the Lord's Day That the Answerer did thus intend to represent me seems plain because after he had shewed Reasons for the first Day he concludes so we have a plain Precedent tho' not positive Prescript for the first Day but you want not only Precept but Precedent for Infant Baptism Page 3. Now the obvious meaning of my Discourse there is that the general Command of keeping God's Covenant in its Sign as also the general Command of observing the Day of the Sabbath one Day in seven is obligatory to Christians as well as it was to Abraham and his Seed The consideration what is the particular Sign or whether it be altered from what was first specified or whether with or without a Prescript being not there any part of the Argument its main strength depending on the general and primary Part of the Precepts the substance therefore of what I said is that the general and primary Command to Abraham thou and thy seed shall keep my Covenant in the sign of it is of perpetual Obligation as in the fourth Commandment the general and primary Command for sanctifying the Sabbath or keeping Holy one Day in seven obligeth now as well as then and that if Christians be discharged from observing Circumcision as the Sign and the last of seven which was appointed to be the Sabbath at first which are secondary positive Commands yet they are bound to observe a seventh Day and to keep God's Covenant in its Sign these things being of Primary obligation And now what is said to all this Why truly as to the general Command to Abraham above mentioned he passeth it over at least for the present and says nothing about it but as to the Sabbath doth he deny that the general Command of keeping one Day in seven Holy continues obligatory Not at all which he should have done if he would have opposed the force of my Argument What doth he then do Why he gravely says 1. He knows no positive Command for the change of the seventh Day to the first 2. He knows one Day of seven was commanded 3. He gives some account what we have to say for the change of the seventh Day to the first Lastly That he dares not blame the Sabbatarians By all this he confirms my Argument and that too more than it required And yet he hath so mannaged the matter blind-folding his ignorant followers that those who heard only his Papers when they were read apart in their Congregation doubtless thought that he answered what may be reasonably thought to call for an Answer He proceeds Page 3. to observe concerning the Covenant which he saith I have written several Pages about supposing that as Abraham's natural Seed were in Covenant and had right to Circumcision so the Seed of Believers are in Covenant and ought to be baptized Reply The word Natural is not in the Text neither was it put in by me 'T is rather their way to add to the Word the better to gloss over their Error Provided nevertheless it be not understood qua tale as natural I do admit it and own the whole it being that which I have fully demonstrated But so it is to be accounted for my Conclusion rather than for my Hypothesis However it be he makes two exceptions against it tho' it be very illogical to nibble as it were at the Conclusion whilst he tacitly grants the premises But it must be considered that he hath ingeniously acknowledged how unmeet and unfit he is to be a Respondent and he doth but go on to prove it The first Exception that he makes is That the Covenant in the 17 of Gen. is not a Covenant of Grace This indeed would overthrow the very foundation of my Discourse could it be proved and duly applied Nei-of which tho' he Acts here the Part of an Opponent is done by the pretended Answerer whereof he is so Conscious that he dares not depend upon it fearing he should be driven to his Shifts should we put the matter in Controversie to this issue And therefore that he may have a Loop-hole to escape he saith Page 8. neither indeed were it that Covenant meaning the Covenant of Grace would it as to that help you And he is not without a pretended Reason to help himself in it because forsooth Grace doth not go says he in Generation from Parent to Child Wisely argued 't is as much as to say speaking to the Point God is not a God to Abraham and his Seed too his Promise in that respect went beyond his Performance Grace cannot go by Covenant from Parent to Child And who are those that found descent of Grace in natural Generation or say that Believers Children are in this gracious state because they are believers Children that is by vertue of natural Generation We only say 't is by vertue of the Covenant the Promise that is made to the faithful and their Seed whereupon are grounded such gracious Priviledges and Perogatives descending from Parent to Child So that the Root being Holy the Branches are so too * Rom. 11.16 yea if but one of the Parents be a Believer †1 Cor. 7.14 the Children are in a Holy Separate-State not common and unclean with the rest of the World but in such a State at least as puts them into a more advantagious and fairer Prospect of Heaven and greater probability of obtaining saving Grace than if they had been out of the Covenant that Holy State so as the Promise did not reach them Hence Christ speaking of the Jews Collectively calls them the Children of the Kingdom ‖ Matt. 8.12 the Apostle the Children of the Covenant * Act. 3.25 the Margin referring it to that of Gen. 12.3 which himself saith Page 5. respects the Covenant of Grace But to Reply to his Exception as he goes on to demonstrate it here as his manner is he Acts the Opponent rather than the