Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	covenant_n	deny_v	infant_n	2,377	5	9.5458	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62859	An addition to the Apology for the two treatises concerning infant-baptisme, published December 15, 1645 in which the author is vindicated from 21 unjust criminations in the 92 page of the book of Mr. Robert Baille, minister of Glasgow, intituled Anabaptisme and sundry materiall points concerning the covenant, infants-interest in it, and baptisme by it, baptism by an unbaptized person, dipping, erastianism and church-government, are argued, in a letter, now enlarged, sent in September 1647, to him / by John Tombes . ..	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1652 (1652)	Wing T1794; ESTC R11324	36,211	48

in Mr. Edwards his Gangr●n● upon whose credit Honorius Reggius hath blazed them in a Latin writing and in Mr. Bayly's Disswasives have made many men undeservedly odious and such reports vented in pulpits upon their credit have been the bellowes that did blow the fire of warre which hath to the rejoicing of Malignants and grief of godly persons wasted your and our Countrey and Mr. Cotton of N. E. thought meet to print an Apology for himself and the Churches there to vindecate himself from Mr. Bayly's aspersions in one part of his disswasive I have thought it necessary to vindicate my self in this and have sent it to you being one that I conceive cordially affected with the breaches that are among the Godly studious of truth and peace that you may impart this as you may opportunely to some Synod in your Countrey and indeavour as conscience and Covenant I think bind you in the most prudent way you can to take of the injury of Mr Bayly and which is the chief thing I aim at and humbly desire that there may be some Course taken effectually to prevent such injurious misrepresentations of mens tenents and practises in pulpits and presses that so if the Lord shall vouchsafe such a mercy dissenters at last may in a calme and amicable way debate differences to the healing of our breaches which is the prayer and aime of Lemster in Herefordshire Decem. 4. 1651. Your Fellow-Servant and Brother in Christ JOHN TOMBES The Contents Sect. 1. OF the first Crimination That I spoile all infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace Sect. 2. Of the second Crimination That I make Circumcision to the Jewes a seale only of earthly and temporall priviledges Sect. 3. Of the third Crimination That I 〈◊〉 the Jewish infants all right to the New Covenant 〈◊〉 they become ●●●tuall believers from whence occasion is taken to shew the insufficiency of Mr. Gerees shift in expounding the words of the Directory the promise is made to believers and their seed and the insufficiency of Mr. Marshals proof of Connexion between the seal and the Covenant from Gods institution and Mr. Bailies from the nature of the terms Sect. 4. Of the fourth Crimination That I give a power to unbaptized persons to baptize others Sect. 5. Of the fifth Crimination That I make Apologies for the worst of the Anabaptists Sect. 6. Of the sixth Crimination Inveighing against the first Reformers Sect. 7. Of the seventh Crimination Inveighing against the Assembly at Westminster Sect. 8. Of the eighth Crimination Inveighing against the Church of Scotland Sect. 9. Of the nineth Crimination Inveighing against Mr. Marshall Sect. 10. Of the tenth Crimination Of inveighing against Mr. Thomas Goodwin Sect. 11. Of the eleventh Crimination Of Invectives against others Sect. 12. Of the twelfth Crimination That I esteem baptisme an unnessary rite Sect. 13. Of the thirteenth Crimination That I am carel●sse of my own baptism Sect. 14. Of the fourteenth Crimination That I am unwilling to joine with any of the Anabaptists Churches and they unwilling to baptize non-members Sect. 15. Of the fifteenth Crimination My allowing frequent rebaptization Sect. 16. Of the sixteenth Crimination That I make it lawfull for persons unbaptized to partake of the Lords Supper Sect. 17. Of the seventeenth Crimination That I am a Compleat Erastian wherein reason is given of my doub● that in Scripture no such juridical Excommunication is appointed as is now contended for Sect. 18. Of the eighteenth Crimination That I avow no scand●-lous professor ought to be kept from the Lords Table Sect. 19. Of the nineteenth Crimination of me That I hold no censure of excommunication Sect. 20. Of the twentieth Crimination That I hold Christ hath not appointed any particular government for his Church Sect. 21. Of the one and twentieth Crimination That I hold that the Government of the Church belongs to the Magistrate only Sect. 22. Of my new way and boldnesse Sect. 23. Of my silence concerning DIPPING and of the novelty and insufficiency of SPRINKLING instead of BAPTIZING Sect. 24. The Conclusion requiring reparation of