Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

The Major is proved hence. 1. What else is there to hinder any Heathen from the like Right? 2. Because that the probable Profession of such a further consent is necessary to justify baptizing of them. 3. Because mutual consent is necessary to a mutual Covenant; and the Covenant must be mutual: no man hath right to Gods part that refuseth his own. This is all so far past question, that I pass it over the more lightly. All the doubt then is of the Minor, [Whether no man have the necessary condition of the baptismal Covenant on Gods part that is notoriously ungodly] or [Whether all such ungodly men do notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant] I speak not here of any subsequent condition which God imposeth upon the Covenanter only for the future; but only of the condition which God imposeth upon us that he may be in Covenant with us, and that it may be a bargain; and that this is a true inconsistent with notorious ungodliness, I was going about at large to prove it; But I remember that I have done it already in 26. Arguments, against Mr. Blake's, and therefore I think it better for you & me that I refer you thither, than to write them here over again, or needlessly to add any more to the same purpose: If any say that though God require as a duty such a Faith as is inconsistent with notorious ungodliness, yet not as Absolutely necessary that he may be engaged to us in Covenant, or that we may have proper right to Baptism; I answer, God hath but one Covenant ⟨p. 259⟩of Grace which Baptism sealeth; our sound believing is the condition of that one Covenant; that is, that it may be a Mutual Actual Covenant: If then there be any other Covenant having other Conditions, we must wait till both Covenant and Conditions be made known. Were it worth the while, or a thing necessary, I would stand to prove the Negative, viz. that there is no Covenant sealed by Baptism which only promiseth Baptism as the Benefit, or any other mere Externals; but that the Covenant which Baptism sealeth is only that which promiseth Remission, Salvation, and outward Mercies as appurtenances and means so far as necessary.

The Major is proved hence. 1. What else is there to hinder any Heathen from the like Right? 2. Because that the probable Profession of such a further consent is necessary to justifie baptizing of them. 3. Because mutual consent is necessary to a mutual Covenant; and the Covenant must be mutual: no man hath right to Gods part that refuseth his own. This is all so far past question, that I pass it over the more lightly. All the doubt then is of the Minor, [Whether no man have the necessary condition of the baptismal Covenant on Gods part that is notoriously ungodly] or [Whether all such ungodly men do notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant] I speak not here of any subsequent condition which God imposeth upon the Covenanter only for the future; but only of the condition which God imposeth upon us that he may be in Covenant with us, and that it may be a bargain; and that this is a true inconsistent with notorious ungodliness, I was going about at large to prove it; But I remember that I have done it already in 26. Arguments, against Mr. Blake's, and therefore I think it better for you & me that I refer you thither, than to write them here over again, or needlesly to add any more to the same purpose: If any say that though God require as a duty such a Faith as is inonsistent with notorious ungodliness, yet not as Absolutely necessary that he may be engaged to us in Covenant, or that we may have proper right to Baptism; I answer, God hath but one Covenant