A trial of the new-church way in New-England and in old ... by that…A tryall of the nevv-church vvay in New-England and in old ... by that…

2. The second thing you affirm is, that not only the covenant of grace which is common to all believers; but Church-Covenant also which is peculiar to confederates is necessary to the participation of the Seals. This sense your words must bear, or else they reach not the point in hand: but this is that which should be proved substantially, and not barely affirmed; and which (as we conceive) is contrary to the first Institution of the Sacrament, and the lawful practise of John the Baptist, our Saviour Christ, his Apostles, and all others who are recorded lawfully to administer the Seals. In Gen. 17. we find the first Institution of circumcision recorded, and that it was the seal of the Covenant to Abraham and his seed, to them that were borne in his house, or bought with his money: but we find no mention of any Church Covenant besides the covenant of promise which God made with Abraham. There is no mention of any Church-order into which Abraham's family was now gathered more then formerly. God gave circumcision to Abraham and his seed as a seal of the righteousness of faith; but that this family was first gathered into Church-order as you speak we cannot believe, because the Scripture saith it not whether Lot, Job, Melchizedek were circumcised or not, we will not dispute; but if they received not the seal, we cannot think the reason to be because they were not in Church-order as those times required, if any such thing had been required, we cannot think that either they were ignorant of it, or that they walked against their light: But according to the dispensing of those times we judge as they were visible believers, so they walked in that Church-fellowship which God prescribed; and therefore if circumcision had been the seal of such Church-Covenant as you conceive, it should have been given to them no less then to Abraham's family. But of this sufficient is said before. As for Baptism it is the seal of the whole Covenant, which the passages quoted prove it to be. Whether it be the seal of our fellowship which Christ in affliction, and the resurrection of our bodies, we leave it to your consideration: but that it should be a Seal of a Church-Covenant which is peculiar to confederates, that to us is very strange.

2. The second thing you affirme is, that not onely the covenant of grace which is common to all beleevers; but Church-Covenant also which is peculiar to confederates is necessarie to the participation of the Seales. This sense your words must beare, or else they reach not the point in hand: but this is that which should be proved substantially, and not barely affirmed; and which (as we conceive) is contrary to the first Institution of the Sacrament, and the lawfull practise of John the Baptist, our Saviour Christ, his Apostles, and all others who are recorded lawfully to administer the Seales. In