the wrong done to me by Mr. Bayly To the reverend and worthy Master ROBERT BAYLIE Minister at GLASGOW in SCOTLAND SIR IN your Book intituled ANABAPTISMI you charge me falsly in these following Accusations chap. 4. page 92. you say in these following things he flies as high as any civil and discreet Anabaptist I have met with 1. In spoyling Christian infants not only of Baptisme but of all interest in the Covenant of Grace And in the margine and Table in the end of your book you say He spoyles all infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace 2. In making Circumcision a seal to the Jews onely of earthly and temporal priviledges 3. In denying to Jewish infants all right to the new Covenant till in their riper years they become actuall believers SECT I. Of the first Crimination that I spoile all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace To prove these accusations which you so expresly charge me with and tend to make your adversary odious which it seems you made your businesse and not to clear truth you referre the Reader to the letters A A page 110. where you cite one passage of my Apology page 64. which doeth directly deny the first accusation and where the passage of Mr. Marshall you alledge for proof of it a most unreasonable way to prove a mans position by his Antagonists conceit of it as that Calvin made God the author of sin because Bellarmin accused him of it is sufficiently answered yea in my Post script to Mr. Blake in the end of my Apology Sect. 22. I charge Master Blake of unjust crimination of me in this and challenge Mr. Marshall Mr. Vines Mr. Calamy and now your self to make good that charge if you can And yet you are not asham●d to say pag. 113. All our adversaries deny to all infants all right in God all interests in his promises and Covenant as much as they do to Turks and Pagans And chap. 4. page 89 90. after you had charged this accusation on others in the close you say This makes them uncertain what to say of infants dying before conversion Some save them all which is contrary to what you say page 133 others incline to the damnation of them all others professe the uncertainty of the thing whether infants before their conversion be within the Kingdome of Satan or that of God And for proof of this last you referre the Reader to the letter K and there you alledge my words in my Apology page 64 66. which speak not at all of the uncertainty of the thing you were speaking of to wit the salvation or damnation of infants dying before conversion but the contrary saying expresly That every infant is either in the visible Kingdome of God or of Satan that is elect or reprobate And for the certainty of the subject I conceive neither you nor I

nor any on earth are certain what child of a Believer is elect or reprobate Sure I am Mr. Marshall in his Sermon page 48 saith Charity is not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them although in the beginning of his Sermon page 7. he would ground the salvation of all the infants of believers dying in their infancy on Gods promise to be the God of Believers and of their seed Besides my words in my Apology page 64 66. which you alledge speak onely of infants belonging visibly to the Kingdome of the Devil or God and I still deny that they belong to either visibly untill they make their profession according to the constitution of the visible Church of Christians which it behoved you to disprove and not to misreport my words as you do SECT. II. Of the second Crimination that I make Circumcision to the Jewes a Seal onely of earthly and temporall priviledges AS for your second accusation you bring onely Mr. Marshals words which onely declare his suspicion yet so unreasonable and groundless as one might wonder any man should have the face to draw me into a suspicion of that the contrary whereof is delivered in my Exercitation page 2. and very often in my Exercitation and Examen of his Sermon in which I still make the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. which Circumcision confirmed to be a mixt Covenant containing both spirituall and temporal promises And yet you expresly accuse me of the contrary against my plain words prove your charge onely by Master Marshals suspition expressed in this manner What your meaning is in this expression I cannot tell it hath an untoward look as if the meaning were c. which was unreasonable in him to raise such a jealousie of me for citing onely a passage in that so approved Treatise of Cameron that learned Scot de triplici foedere th. 78. which was also much approved at Heidelberg by the publisher of his works according to an order in a Synod of the French Churches as to be stiled in Cameron's Icon accurratissimae theses and they are now translated into English by Mr. Samuel Bolton and printed at the end of his treatise of the true bounds of Christian