act of service learning c. and yet he would have infants to be denominated disciples and servants of God without their act of learning or service or capacity of actual learning or service in an ordinary way and he is not ashamed to call learning or service actively or passively accidental to the title or denomination of a disciple or servant Which is a monstrous absurdity to make a denomination without the forme denominating yea to count it accidental to conceive a relation without the foundation which is all one as to call one a Father without begetting a Lord without dominion a signe without signification not unlike the riddle vir non vir percussit non percussit avem non avem lapide non lapide super arbore non arbore or rather absurdorum absurdissimū oppositum in apposito And yet this notion of a disciple never proved is the ground work of Mr. Bs. first argument and therefore if I may use Mr. Bs. words they are very tractable soules that are led by his notions page 180. He thinks strange that a man of my parts should know of no separation to God but by election or calling he questions whether election be proper separation he saies that the Jewes first-borne were seperated by a law and men now by dedication separate goods to God that he meanes separation neither by election nor extraordinary or ordinary call but by the law or Covenant of God To which I reply Mr. B. still abuseth me by leaving out my words as the case now stands which were put in as remarkable to exclude that way of separation to God whereby the first born Priests goods c. were holy as separated to God Election is alwayes with seperation that is differencing one from another and as election is said to be according to purpose Rom. 9. 11. so likewise separation Paul was separated from his mothers wombe Gal. 1. 15. according to Gods pleasure and purpose that is by his election And with this separation infants may be said to be sanctified as Jeremiah ch 1. 5. And so the terme holy is applied Rom. 11. 16. to the Jewes then unborne who were after to be called ver 24 25 26 27. And called Saints is used 1 Cor. 1. 2. As for infants of believers whether elect or reprobate outward federal holinesse I know no such there 's no law or Covenant separates every child of a believer to God According to Mr. B. the Covenant sealed by baptisme is conditional and that belongs to all the sons of Adam till persons are severed by believing and unbeliefe this Covenant therefore of it self without putting the condition doth not separate any to God and so not infants till they be believers the absolute is onely to the elect and according to it and so onely the elect are separated which are not all perhaps but a few of the children of believers but an Isaac of all Abrahams children Rom. 9. 6 7 8. A law or Covenant of God
is holy and that this intitles to baptisme The Jewes hereafter to be called are holy Rom. 11. 16. by election Mr. Cobbet Just vindic chap. 3 sect 1. page 37. The Jewes yet to come were in Pauls time holy federally Rom. 11. 15 16. not actually but intentionally yet not then baptizable the Medeâ— sai 13. 3. are called Gods sanctified ones yet not to be admitted visible Church-members I further add that in his general sense Legitimate might also signifie a state separate to God as being that onely posterity he allowes of according to his institution of marriage Mal. 2. 15. which is very frequently called holy by Divines And therefore letting passe his jocular tale my exception or answer to his reasoning from 1 Cor. 7. 14. deserves a better refutation then he hath yet given Then he makes me say that no Scripture speakes of holinesse in his sense whereas my words as above were more wary Mr. B. I think cannot shew c. And then tells me that the Jewes infants are called the Holy seed and that by covenant or law which is his sense and then chargeth me with laying by conscience and common modesty having little tendernesse of conscience in accusing his will in charging him with a grosse falshood that he was willing to carry things in generals and not to tell distinctly how infants are holy and in a state separated to God whereas he told me he meant holy by law or Covenant Notwithstanding which I may yet conceive him willing to carry things in generals sith this very explication is in generals the law or Covenant as he calls it being not distinctly named and shewed where it is and upon what conditions that state of separation to God which infants have is ascertained whether upon their own act or parents and if upon parents whether immediate or mediate whether to the truth and reality or profession nor wherein that state of separation to God consists or what is the benefit of it all or of some which perhaps I apprehend Mr. B. rightly in now yet not till I had read over his book again and again and pickt out his meaning by comparing many passages together which because he did not then nor since in his printed writings put together as others do in their theses they maintaine I guessed he was willing to carry things in the general and if I did say so which Mr. B. and I must take on his Scribes word in my Sermon without any caution Mr. B. might have imagined that I meant it with this caution which is ordinarily allowed in constructions of such speeches where thematter leades us to conceive them intended that I conceived him unwilling which might be the more allowed to me in that speech which I had not a word written when I spake it which of all other Mr. B. is least fit to except against me for having in print offended in this way in worse manner page 185. But to the matter now we conceive his meaning I still say the same that I think he cannot shew one place where holy is taken for separated to God in his sense He alleadgeth that the Jewes infants are called the holy seed though he name not the text which had been fit yet I guesse by his words page 83. he meanes Ezra 9. 