Respondent and therefore thinks himself not concern'd to meddle with the Arguments produced by me tho' he pretended otherwise in his Preface and seemed to Promise to give Answer to such things as call for an Answer but since 't is not his mind I am content to answer his Allegations and moreover do purpose to take occasion from thence further to demonstrate the Identity of the Abrahamical and Evangelical Covenant that the Covenant Gen. 17. is a Covenant of Grace the more firmly to establish the Scripture Foundation touching God's Covenant with Abraham on which as himself says truly Page 3. I found the stress of my Discourse He says Page 4. that he looks upon this Covenant in the 17th of Gen. not to be the Covenant of Grace but a Covenant God made with Abraham respecting some temporal Blessings that God was pleased to bestow upon him and his natural Seed and the same with Deut. 29.1 and onward to the 9th but adds that he understands the Covenant in Gen. 12.3 and 18.18 to have a respect to the
INFANT-BAPTISM OR Infant-Sprinkling As the Anabaptists Ironically term it Asserted and maintained by the Scriptures and Authorities of the Primitive Fathers Together with a REPLY to a pretended ANSWER To which is added A SERMON PREACHED On Occasion of the Author 's baptizing an Adult Person With some Enlargements By J. R. Rector of Lezant in Cornwal LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by J. Taylor at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard Philip Bishop at Exon and Benjamin Smithurst at Lanceston in Cornwal 1700. To the Worshipful Sir Joseph Tredenham Kt. 'T IS not unknown how you have vouchsafed to espouse my Cause in many difficulties I have strugled with Which is very much my Glory that so eminently worthy and accomplisht a Person and so great a Votary of the Church of England as Your Self hath not only judged favourably but on many occasions actually interested your self on my behalf It therefore behoves me to lay hold on any opportunity to demonstrate a grateful Mind tho' it be accompanied with a new Address for further Favour as this at present is to countenance a small Polemical Discourse for I cannot but call to mind having so well experienced its truth in you that known Aphorism which a Reverend Prelate lays down in the close of his Parable of the Pilgrim Those will be our best Friends not to whom we have done good but who have done good to us which speaks the abounding goodness of a Benefactor Vpon this ground I take the confidence of making this Dedication 'T would be tedious to recount to you the various Motives that have induced me thus to engage in this Controversie when so many Tracts have been already set forth of this Nature it may suffice to clear me from all aspersions that I can justly say from the Observation of others as well as my own that 't is like the Quakers a growing Sect with whom I contend and that they have lately in my Parish of Up-Ottery built them a Synagogue of such a Structure as if they meant it should out-vy the Parochial Church there These things I humbly conceive render it necessary and make it my more peculiar Province to endeavour with others to stop the growth of the Faction that so my own Flock may not be worried and miss-led but that I may be assisting to them in my necessary absence as well as when I am present amongst them and by any means reduce some and prevent others from going astray from the holy Communion of our Church whose Peace and Prosperity all its true Members especially the Clergy ought to Consult and Promote Sir my Prayers and Endeavours are intent upon these Things and as far as I continue stedfast in such labours I am secure of your good Opinion Your most Obliged and most devoted humble Servant James Rossington INFANT BAPTISM OR Infant Sprinkling c. INfant Baptism or Cornwal's Vindication of the Royal Commission of King Jesus Dedicated to the House of Commons about the Year 1645 and A. R. in his Vanity of Childish Baptism as the Anabaptists sometimes call it Infant Sprinkling is no Popish Tradition much less is it as they pretend brought into the Church by Innocent the Third yea so far is it from being any corrupt Innovation crept into the Church that it agrees with the mind of God in the holy Scriptures and consequently we need not question its agreeableness to the practice of the Church of Christ even in the first Ages of Christianity tho' it should be supposed we have no express Records of matter of Fact which yet we have and the same authentick and undeniable Neither is our way of administring Baptism by pouring on of Water novel or to be dislik'd To demonstrate the agreeableness of this Doctrine to the revealed Will of God I shall take my rise from the Covenant God made with Abraham * Gen. 12.3.17.8 being by the Apostle's computation †Gal. 3.17 430 years before the giving of the Law And to this he elsewhere refers ‖ Gal. 3.8 where he signifies that the Gospel was before preached to him that is to say in the words of the Promise as containing in them a Breviary thereof being an Evangelical and not a legal Promise viz. That all Nations of the World and not only the Jews should be justified by Faith and consequently the Gentiles now and that without legal Mosaical performances for after this manner and in these express words did the Promise run In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed and again I will establish my Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee * Gen. 17.8 9. And when God had thus enacted and established his Covenant with