freedom with this commendation too precious to be any longer concealed or hid under the shell of an unknown tongue And yet these words were cited by me so warily page 4. of my Exercitation as that I say and if we may believe Mr. Cameron yet Mr. Marshall had so much ingenuity as to say of me in that place page 98. of his Defence It is too grosse a thing to imagine of God and so expresly contrary to the word that untill you own it I will not impute it to you which words you leave out in your allegation against me from Mr. Marshall whether needlesly or fraudulently I leave it to your own conscience to consider SECT. III. Of the third crimination That I deny to the Jewish infants all right to the new Covenant till they become actuall believers from whence occasion is taken to shew the insufficiency of Mr. Gerees shift in expounding the words of the Directory the promise is made to believers and their seed And the insufficiency of Mr. Marshals proof of Connexion between the seal and Covenant from God's institution and Mr. Baylies from the nature of the termes AS for the third accusatio● you bring not a word to prove it yet you often charge sometimes all your adversaries as in chap. 5. pag. 133. sometimes the principall of them among whom I assure my self you reckon me with it as when you say pag. 151. ch. 5. The ground of this reason is granted by the Principal of our adversaries who avow their exclusion of infants from baptisme upon this ground mainely that they believe they are excluded from the Covenant of Grace remission of sins the saving grace of the Spirit till in the years of d●scretion they be brought actually to believe which thing I do expresly deny in my Exercitation pa. 24. with obhorrency from it and Examen page 150. and page 109. I say it were a madnesse to go about to put them out of the Covenant of Grace You are often told in my Examen as page 29 38 110 154. and many more places that I avow exclusion of infants from baptism upon this ground mainly that there is no Institution of it gathered by precept or Apostolical example and therefore it is will-worship As for a command of Circumcision I conceive it is a brogated and so can be no rule now about Baptism and the maintaining that a command of Circumcision sti●l binds us as Mr. Marshall doth in his Sermon page 35 36 37. is the most manifest heresie of any as being condemned in the first Councel by the Apostles Acts 15. 28. 21. 25. Indeed to shew the weaknesse of Mr. Marshalls argument thus framed The infants of believing parents are within the Covenant of Grace therefore they are to partake of the seale of the Covenant which in Mr. Marshals language is all one with baptisme I did say that I did conceive the antecedent of his Enthymeme not true Examen Part 3. Sect. 1. page 39. conceiving that as your practise is so Mr. Marshall intended to defend this conclusion All the infants born of a believer by profession are to be baptized according to ordinary rule and so I expressed my selfe in my Examen Part 3. Sect. 15. Exercit. page 1. and elsewhere and then his antecedent must be thus All the infants born of a believer are within the Covenant of grace or else his argument is manifestly inconcludent if we would prove all infants of believers are to be baptized because some onely are in the Covenant of grace Now I know not how to conceive that Mr. Marshall meant any other then the Covenant of saving grace of which I have given reasons not yet answered by Mr. Marshall in my Examen page 45. and could adde more if it were needful and that the believers infants were in the covenant of saving grace in that God hath made that promise to them And in this sense I denied this proposition All the infants of a believer are within the Covenant of Grace and disproved it so fully in my Examen part 3. Sect. 4. that Mr. Marshall renounceth that proposition in that sense page 116. of his Defence and then betakes himself to this shift to understand it of the outward covenant as he calls it in which sense I have proved in my Apology Sect. 10. his first argument to be meer trifling and his speeches to be full of equivocation or ambiguity which I have also further proved in my Postscript in answer to Mr. Bl●ke Sect. 6. Mr. Geree being inforced to deny that proposition in that sense and being pressed by me with the words of the Directory that the promise is made to believers and their seed he shifted it off in his Vindiciae paedobaptismi page 13. by interpreting the