2. in which place onely and Isaiah 6. 13. I find this terme in Scripture But Ezra 9. 2. doth not speak of infants but such a holy seed as mingled themselves with the people of the land which was in marriage which will not be said of infants nor is holy seed there meant of a state separated to God in Mr. Bs. sense by Covenant promising it to believers that their infants should be visible Church-members For this holinesse was a state of difference or separation onely by legal descent from Israel not by the faith of next parents and it did intitle them to a peculiar priviledge of being reckoned in the genealogy of Israel or in full communion with the Common-wealth of Israel in respect of inheritance marriage c. though they fell to Idolatry as Jeroboam Ahaz Manasseh c. did But proselytes though believers were not the holy seed there meant they were not forbidden to marry the daughters of the people of the land Yea the children of the holy seed begotten upon prohibited women as the daughters of the Nations there mentioned were with their mothers to be put away as unholy according to the law Ezra 10. 3. contrary to the resolution af the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 12 13 14. which evidently shewes that the Jewes are called the holy seed by their descent according to the law of Moses and that the term holy seed Ezra 10. 2. is all one with Legitimate and if the Apostle did allude to that place in Ezra it serves more for my sense then Mr. Bs. and the sense may be conceived this If the unbelieving husband were not as sanctified to his wife so as that they might lawfully live together then the children should be unclean that is illegitimate as those in Ezra but now that is it being determined that the law of Moses concerning prohibiting marriage with some people is voided and unequal marriage is not dissolved your children are holy that is legitimate His evasion page 188. about a judgement of charity will be found insufficient to avoid my exception against his exposition which is mistaken by him nor will it at all smite me my exception being not as he imagines that upon a judgement of charity concerning the sincerity of a persons profession he is not to be taken for a real believer But that Mr. B. determining that the unbeliever is sanctified onely to the believer who is not onely such according to the judgement of charity but also really such before God and the Apostles consequence including this Proposition according to his exposition that the children of such onely are holy that is after Mr. B. visible Church-members and baptizable of necessity all other by his exposition are prohibited to be baptized and therefore of necessity he that will follow the rule according to Mr. Bs exposition must know the reality of the parents faith which being impossible to be known without special revelation he may baptize none without it Now Mr. B. answers not at all to the main thing how by his exposition a man can go upon certainty that he doth his duty but how without respect to his exposition a man may take a person for a sincere believer and so baptize him But this serves not his turne in this case For it is the duty of the baptizer to baptize onely visible church-Church-members this Mr. B. will not deny now of infants who can make no profession their visible Church-membership is known onely by their parents believing but according to Mr. Bs. exposition of the Apostle those infants onely are visible Church-members whose parents are real believers before God no hypocrite if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle
which I moved to be considered whether it were not near Mr. Bs. doctrine Aphorisme 73. of Justific and in my Antidote sect 8. page 24. said it is near to it Hereupon Mr. B. adjudgeth this dealing so grosse as he never found in any Jesuite a shamlesse charge and page 190. the vile ebullition of rancor and malice in a most evident falshood that hath left no roome for blushing And then cleares himself from the sense in which the Antinomists held it and then addes Now what doth Mr. T. but bring this as the same tenet with mine when it is even directly contrary To which I answer Mr. B. page 189. in these words Your language about the absolutenesse of the Covenant is too like many of the tenets of the Antinomists in N. E. useth the same dealing with me which he chargeth me with towards himself For he doth or might know when I say with many Divines the Covenant is absolute I meane it as they do in respect of the first promise Heb. 8. 10. I will write my lawes in their hearts which Doctor Twisse and many other prove must be absolute or else the grace of God must be given according to mans desert as the Pelagians held which thing I expresse plainly in my Examen page 164. whereas the Antinomians make it absolute in respect of justification in which I am assured that Mr. B. knew by conferences with me that I was against them and yet he chargeth me with symbolizing with them But recrimination is no purgation 2. It is not true that I bring it as the same tenet with Mr. Bs. but neare it which is so true that however their in tent and his were contrary yet their words are the same For Mr. B. Aph. 76. and in the first edition of the Saints everlasting rest page 11. saith Doubtlesse the Gospel takes faith for obedience to all Gospel-precepts of which the workes James 2. 