that holy Patriarch and his Seed he immediately thereupon as you 'l find †ver 10. commanded them to keep that his Covenant Vid. Dr. Burthog's Argument for Infant Baptism Printed Anno 84. and Whiston's Infant Baptism plainly proved Printed Anno 78. not only in the substance but in the sign and token of it as 't is immediately in one continued Speech exegetically added this is my Covenant or token of my Covenant so that the sense and meaning of the Phrase in either Verse is clearly the meaning of both and Circumcision is specified to be the Covenant at that time to be kept tho' not the only Covenant to be kept The Obligation imposed upon Abraham and his Seed was as you may note in the first Place to keep the sign or token of the Covenant or the Covenant in the sign of it and then to observe Circumcision as that sign or token The former is of perpetual Obligation the latter is more positive and secondary Tho' then there be an alteration in the second Injunction it will not therefore follow there must be in the first or that the Covenant ought not to be observed in the sign of it if for certain reasons Circumcision be no longer but something else be that sign So in the fourth Commandment Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it Holy that is the first thing which is principally Commanded but the other the seventh Day that is the last Day of the Week is the Sabbath that is but secondary so that the Obligation to the first and that which is primary in the Command doth not cease because there is an alteration in the second and that not the seventh but the first is now the Sabbath of the Lord. For a further explanation of this Truth you may observe that the Command in the 9th verse requires the keeping of the Covenant in general but don't determine what the token of the Covenant should be but obligeth to whatsoever token God should institute 't is not said Thou shalt be circumcised or be baptised but thou shalt keep my Covenant that is as afore the token of the Covenant consequently when Circumcision was appointed it obliged to that but Circumcision being laid aside and another sign
with the Papists tho' I had represented it in so many Instances and whereas I said expresly that the Fathers in avouching Infant-Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition did not understand the word Tradition in the Popish sense to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture Yet he positively affirms it is to be believed to do so and so he runs on for above 2 Pages proving the Perfection of the Scripture that is fighting with his own Shadow for who denied it Once more I said we don't read in the New Testament of laying on of Hands on any unbaptized Person except in order to a bodily Cure But the Answerer passeth by the exception and then doubtless he confuted his Adversary speaking so home to the matter What hath been hitherto observed chiefly refers to the Method and Composure of the Answer and discovers in it so much of weakness and insufficiency that no judicious Person can well allow it that denomination But taking liberty further to display its imbecility I shall offer somewhat by way of Reply to the matter and contents of the pretended Answer that if possible I may provoke him or some one for him to make a Rejoynder that the point in Controversie may be thorowly sifted and the truth cleared or left to the World to judge how unable that Party is to maintain their way or make any tolerable defence He saith Page the first that he cannot understand that the weight of the Arguments for Infant-sprinkling but rather thinks that the want of weight in them is the Cause an Answer hath been so long neglected It seems he is unfit to answer Arguments tho' they want weight and others perhaps may think it was very meet and fit he should have let them alone rather than prejudice his Cause by an unfit Answer and should not have put himself upon this Tryal of his Skill unless he could have managed it better But first an Answer as he saith is expected that is something must be done towards the giving an Answer for the amusing the expecting People who otherwise 't is likely would have been more apt to have mistrusted the weakness of their Cause Secondly 'T is presumed that after the perusal of my Discourse by some of the more learned and wiser Heads 't was thought more eligible to leave it to one that is unfit for it to give an Answer that the defect thereof may not reflect on any of the Grandees or rather 't is suspected that some Chief undertook it but under the mask of one unfit that the lameness of the Answer of which the Preface seems conscious may by those that peruse it be imputed to the Author and the strength thereof which their own Party will suppose may be ascribed to the presumed goodness of the Cause they have espoused however tho' he be unfit he will make an Essay Yea he will which is more give an Answer to such things as he thinks may have any thing in them that calls for an Answer Now he who will discharge the Office of a Respondent ought fairly to repeat his Adversaries Words and then to apply his Answer either by denying or distinguishing or both but how this hath been observed by the Answerer you will see in the first Paragraph The first thing saith he that I take notice of is in Page 1. where you endeavour to prove that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision although no positive Prescript for it bringing the change of the Sabbath-Day from the seventh to the first without prescript Reply These are so far from