a word of exception against any man much lesse of invectivenesse against the Assembly at Westminster only it contains the expression of my belief that the ablest of the Assembly contrived Mr. Marshalls book and my wish that it were declared whether the Paedobaptists would stick to it or any other work which I conceive a reasonable wish finding the Proteus-like inconstancy of Paedobaptists in many points of the dispute between us particularly in the chief argument from circumcision and the covenant Gen. 17. to infant-baptism one forming the argument one way another another way one deriving the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal from the nature of the terms another from Gods will one ascribing an interest in the outward Covenant only to all infants of believers another ascribing an interest to them in the inward Covenant also according to charitable presumption another conditionally another asserting the Covenant of Grace to belong to them for the most part one grounding infant-baptisme on the judgement of charity another denying that sufficient and requiring a judgement of faith one stating the question concerning all infants of believers another concerning some only one interpreting 1 Cor. 7. 14. of federal holinesse another of real holinesse one waving the argument from succession of baptisme to circumcision another avouching it with many other differences which tend to the wearying of a disputant and the e●ud●●g of a Reader that desires to find truth and to spend time in examining what is fixed not to lose it in disputing against that which one will own but it m●y be most will disclaim What the Assembly have done in this matter doth not yet answer this wish What is said in the Direstory it may be well doubted whether Assembly-men now hold by that which hath pa●●ed between me and Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree about the proposition the promise is made to believers and their seed what is said in their ●dvice concerning a confession of faith Ch. 28. Art 4. is so farre from satisfying that it is yet a riddle to me how infant-baptisme can be drawn from Ge● 17. 7 9. with Gal. 3. 9 14. which I remember not alledged by any Paedobaptists since I entered on the dispute save what I heard from Mr. Herl● now the Prolo●utor which I mention in my Apology page 41. which he did with so little evidence for his purpose as I supposed it had been his own peculiar conceit not the Assemblies argument And for the rest of the texts if the Assembly can say any more the● Mr. Marsh●ll and others have said for deducing of Paedobaptisme out of them it were fit it should be known if not I for my part count my self as much unsatisfyed by the Assemblies alledging impertinent texts as by a private mars doing the same This I declare to give the reason of that speech of mine in my Apology As for the Assembly though I have expressed my jealousie of some defects in them and perhaps shall not agree with them in all their determinations yet I have cast no filth in their faces as Mr. 〈◊〉 injuriously accused me even for my good will to them but have 〈◊〉 and spoken respectively of them as Ex●men page 1. studying what I could to prevent those blemishes in their proceedings and determinations which will in time more appear then yet they do and am induced to believe that there are so many of them therein that know me so well as that they would be loath to disclaim me whatever they do of my opinion And though Mr. 〈◊〉 in his Suspension Suspende page 21. saith Mr. 〈…〉 is approved by the Ass●mbly and so takes his book to be approved by them and you count my words of that book to be an invective against the Asse●●ly yet I do not take it to be approved by the Ass●m●ly till they declare it to be so though I have reason to conceive that divers of the ablest of the Assembly especially in some part of learning had their hand in it SECT. VIII Of the eighth Crimination inveighing against the Church of Scotland THe Church of Scotland For proofe of this you refene the Reader to the letters F F page 112. in which you cite one passage of my Apology page 93. which doth not so much as mention any Church much lesse the Church of Scotland but onely the mannagers of the censure of juridical excommunication whom however the Pap●st Prelates use to speak I think you use not to call the Church of Scotland nor do I Nor is there a word of invectivenesse aginst any in those wordes but only a declaration what I question upon my best intelligence which had lesse reference to Scotland then to other parts of the world SECT. IX Of the nineth Crimination inveighing against Mr. Marshal MAster MARSHAL For proofe hereof you referre your Reader to the letters G G page 112. and there you cite two passages out of my APOLOGY one of which page 57. is this I find the words of an intelligent man true concerning Mr. Marshal that he was apt to mistake and in the other page 69. I say that I find him still a confused disputer which indeed containes some complaint of Mr. Marshal much lesse then I had cause but not any invective which I take to be an oration against a man to make him odious such as T●llies Philippicks against Antonius and Demosthenes against Philip and Nazia●zen against Julian SECT. X. Of