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

Argum. 4. If God have given a Covenant-Right to a notorious ungodly man to be baptized, then either to baptism only, or other blessings with it; but neither of these, Ergo, &c. The first will not be affirmed: What then be the other blessings? Either they are special and spiritual, but that's not defended; or outward and common, which is like is meant; for they call it an outward Covenant. Bu• as God hath given outward things but conditionally to Believers; so there is no such Covenant of outward mercies alone that can be showed in the word which is now in force to us.

Argum. 4. If God have given a Covenant-Right to a notorious ungodly man to be baptized, then either to baptism only, or other blessings with it; but neither of these, Ergo, &c. The first will not be affirmed: What then be the other blessings? Either they are special and spiritual, but that's not defended; or outward and common, which is like is meant; for they call it an outward Covenant. Bu• as God hath given outward things but conditionally to Believers; so there is no such Covenant of outward mercies alone that can be shewed in the word which is now in force to us.

Arg. 5. According to the definition of most of our Divines, the outward washing alone without inward Grace, is not Baptism: Therefore if God give them right to the washing without the Grace, he gives them not right to Baptism: but this is but ad hominem.

I do but superficially touch these things. 1. Because (as I said) the Arguments to Mr. Blake are full. 2. Because I am informed that all this is granted with those Divines with whom I have debated this point, and that they confess that none but sound Believers have engaged God in actual Covenant to them, but only in the common conditional Covenant, and consequently it is not by Covenant grant that the notoriously ungodly have