being my words that they contain not the sense of them For 1. neither I nor I think any Body else ever indeavoured to prove either that Baptism came in the room of Circumcision without a positive prescript or that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision but that Baptism did which none can justly deny St. Paul Coloss 2.12 affirms as much viz. That Baptism in the New Testament succeeded Circumcision the initiating Sacrament of the Old Testament and that as plainly as in 1 Cor. 5.7 8. he hath affirmed the Lords Supper to come in the room of the Passover for the Apostle having told his Colossians that they had the Circumcision made without Hands the Circumcision of the Heart he further signifies by way of implication that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too by being baptized or he could have no occasion to add being buried with him in Baptism and his Argument had been nothing at all a mere non sequitur unless he gives them to understand thereby that Baptism succeeded and came in place of Circumcision To evidence this to be the genuine sense and intention of the Apostle know that he was here disswading the believing Christians from the Rudiments of the World and Jewish Ceremonies particularly from Circumcision upon this very ground that they were compleat in Christ but lest the Jewish Teachers should suggest that the receiving the inward Grace of Circumcision doth not make them so compleat as the Jews were because they had also an outward visible sign As Abraham for instance had the inward Grace and yet he received the outward Sign and consequently tho' Christians be made partakers of this great Benefit by Christ yet they may stand in need of an outward Seal to assure them of their partaking herein he would have them know that neither is this Priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and express a Sacrament of it and that Christ hath not left his People under the New Testament destitute of such an outward Sign and Seal for however Circumcision be taken away yet there is another Sacrament substituted and appointed a more excellent and lively one than ever Circumcision was a Sacrament resembling it and answering to it buried with him in Baptism wherein c. that is sacramentally signifying and sealing up both our mortification and our vivification But if they had espoused Antipedo-Baptism they might have urged their dissatisfaction and have again Replyed that tho' they needed not to be circumcised themselves seeing Baptism is so happily come in the room of it yet they would still Circumcise their Children because according to their Doctrine Baptism is not to be applyed to them In the second Place the Words have no positive Prescript for it and without a Prescript do shew either that he did not understand my Argument tho' easie to be understood or else that he wilfully altered and perverted my sense that he might serve some other Design than the finding out the Truth His own Conscience must tell him he hath fathered on me what I said not This Addition of his without Prescript insinuates as if I had there argued that the want of a Precept for the change from Circumcision to Baptism is no more a reason to deny Baptism to Infants than the want of a Precept for the change from the seventh Day to the first is a reason for the rejecting of
it And thereupon he gives several Instances wherein they differ But what would he infer hence That the one succeeds not the other And so there can be no Argumentum à pari That therefore Infants should be baptized because such were circumcised I answer the Lord's Supper succeeded the Passover and yet they differ in many Punctilio's and Circumstances It sufficeth to make the Parallel suitable that Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace and the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith under the Gospel as Circumcision was before under the Law Gen. 17.11 Act. 7.8 Rom. 4.11 compared with 1 Cor. 12.13 1 Pet. 3.21 and doth as properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now as Circumcision did then Baptism being the only ordinary way of adding to the Church in the time of the Gospel on which score 't was instituted And 't is as requisite that we should in some such manner seal to the Covenant now as Abraham before we being as much unable to give an answerable assurance to Almighty God for our selves and Children as ever Abraham was for himself and Posterity or if you will may it not be thought as highly necessary that we should be by some Rite matriculated members of the Christian as they were solemnly initiated into the Jewish Church Now what other way is prescribed to us of Matriculation than Baptism the only most proper Rite for this purpose as it hath been in all Ages accounted insomuch that all the several Baptisms that were before Christ were all meant for initiating forms So the Jews had a Custom long before the coming of Christ to make proselytes or converts to their Religion not only by Circumcision but by baptizing or washing them with Water The same was the meaning of John's Baptism to make Men Disciples under his Administration And the same was the meaning of Christ's Baptism to initiate Men into the Christian Religion and make them Disciples of Christ Hence baptizing and making Disciples means the same thing John 4.1 John made and baptized more Disciples that is baptized them Disciples which was the form of making them such All the instances of Baptism in the New Testament were used as initiating Forms and to no other Purpose