the tenth Crimination of inveighing against Mr. Tho. Goodwin MAster Goodwin For proofe hereof you referre the Reader to the letters H H page 112. And there you cite two shreds of a large passage concerning an accusation of Mr. Marshal in which he chargeth me as vilifying Mr. Thomas Goodwin which charge I there answer and then use some words which are not invective but a declaration what I conceived of his discourse which if it may not be allowed in dispute the best writers among us will be condemned Dr. Twisse Mr. Gataker and your brethren Mr. Rutherfurd Mr. Gillespy your self and who not your own words in the first part of your Dissuasive page 119. do come neerer to an invective against Mr. Thomas Goodwin then any words in my Apology or Examen the former of which the licenser although Mr. Goodwins tender friend yet judged mil● SECT. XI Of the eleventh Crimination of invectives against others ANd others For proof of this you referre the Reader to H H 2. page 112. where you cite two passages of my Apology the one containing no accusation no nor so much as a complaint against any one but onely a mention of my experiment which I wish the case of Doctor Twisse that I instance in no other had not verified the other passage is no invective against any but meerly an applying of Mr. Ley's words to my Treatise which he had avowed of my Antagonists writings Sir I suppose it would better have suited with charity I living the last summer at the

words of the Directory thus This is to be presumed by men out of charity till they discover the contrary that all the infants of believers have the inward graces of the Covenant which I proved could not be the sense of the words of the Directory in my Apol●gy Sect. 9. especially from the term made which imports Gods act not mans charitable presumption Now what doth Mr. Geree reply hereto In his Vindiciae Vindic●arum chap. 4. page 16. he alters the words of the Directory thus That the promise is to believers and their seed leaving out the word made upon which my argument rested and then page 18. tells me the quaery is in what sense and in what respect children of b●lievers are said to be in the Covenant of Grace whereas the quaery is in what sense the Directory meant these words the promise is made to believers and their seed not in what sense either in Gen. 17. 7. or Rom. 9. 4. or Acts 3. 25. Children of Believers are said to be in the Covenant of grace And whereas Mr. Geree in the same book cha. 10. page 41. complains of my words in the Epistle Dedicatory of my Apology that the doctrine of the Directory is disavowed by two of my most eminent Antagonists meaning himself and Mr. Marshall I have and am further ready to justify that speech and if many of the Assembly have assured him in private that they intended the expressions questioned by me in no other sense then he expounded them I would have them know that either they must alter the words as Mr. Geree doth not reading them as they are printed and as Mr. Marshall in his Defence page 116. Mr. Geree Vindic. Paedobap page 13. reads them or else those Assembly men must make a new Dictionary for us to understand their language by afore any man that understands common English will understand them so And whereas he would have by this one Examination men iudge of all the rest I am contented with it provided that men by his superficial and shifting dealing in this judge of all the rest But to returne as I denyed the antecedent in Mr. Marshalls Enthymeme so I denied the consequence page 36. and did more then make some v●litatio● I proved by a just dispute that the proposition is not true All that are in the Covenant of Grace must be sealed and though Mr. Marshall page 92. of his Defence say somewhat to prove it from Gods will Gen. 17. 7 9 10 14. yet what is said there is only of circumcision nothing of baptisme and the word therefore upon which Mr. Marshalls proof rests is in the Hebrew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which may be and is translated otherwise as by the Tig●r●●es Et tu by Parreus Tu autem by Piscator Tu vere c. and the proposition is manifestly false in Mr. Marshalls sense yea he granted page 92 182. that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God which I truely observed and proved in my Apology in the Epistle Dedicatory and in the Apology it self page 90. overthrows his argument from the Covenant to the seale which rests on this that such as received the initial seal received it because they were in the Covenant which are Mr. Marshalls words in his Defence page 92. you in your Anabaptisme chap. 5. page 132. say your proposition is grounded on the nature of the terms which you never go about to prove but dictate thus The Major Whoever have right to the chief promises of the New Testament they have right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament if the Lord have not put some impediment to their participation of that Sacrament is grounded on the nature of the terms of the preposition the chief promises of the New Testament and the first Sacrament this is the sign and seal that the thing signified The reason proceeds not from every thing signified to every sign but from the chief thing signified to the first signe Give me leave to tell you that I seldome meet with a passage that hath more absurdity then this of yours 1. You set not down right the terms of your own proposition which are not the chief promises of the New Testament and the First Sacrament but having right to the chief promises of the New Testament and having right to the First Sacrament if the Lord have not put some impediment to their participation of that Sacrament as if you had forgotten so soon or could not analyse your own proposition 2. You tell us this is the sign and seale that the thing signified as if this were the nature of the terms But what an illogical conceit is this Logicians call a reason from the nature of the terms when the terms are included the one in Conceptu quidditativo alterius so as that the one cannot be conceived without the other Now may not the chief promises of the New Testament be conceived without the first sign and seale Did not God make the chief promises of the New and Old Testament before ever any sign or seale was appointed much more before baptisme Did not God make the chief promise {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Tit. 1. 2. which we translate before the world began most rig●tly as I conceive Dr. ●wisse Vind● grat lib. 1. par 1. dig 2. cap. 5. referres to that in paradise Gen 3. 15. your own Mr. Dicksor either to that or to Gods promise to Christ afore the world was made all I meet with make it antecede any first signe or seal of the Old or New Testament Now how is there a connexion between terms from the nature of them whereof one may not only be conceived but be also existent both de facto and d●iure without the other If the terms were having the chief promises of the New Testament and having the First Sacrament yet there is no such connexion from the nature of the terms Innumerable may have and have the chief promises of the New Testament that have not the first Sacrament et vice versa Else you must hold worse positions then the Papists that none but baptized persons have or can have the chief promises of the New Testament and that every baptized person hath the chief promises of the New Testament There is lesse connexion from the nature of the terms between the having right to the chief promises of the New Testament having right to the First Sacrament of the New Testament For if you meane it of right before God thousands may have right in Gods election and covenant with Christ that are not in being that are in their mothers womb that are yet among infidels uncalled have these right to the First Sacrament If you mean it of right in facie Ecclesiae onely then I grant the proposition is true but your Minor hath clean another sense then your words and proofs import you conceived of it however this right comes

meerly from Gods institution which is to be the rule of the Churches judging and administrators action and that is not from the right to the chief promises but from profession of faith arising from Gods will not the nature of the terms There is no essential connexion between them constitutive or consecutive neither is one of the definition or essential property to the other and God hath much more plainly put a barre against infant-baptisme then infant-communion not only in that there is neither expresse precept nor example for it in Scripture but also the very in●titution excludes them appointing it only to disciples Mat. 28. 19. putting believing before baptisme Mark 16. 16. in practise requiring it Act. 8. 37. besides the image of it in all ages of the Church requiring profession of faith of some for them even in the baptisme of infants But you shew the nature of the terms in these words This is the sign and seal that the thing signified By your Logick then if the chief promises of the New Testament be to be defined you would define them to be the thing signified by the first Sacrament of the New Testament which were to define ignotum per ignotius and by that which is meerly extrinsecal to it A promise is an action the thing signified by the first Sacrament is not only something to come but also something past as the death burial resurrection of Christ in baptisme Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. the thing promised is something we are to have the promise is Gods act the first Sacrament the administrators act How inept a definition is such a definition in which the genus doth not praedic●●i in quid on the definitum ●or the whole definition is reciprocal with the definitum