16. of giving food or clothing to a brother are a part which if true he that is justified by faith is justified by works and so Mr. Bs. proposition is the same with the Antinominians however he used it to a contrary end it 's the same medium though Mr. B. prove one conclusion by it and the Antinomians another and I think is condemned by the censure of them of N. E. in Mr. Bs. sense as well as the Antinomians But Mr. B. goes about to clear himself from error in it and singularly and then saith How can Mr. T. have ground to think that no Minister in England is of my judgement and then challengeth me to confute the doctrine of his book or leaves to judge whether I be not a meere empty calumniator And addes that these words of mine I am sure in his letter to me he saith he was hissed at from all parts of the Kingdome are a relation like the rest from a bitter roote so most falsely when I had his letters which might have directed me to speak truth that the words from all parts of the Kingdome are my addition which is become ordinary with me Then mentions the occasion of the passage in his letters my offer of help to him for dividing ends but he thought he had no need of my help and was resolved not to engage with a renter of the Church To which I answer 1. My exceptions against his doctrine in his Aphorismes have been sent to him afore his death though not to answer his challenge yet at the motion of his Postscript I conceive he erres 1. in making justification by faith to be onely in law title 2. In making a first and after continued justification 3. In making it a continued not instantaneous act 4. In making obedience to all Gospel-precepts an essentiall part of justifying faith and not a fruite onely 2. I did no where say that I thought no Minister in England is of his judgement though I said I thought he had not made one Minister of his judgement 3. to the crimination of my speaking falsely I will set down his own-words in his letter to me That pamphlet of justification I well knew was likely to blast my reputation with most Divines and the issue hath answered my expectation I am now so hissed at by them that I feele temptation enough to schisme in my discontents I had hot his letter by me when I spake those words not out of a bitter roote but to answer the prejudice against me as conceived singular But there was no falshood in my speech by most Divines and from all parts of the Kingdome being equipollent And if this be to adde falsely our Lord Christ will be found to adde falsely Mat. 15. 8 9. c. my offer of helpe to him in what we agreed was not for dividing ends but because of his complaint of weaknesse of body and want of time for study It seemes he accounted me a renter of the Church afore my preaching at Bewdley the many Sermons on Mat. 28. 19. against Infant-baptisme for discovering of the error of it in my bookes without other practises It appeares thereby that even then when he seemed to be most friendly he had hard thoughts of me and however he protest of his love yet his misinterpreting so many of the things I have done or said to him and at last casting up his accusations in his book in charging me with frequent untruths schisme pride worse then the Devil in accusing my own children with bitter scoffes and insulting tauntes with other aggravations and expressions beyond brotherly and neighbourly respects yea I may I think say a sober minde are undeniable evidences of want of love to me and candour towards me if we may judge what is in a man by his deedes rather then by his words As for his pretence of zeale for God the peace of the Church and the duty of brotherly reproof were he never so much in the right and I never so much in the wrong for my judgement yet these could not justifie his carriage to me And if other Ministers deale with me as Mr. B. Mr. M. Mr. Baillee Mr. Geree have done without doing me right after their false criminations of me I shall have temptation to think that they have learned a principle like the Jesuites to think it no sin to say as bad as may be against a supposed Anabaptist for the Paedobaptists cause SECT X. That Mr. Bs. charge of accusing and disputing my children out of the Covenant of Christ is vaine and some inquiry is made how they are in the Covenant I Have now gone through Mr. Bs. Epistles and History vindicated my self and the truth from many objections There are many other things which are scattered in his answer to my Valedictory Oration and Corrective of my Antidote which are somewhat besides the dispute it self which I shall rather point at then insist on because many are scarce worth the taking notice of but for the esteem Mr. B. and his book have gotten
and such pernicious effects following that people think therefore they are Christians because baptized which opinion of theirs is confirmed by Mr. Bs. words For they are visible Christians that are baptized into the name of Christ if they have not since by word or workes renounced him and rest therein and are thereby held in carnal presumption we ought rather to think those that maintain infant-baptisme play the Devils part which expressions of mine being added the vanity of Mr. Bs. arguings will appear That which he hath page 178. that it is no more thankes to me then to Satan that I keep not God from making promise to his people which intimates I would do it if it were in my power for if there be no more thanks to me then Satan it is because there 's no more hindrance in me from doing it then in Satan̄ and so the same will is a suggestion that exceedes all moderation as if Mr. B. were bent not onely to rake up all the dirt he can to cast in my face but also to put an ill construction on all I say My answer was a faire answer to a virulent charge In 2. senses I conceived it might be said that Infants are disputed out of the Covenant of Christ the one as if my dispute made Christ not Covenant to them the other as if it made them not Covenant to Christ. I said neither was true What saies Mr. B. 1. Election is not a Covenant Nor did I say it was And then addes nor are they in Covenant because elected which speech is most false contrary to Rom. 9. 