being therefore never repeated no more than men were twice circumcised or admitted into the Church before Christ Nor do we find since the coming in of the Gospel any other Rite or Ceremony of initiation permitted much less enjoyn'd Sure I am there was at first no framing of distinct Covenants for each Congregation according to the fancy and humour of the respective Teacher a mode which some of our late upstart Sects have boldly introduced without any Divine Authority or Foundation in the Word of God And as there is no mention in the Gospel of any Covenant but one of Grace so neither of any other Sign or Token thereof or any other form of entering into the said Covenant than Baptism but as Circumcision was heretofore so Baptism is now the initiating Rite But to Reply to his Instances whereby he would prove the Parallel not suitable His first Instance or Reason is because the natural Seed of Abraham without any token of a work of Grace on them ought to be circumcised but the natural Seed of Believers without some token of a work of Grace upon them ought not to be baptized For which he cites Matt. 3.6 to v. 10. That some had a sense of their Sins and were brought to a confession is plain v. 6. But what token was there of a work of Grace on them whom the Baptist calls there a Generation of Vipers And yet of them he says Matt. 3.7 v. 11. Mark 1.5 Luke 7.30 I indeed Baptize you And St. Mark says they were all baptized of him he refused none of them So that they were only the Pharisees and Lawyers that were not baptized of him who exempted themselves Or what token of a work of Grace appeared on those that were baptized of Lydia's Houshold besides what was observed on her self Act. 16.15 Domûs autem nomine ipsam intelligimus familiam imprimis vero Liberos nepotes says Marl. on the Place See Mons le Clerc's Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the Place And yet not she only was baptized but her Houshold upon her Conversion And if others of the House were thereupon baptized much rather her Infant-Children if she had any such This is certain she had a Houshold a Family and they were baptized as well as her self To alledge that some had such a work of God wrought upon their Souls before they were baptized proves nothing for so doubtless had some Jews and Abraham in particular before they were circumcised That interrogative Mat. 3.7 having there the force of a Negation implies that they had no manner of Conviction nor could any have taught them that they should merely by St. John's Baptism avoid the destruction that hung over their Heads and therefore he bids them to repent He must prove if he can that none else ought to be baptized for as yet we have only his bare Ipse dixit his own say so he may pass for a Magisterial Dictator to his own ignorant Party who can follow him with an implicit Faith but his Authority will not sway with any others of sober sense 2. He says the natural Seed of Abraham were commanded to be circumcised but the Children of Believers are no where in the word of God commanded to be baptized This is that we call a begging of the question Is not Baptism as expresly commanded now as Circumcision was then But Infant Baptism he will say is not Neither need there to be a new or distinct Command for it Because their right to be within the Church or Covenant together with their Parents is not a new Institution but as old as Adam for ought I know says Dr. Wallis * Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 14. Printed Anno 97. but the solemn Rite of admission into this Church to which the Children of Believers have a right to be admitted is a new Institution Then by Circumcision appointed to Abraham And Now by Baptism upon a new Institution appointed by Christ as the same Author expresseth it Another Reason that he gives which is the only one more that I need consider here is because there is a sore Punishment threaten'd on the Man-Child that is not circumcised †Gen. 17.14 but no Punishment threaten'd in the whole Word of God on an Infant for not being baptized Answer This Argument were it of any force doth militate against the Lord's Day succeeding the Sabbath * Exod. 31.14 which nevertheless he himself hath granted and in some measure made good Moreover the Punishment threaten'd doth not affect Infants wanting Circumcision but Persons neglecting or contemning that Ordinance The words in the Original import no more Praeputiatus Mas the uncircumcised Male so
Christ that have dedicated your selves by Covenant to his Honour and Service to break those sacred Bonds and to stand it out in your Impenitency and Rebellion against God and to live like Gentiles his professed Enemies to forsake him and his ways and to wallow in the impurities of an evil Conversation is unaccountable How dreadful will the Day be when the Lord shall come to avenge him of his Adversaries You shall not perish under such easie Circumstances of Wrath and Vengeance as do the Gentiles The Aggravation of your Sin and Judgment will be the treading under Foot the Blood of the Covenant Thus far in general But to proceed to some particulars and so to make some further improvement by way of use of what hath been delivered on this Subject Doth holy Baptism admit us to a state of such high Priviledges and Advantages as I have observed Then we may see how injurious they are who deny Baptism to Infants and so as much as lies in them keep them from Christ I mean in the visible way in which we are brought unto Christ from that Grace which is the internal mystery of