besides other defects But it maybe you meant that it is of the nature of the first Sacrament to be a sign and s●ale of the chief promises of the New Testament Were this so you should not rightly argue for then the right to the promises should be derived from the seal not to the seale from the promise if the promise be of the nature of the seale and not e●contra wher●as you say that your reason proceeds from the chief thing signifyed to the first sign But how can you or any make this good that it is the nature of the first Sacrament only for you exclude the second expressely after in these words nor do we 〈◊〉 but of the 〈…〉 to be a signe and seale of the chief promises of the New Testament Is not the second sign as wel a sign and seal of them as the first Besides what is the term seale there but a Metaphor And is it not absurd to make a Metaph●r of the nature of a term which doeth not shew what a thing is but what it is like contrary to the rule of Logicians Scheibler ●op ●a 30. num 126. Definitio non sit ex verbis Metaphoricis Ita Aristot. Top. Lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect 4 K● ker●● Syst. Logi● Lib. 1. Sect. 2. cap. 2. c. Yet how absurdly is a seale of the Covenant made the Genus in the definition of a sacrament being but a Metaphor and books and Sermons stuffed with collections of duties and priviledges about the Sacraments from a meer Metaphor A thing I am assured worthy Lamentation when I consider the trouble it hath brought to many consciences and disquiet in the Church But were it granted that the term signe or seal were of the nature of the first Sacrament how doth it appear that it is the nature of the Sacrament to signifie Gods promise to us rather then our promise to God Though I deny not but baptisme signifies and in a sense seales Gods promises to us as may be seen in my former writings yet so farre as I am able to discern the chief and primary use is to signifie our profession and promise to God and therefore it is required as our act and duty and therein we are said to put on Christ And why then should we not rather say that it is the nature of baptisme to be a sign or seale of our profession and then we have a better argument from the nature as you speak from the use as I would speak of the first Sacrament to prove that infants are not to be baptized then that they are The trueth is Sacraments are not signes natural but positive and so have no nature to sign or seale but by institution and therefore there 's no connexion or right between the Covenant and seal as they speak from the nature of the tenns but by Gods institution And therefore Mr. Marshall did more considerately ascribe it to Gods will then you do to 〈◊〉 it from the nature of the terms you miscarry as much in that which followes when you say The reason proceeds not from every thing signified to every sign but from the chief thing signified to the first sign yet before you expressed the nature of the terms thus The one is the sign the other the thing signified and you give no reason why there should be more connexion between the chief things signified and the first sign then the not chief things signified and the second nor do I know by what rule you proceed in making some promises of the New Testament chief and some not It follows Some of the blessings which Circumcision diaseal belonged to Melchizedeck to Lo● to Job and others who were not so farre as we reade circumcised but the main promise sealed by Circumcision In thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed The Messias comming of the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the Covenant of Grace as it was administred under the figure of the Ceremoniall Law did belong to the people of Israel alone ●nd to the proselytes who joined themselves to their body You intimate truly that the reason of circumcising infants was not taken from the common right of believers to the Covenant of Grace but from the end God had in signifying Christ to come of Abraham which is a good evidence that baptizing infants now hath not the same reason that circumcising of infants had then and so all your argument from the analogy between Infant-baptisme and Infant-Circumcision from the like reason of both falls to the g●ound But sure the main promise of the New Testament did belong to 〈◊〉 Lot and Job as much as to believers now and if righteousnesse by faith be sealed by circumcision as you expressely teach page 141. from Rom. 4. 11. then the main promise sealed by Circumcision belonged to Melchizeck Lot and Job and so if there be such a connexion between the chief promise and the first seale they should have been circumcised as well as the Jewes and it is as strange to me how you can make the promise of the Messias comming from Abraham belonging to proselytes more then to them But this is enough to give a taste of your