8. where the children of the promise is all one with the Elect as the Analysis shewes as may be seene in the Authors cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Besides whom more may be produced I will add two now Mr. Rutherfurd in that piece of his which is the exactest of his workes Exercit Apol. 2. c. 2. num 7. Soli electi dicuntur in Scripturis foederati filii haeredes promissionis Rom. 9. 8. The elect alone are said in the Sctiptures to be in Covenant children and heires of the promise Rom. 9. 8. and Mr. Norton in resp ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 30. Objectum foederis gratiae sunt soli electi The object of the Covenant of Grace are the elect alone Next he saith that I deny that God Covenanteth with our infants to be their God in Christ and to take them to be his peculiar people which is the Covenant he formerly made with infants and which he now affirmes What he affirmes distinctly I cannot well tell he doth so confusedly expresse himself in his bookes He distinguished between an absolute and a conditional Covenant of Grace The absolute he saies belongs onely to the elect but this he will not be thought to meane when he speakes of infants of believers being in Covenant or baptism's sealing of it yea he blames me often for so conceiving of him and page 223. he disputes against that tenet as my fifth error The conditional is a Covenant of justification and salvation upon-condition of faith this he saith is sealed by baptisme not the other and this he makes belonging to all the posterity of Adam elect and reprobate And this it seemes most likely he meanes when he speaks of infants of believers being in Covenant because it is that which baptisme seales and they that are in Covenant are to be sealed thereby But according to this conditional Covenaat either all are in Covenant with God whether elect or reprobate infants of believers or unbelievers or else none till they performe the condition which is faith and so not all infants of believers Mr. B. in his additions to the Saints everlasting rest part 3. sect 3. prop. 2. A conditional promise puts nothing in being till the performance of the condition nor gives any certainty but of such performance As for any Covenant of God or Christ besides these containing onely the promise of visible Church-membership or such like imagined priviledges in the New Testament to infants of Gentile believers I take to be a phantasme and when I come to examine Mr. Bs. opinion of infants visible Church-membership which I could not do till I had his book I doubt not to make it appear to be so that not one text he hath brought proves such a promise and that he hath not proved more to belong to infants by promise then I acknowledge and yet neither visible Church-membership nor right to baptisme in infancy ordinarily will follow thereon As for that he saith in general termes that I deny that God covenanteth with infants of believers to be their God in Christ and to take them to be his peculiar people is said like a Calumniator my words being so plaine to the contrary in that very place In a word I have said that the Covenant or promise of regeneration sanctification forgivenesse of sins adoption and eternal life is not made to all the natural children of the most godly believers no not of Abraham himself or to any barely because they are their children but because elect or believers in their own persons which Mr. M. and Mr. Geree in their answers to me confesse to be true as being expresly delivered Rom. 9. 8. and by the streame of Protestant writers maintained But I deny not that many infants of believers are in the Covenant of Grace nor dare I say that no infants of unbelievers are in the Covenant of Christ in this sense I onely say I neither know which of the one or the other are thus in the Covenant of Grace As for the arguings that he that denies Infants baptisme doth deny them to be in the Covenant of Grace they are built on these fancies that to be a seale of the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of baptisme that there is a certain connexion between being in the Covenant of Grace and right to be baptized which with other hypotheses of Paedobaptists I shall examine in my Review Mr. B. addes That I flatly deny infants Covenanting with God whereas my words were farre from such flat denial being onely these for my part I know not how any person should Covenant with Christ till he promise c. which were not such a peremptory or flat denial as Mr. B. saies they are and they are true it being against all experience that infants do so Covenant but on the contrary when they are baptized cry and shew their unwillingnesse as August lib. 1. de remiss et mer. pecc c. 23. flendo et vagiendo cùm in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysteriis vocibus obstrepunt Then Mr. B. saies I disswade parents from so engaging their children in Covenant and promising in their names which yet they ever did in the Church before Christ and it was their duty to do as Deut. 29. and other places shew But in which words I perswade parents not to do as he saies I do he