this sacramental Ordinance In which respect we are said to be baptized into Christ if they have any right to the grace and spiritual Benefits which are the Mystery the Spirit and Life of this Sacrament why not to the external Symbolical signification and Seal of it Shall Men hinder them from this visible application of the Grace of Baptism If we affirm they have no right to this Grace what greater uncharitableness and presumptuous straightning the favour of God and Christ For where has he debarred and excluded them from his Covenant and Promises and cast them out of that Body whereof he is the Head and the Saviour Certain it is this was one of the great Blessings of the Covenant with Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy Children after thee Thus ran the Promises of old He sheweth mercy unto thousands of generations of them that love him and keep his commandments the seed of the righteous is blessed Children are the heritage of the Lord. They had the Seal of the Covenant Circumcision externally applying the Promises And are the favours of Christ more narrow under the Gospel who is yet the Mediator of a better Covenant Has Christ only a love for the Parents and none for the Children and yet hath told us if the root be holy so are the branches Is not Christ the Redeemer of Infants Did he purchase no Pardon no Grace or remission of Sins for them How abominably injurious would this be to Christ and the fullness of his Oblation and Merit Will Christ give them no place in his mystical Body in his Church and Kingdom And yet when he was upon Earth commanded the little Children to be brought unto him and took them into his Arms and blessed them declaring that such did belong to his Kingdom of such is the kingdom of God Mark 13.14 If the Infants of Believers under the Gospel be not capable of the Grace signed and sealed then there will follow many sad unscriptural Consequences Then they belong not to the Church and Body of Christ they are in the same Case with the Children of Infidels left without as common and unclean This Principle mingles the holy Seed with the Heathens and renders the favours of the Gospel more narrow than those of the legal Covenant and the Christian Seed in much worse Circumstances than the Jewish Yea they would not only be without the Church but without the Covenant and so without Christ or any special relation to him So far without as are the Gentiles Dogs and Strangers While they are disputed out of the Covenant all well grounded hopes of their Justification and Salvation are disputed away dying in that State 'T is vain to recur to the secret Election of God for the grounds of this Hope Faith and Hope must be grounded upon some Word of God If God have excluded them from the Covenant of Salvation how shall we conclude that they belong to the Election of God And if the Case were so well may the Parents of dying Infants mourn over them as those that have no hope All those then are rash groundless uncharitable Conclusions highly derogatory to the Love of God to the infinite riches and freeness of his Grace But on the other hand if God and Christ have not excluded them from the Grace of Baptism the Mercy and Grace which is there signified who shall forbid Water the external sealing Application If God have not denied the greater who shall deny the less if God have not excluded them from the Substance and Mystery why shall they be denied the external Rite and Symbol Either then they must be highly uncharitable in denying Infants the Grace of Baptism and so leave them in an evil Case or else be very unjust in denying them the Seal where God grants them the substance Thirdly Let this serve to humble those that walk unworthy of this Priviledge of being baptized and thereby admitted into the fellowship of Christ's Religion initiated Members of his Church Can it seem a light thing in our Eyes that when God has passed by the greatest part of the World as strangers from his Family and Kingdom and hath left them under the Kingdom of Satan and taken us no better by Nature than they are to be his peculiar ones into Covenant with himself and to train us up under such heavenly Ordinances We should notwithstanding walk as Rebels and Enemies unto him like the unbaptized World Do we know into what a Covenant he hath taken us what he hath done for and expects from us What means then our Conversation so repugnant to our Profession Is it because we renounce the Covenant as being made when we understood it not If there be any such Apostates let them take their Course serve the God they have chosen But say what iniquity what ill is there in this Covenant of your Baptism what disadvantage have you met withal Or how or where do you hope to find better things than what are here exhibited and ensured Than for instance for God to be your Father Christ your Saviour the Spirit your Comforter than to have your Sins pardoned and remitted than to be adopted justified sanctified and every way comfortably provided for here and in the end eternally saved Do the Gods you have chosen to serve provide better things than these that you renounce Christ for their sake If you say God forbid you should so do you hope to be saved by him as well as any other then tell me seriously do you expect that Christ should stand bound to perform his Part of the Covenant and you left at liberty whether you discharge your part or no That he should love you and you hate him That he should be your God and you remain the Devil's Servants That he should provide Heaven for you and you